What can one do to work on ones own, and start from wherever you're at, and reach up to GM level, or atleast, great master level?
The way I see it, either you have it or you don't, and even if you do, you need to play chess te whole time with other humans, and read books and be very proud and macho etc.
And if you DON"T "have it", then you will not be able to understand what is written in any book, BECAUSE, there is nothing graded.
So maybe even if you don't have it, you in fact CAN have it, if only you are very interested in aquiring it, and if there were the facilities, and quality, stress-free time to devote to it.
I believe, that with learning the violin, there IS a way. Just learn at home all of Kreutzer. Why?! even all of Paganini's caprices! this is extremely hard work, and would seem impossible and laughable. But once you know how to play basic notes onthe violin, you can learn a bit more every day, and in the end youe technique (in violin) will get a little better every month or so. But with chess, this might never happen. Unless there is a system by whih you can learn yourself and improve youre brain. OR you've GOT IT anyway, and all you need to do is to read books and apply them and you've got a chess club too, and the time and freedom in life to devote to it.
I'm not talking about how to get to expert level, but how to get to atleast master level.
Still looking for a graded/gradable chess course/system
Moderator: Ras
-
- Posts: 8514
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:25 am
- Location: Jerusalem Israel
Re: Still looking for a graded/gradable chess course/system
I use Personal Chess Trainer 2007 and Chess Mentor software for chess training. Not sure if you could get to Master level purely from using these but it certainly sharpens your intuition and tactical ideas.
Even moderate daily training with these should improve your game within a few months I think. For me personally it took me from patzer to giving my computers around the 2000 elo mark a beating. This was doing maybe an hour a day average. If you were to train for longer you might have better results?! Of course if you're already over 2000elo then your result might be very different.
One thing I have noticed is that being 35years old, if I don't keep the training up then the pattern recognition starts to fade relatively quickly so I'm sure that youth plays a very large part in climbing the scale initially.
Short of that I think the only other option is to pay for private chess coaching?
Even moderate daily training with these should improve your game within a few months I think. For me personally it took me from patzer to giving my computers around the 2000 elo mark a beating. This was doing maybe an hour a day average. If you were to train for longer you might have better results?! Of course if you're already over 2000elo then your result might be very different.
One thing I have noticed is that being 35years old, if I don't keep the training up then the pattern recognition starts to fade relatively quickly so I'm sure that youth plays a very large part in climbing the scale initially.
Short of that I think the only other option is to pay for private chess coaching?
-
- Posts: 8514
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:25 am
- Location: Jerusalem Israel
Re: Still looking for a graded/gradable chess course/system
Thanks! Paul. Keep it coming....anyonew ho feels they had any great successes from home study of any kind.
Actually, I seem to remember that when I used to try to study from books (before computers were so widespread), I was trying to studi some books, which I didn't think were very clearly written, but even still, a few things from Kotov did actually make a difference. I was starting to recognize combinations much better, just by following a few rules and thinking proceedures.
Many combination Patterns, I was already quite familiar with, before then. But this helped me know what to work at before making my move. I have since lost that, probably due to lack of practice. And, just to make moves, relying on past success, doesn't work automatically.
Still, I'd like that again, but a bit better, and, also, some accurate grading software as to where you are holding, according to performances in games against computr, or games played with a computer "watching".
I personally would even say, that it should even give three or so different estimations of your play, one if you claim you were inattentive, one for medium attention and one for highest attention.
On reflection, I'd say that only the full attention play, is a worthy indication of your level, but if you have a few alternative estimations, you can choose whichever you want.
e.g.
In this game, your average elo level was
If fully attentive =2000elo approx.
If not fully attentive=2,300 approx.
If very unattentive =2,700 approx.
But that is also complicated. Actually, you might get in the attentive range only about 1,400 elo approx when you are in fact clkose to being a 2,000 player, simply because you thew away a piece before taking back the move.
But there should be very wise software, and also in increments of about 50 elo per level, in which your results should actually confirm the 50 elo difference, if you played a match with every level.
How about even using electrodes with neuro feedback devices to estimate attention levels! Oe perhaps that's going too far.
The main thing is, accurate increments between level and level. This is quite hard to find. The actual style of play on the lower levels should even be less complicated chess, also.
Actually, I seem to remember that when I used to try to study from books (before computers were so widespread), I was trying to studi some books, which I didn't think were very clearly written, but even still, a few things from Kotov did actually make a difference. I was starting to recognize combinations much better, just by following a few rules and thinking proceedures.
Many combination Patterns, I was already quite familiar with, before then. But this helped me know what to work at before making my move. I have since lost that, probably due to lack of practice. And, just to make moves, relying on past success, doesn't work automatically.
Still, I'd like that again, but a bit better, and, also, some accurate grading software as to where you are holding, according to performances in games against computr, or games played with a computer "watching".
I personally would even say, that it should even give three or so different estimations of your play, one if you claim you were inattentive, one for medium attention and one for highest attention.
On reflection, I'd say that only the full attention play, is a worthy indication of your level, but if you have a few alternative estimations, you can choose whichever you want.
e.g.
In this game, your average elo level was
If fully attentive =2000elo approx.
If not fully attentive=2,300 approx.
If very unattentive =2,700 approx.
But that is also complicated. Actually, you might get in the attentive range only about 1,400 elo approx when you are in fact clkose to being a 2,000 player, simply because you thew away a piece before taking back the move.
But there should be very wise software, and also in increments of about 50 elo per level, in which your results should actually confirm the 50 elo difference, if you played a match with every level.
How about even using electrodes with neuro feedback devices to estimate attention levels! Oe perhaps that's going too far.
The main thing is, accurate increments between level and level. This is quite hard to find. The actual style of play on the lower levels should even be less complicated chess, also.
-
- Posts: 8514
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:25 am
- Location: Jerusalem Israel
Re: Still looking for a graded/gradable chess course/system
And.......mistake should be less strictly judged if they were too tricky for humans to spot, at certain levels. Yes, THIS would be the catch for a good program at this kind of job.