Sir,
I am quite familiar with 'secret soviet training methods.'
In fact, I could tell you all about them but then I would have to kill you!
That is, assuming, you are not already dead. You are certainly on Comrade
Andropov's list by now. That is assuming, Comrade Andropov is not already
dead.
best regards-- you know who we are!
"Ivan" wrote in message
m...
I went to a scholastic tournament last weekend and noticed a man
passing out flyers for chess lessons. I took a flyer and saw that he
was advertising chess lessons and that he was knowledgable with the
secret Soviet Training methods and uses them with his teaching.
After reading this statement, I feel really sorry for all the parents
and kids that believed it because I don't think that such an idea
exists. In my opinion, these Soviet chess players were talented to
begin with and they just used hardwork to get to where they are today.

Jerzy wrote:
"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message
...

Think like a GM ( Alexander Kotov)
School of Chess Excellence 1,2,3 (Mark Dvoretsky)

You're replying to my post?!


Apparently yes ))

Someone teaching me about Soviet chess and giving general book
examples...


Ehehehhe )) BTW have you read them ?

Kotov - yes, briefly.
Dvoretsky - no. I am not sure when it was printed first in Russia.
I still think that classical game collections are the best things
to learn from.

There are however many examples that your thesis doesn`t work.
Many outstanding players wouldn`t have been playing already if they had
abandoned chess at the early age ))

I wonder if there was any great player who was stalled at Class C
level for 3-4 years between ages 7 to 12... I don't know any.


Let`s explain some definitions. Who do you call 'Class C level' players ?

III category. 1800 ELO. As far as you can reach without talent, by
enthusiasm only.

Regards,
Jerzy



--
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email: http://www.nasa.proj.ac.il
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)64-669-189 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
-- Jean-Paul Kauffmann

"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message
...

Kotov - yes, briefly.
Dvoretsky - no. I am not sure when it was printed first in Russia.
I still think that classical game collections are the best things
to learn from.

Sure, the collections of the games of GMs printed in ex-USSR are superb.
But Dvoretsky gives an insight how professional training looked like in
USSR.
So the reply although funny was not completely nonsensical


Let`s explain some definitions. Who do you call 'Class C level' players
?

III category. 1800 ELO. As far as you can reach without talent, by
enthusiasm only.

Man, it`s a high rating anyway for such a kid taking it statistically !

Well, if we talk about chess prodigies like Capablanka or Reshevsky, they
played on a master level already being well under 12.
But on the other side are the players who started playing chess relatively
late in their lives and against the will of their families or their coaches
and became professional chess players.
For sure Rubinstein belonged to the category. He started playing chess only
when he was 16 but became one of the greatest chessplayers of all times.
Of course today we see other tendency : kids are trained heavily from the
early age and if they happen to be chess prodigies like young Kramnik or
Karyakin it`s no problem. They developped their chess skills naturally.

But in this way we may lose many new RubinSteins who start to play seriously
when they grow up a little

Regards,
Jerzy

Jerzy wrote:

Well, if we talk about chess prodigies like Capablanka or Reshevsky, they
played on a master level already being well under 12.
But on the other side are the players who started playing chess relatively
late in their lives and against the will of their families or their coaches
and became professional chess players.
For sure Rubinstein belonged to the category. He started playing chess only
when he was 16 but became one of the greatest chessplayers of all times.
Of course today we see other tendency : kids are trained heavily from the
early age and if they happen to be chess prodigies like young Kramnik or
Karyakin it`s no problem. They developped their chess skills naturally.

But in this way we may lose many new RubinSteins who start to play seriously
when they grow up a little

You miss the point.

Rubinstein started playing at age 16, (Tchigorin even later), but they
progressed rapidly, and weren't nonprogressing patzers in between ages
16-23. I am talking about kids whose parents bring them at age 6-7-8 to
chess club and which fail to show any significant progress until age
10-12, but still float in 1600-1800 area.

Regards,
Jerzy



--
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email: http://www.nasa.proj.ac.il
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)64-669-189 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
-- Jean-Paul Kauffmann

"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message
...

You miss the point.

Rubinstein started playing at age 16, (Tchigorin even later), but they
progressed rapidly, and weren't nonprogressing patzers in between ages
16-23. I am talking about kids whose parents bring them at age 6-7-8 to
chess club and which fail to show any significant progress until age
10-12, but still float in 1600-1800 area.


No, you miss some points.

If they had gone to the club their initial at the age let`s say 7 their
ratings were 1000 ELO. So what no significant progress are you talking about
? They are 1600-1800 ELO at the age age10-12 so the progress is more than
visible.

If you claim that the chess education should be reduced only to emerging
chess prodigies I am of a different opinion.
Give children a chance to grow up and decide what they want to learn more
seriously. Like in other sciences or sports.
Of course there is now quite the opposite trend : all trainers are searching
for new Bobby Fischers. Not to mention parents of the little wonders ))
I meet such parents all around ))

Regards,
Jerzy

Jerzy wrote:
"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message
...

You miss the point.

Rubinstein started playing at age 16, (Tchigorin even later), but they
progressed rapidly, and weren't nonprogressing patzers in between ages
16-23. I am talking about kids whose parents bring them at age 6-7-8 to
chess club and which fail to show any significant progress until age
10-12, but still float in 1600-1800 area.


No, you miss some points.

If they had gone to the club their initial at the age let`s say 7 their
ratings were 1000 ELO. So what no significant progress are you talking about
? They are 1600-1800 ELO at the age age10-12 so the progress is more than
visible.

IMHO, a progress from 1000 to 1500 is a matter of a year, otherwise
it's a waste of money (although a pleasant hobby).
I was not a brilliancy and was a lazy one, but I learned chess at age 5,
at age 7 I was Class D, 8 - C, 9 - B, 11 - A and at age of 13 I
abandoned serious study because I was unable to cope psychologically
with serious chess and also became more fascinated with sciences.
Tchigorin, starting at 18, was a top-level Russian player at 24.

If you claim that the chess education should be reduced only to emerging
chess prodigies I am of a different opinion.
Give children a chance to grow up and decide what they want to learn more
seriously. Like in other sciences or sports.
Of course there is now quite the opposite trend : all trainers are searching
for new Bobby Fischers. Not to mention parents of the little wonders ))
I meet such parents all around ))

I mean, in Soviet chess school trainers did push out all non-prodigies,
and they could do it, because nobody paid them money and obliged thus
them to waste their time.

In that way they were able to dedicate all their time to high-potential
students and bring them to where they have been since 1948.

Regards,
Jerzy



--
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email: http://www.nasa.proj.ac.il
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)64-669-189 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
-- Jean-Paul Kauffmann

Jerzy wrote:
"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message
...

IMHO, a progress from 1000 to 1500 is a matter of a year, otherwise
it's a waste of money (although a pleasant hobby).

Hmmm, first you wrote 1800 then 1600 and now 1500 )
Never mind however.

1500 in a year and then at least 100 points a year

I was not a brilliancy and was a lazy one, but I learned chess at age 5,
at age 7 I was Class D, 8 - C, 9 - B, 11 - A and at age of 13 I
abandoned serious study because I was unable to cope psychologically
with serious chess and also became more fascinated with sciences.
Tchigorin, starting at 18, was a top-level Russian player at 24.

So you chose the right path
But you are probably not quite sure whether you could make a rapid progress
in chess several years later ?

When I quit serious chess I was a Class A with 1 Candidate norm - which
is circa 2075-2125. So I already was beyond the "hopeless" level of
stuck at 1800.

I began playing steadily again after graduation and military service -
at age of 25. But the base was there, moreover, the reason I got blocked
at 13 was not the one I am talking about in the thread. So I am slowly
advancing towards Master, and have some 90 points to go. Maybe I can
make an IM norm one day. But I never got stuck in 1600-1800 for several
years in the first place.

Regards,
Jerzy



--
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email: http://www.nasa.proj.ac.il
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)64-669-189 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
-- Jean-Paul Kauffmann

"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message
...


1500 in a year and then at least 100 points a year

OK I think it`s a reasonable system to fish out chess prodigies ))
But I don`t think that it is the only way to become chess GrandMaster.


;-)


So you chose the right path
But you are probably not quite sure whether you could make a rapid
progress
in chess several years later ?

When I quit serious chess I was a Class A with 1 Candidate norm - which
is circa 2075-2125. So I already was beyond the "hopeless" level of
stuck at 1800.

I began playing steadily again after graduation and military service -
at age of 25. But the base was there, moreover, the reason I got blocked
at 13 was not the one I am talking about in the thread. So I am slowly
advancing towards Master, and have some 90 points to go. Maybe I can
make an IM norm one day. But I never got stuck in 1600-1800 for several
years in the first place.

IM ! That`s an ambitious plan but in your case quite realistic.
I wish you good luck in your quest ! ))

Regards,
Jerzy

"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message
...
Jerzy wrote:
"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message
...

IMHO, a progress from 1000 to 1500 is a matter of a year, otherwise
it's a waste of money (although a pleasant hobby).

Hmmm, first you wrote 1800 then 1600 and now 1500 )
Never mind however.

1500 in a year and then at least 100 points a year

I disagree with this At least from the perspective that there are
undoubtedly exceptions:

one player from my country (don't think i'll say who ) is a very strong IM
nowadays. He told me that he got stuck in the 1700s for 2 or 3 years. I
first met him 1 year after that when he had jumped to 2020 and he just
continued to improve rapidly from there. (These are scottish ratings, not
US, general consesus seems to be add about 100pts to get US). I think
players are different: some improve constantly, some plateau then make big
jumps and those who plateau do so at different levels. Its very difficult to
make generalisations simply because even talented players seem to follow
different patterns in this respect. So although most very strong players
improve rapidly at first, its not always the case.

To qualify what i've said though, if a player is 1500 and works hard on his
game and a year later is still 15**, then its difficult to give them much
chance of becoming a 2400. So I'm not dismissing your comments, just
pointing out that such generalisations tend to have a fair number of
exceptions,
cheers
iain