A study plan:

Oh, the eternal question,..."What aspects of the game should I study that will
be the most effective use of my time?" I know, it's different for everyone, and
'experts' always caveat their response to this question similarly. However,
I've been playing for about 4-years, on-and-off, and would like to really build
upon the loose-amalgam of knowledge I already possess. I'm formulating a
'plan-of-attack' on what I should be working on, and just want to bounce it off
of you folks to see if it sounds logical. I'm a pretty avid chess-fan and
frequent the many sites, and bulletin-boards on the net in coming up with this
study plan. In any case, look it over and let me know what you think :

First a little about myself (this always seems to be the first question
everyone has). I am probably around a 1600 rating i.e., I don't know much of
anything well, but know enough to be dangerous - to both myself and my opponent
. I have a buddy, who's a confirmed 1800-ish player that I'll beat
one-out-of-four times we play. The games are 30-minutes, give or take
(sometimes the clock is thrown to the side if it's an especially interesting
position and we're reaching the time control).

I've probably spent FAR too much time on opening study, like most of the
players at my level, and am now more than aware of the fact that opening theory
is only relevant if the player has the ability to consistently generate wins
from a += evaluations - not me . However, the opening is important, and I
will continue to 'keep-up' on what's happening in my lines, but I've tossed the
opening-tomes into the corner for now as I'm pretty aware of the general aims
of all the openings I play, and the counter-play my opponent will most likely
aim toward. If you're interested, this is a breakdown of what I play:

WHITE:

1.e4
vs. 1...e5: Scotch and Exchange Ruy Lopez,...sometimes I'll jump into the deep
end with the mainlines. Otherwise, mainlines of the Petrov and Alhekine as
well.
vs. 1...e6: Tarrasch for the most part,...Winawer when I'm feeling cocky :
vs. 1...c5: Mostly mainline Sicilians, all variations tend toward an English
Attack pawn-structure - pawn to f3, and g4/h4, castle queenside, etc. -
lots-o-fun!
vs. 1...c6: Panov/Botvinnik for the most part,...I'll also play through some
of the mainlines (actually started my play with this opening vs. 1.e4)
vs. 1...d6/g6: always tend to 'wing-it' with these and either transpose or
reach a pretty playable middlegame on common-sense moves.

BLACK:

Vs. 1.e4 - I go for the French most often. If confronted with 3.Nc3,...I'll go
3...Bb4 (Winawer),...otherwise, mostly mainline stuff in the Advance, Tarrasch,
Exchange, etc.

Vs. 1.d4 - I'll try aiming towards the Benko, or play mainlines in the 'other'
d4 openings (Tromp).

Vs. 1.c4 - usually I try to transpose into 'typical' 1.d4-structures, but I've
pretty much neglected the English as a whole - I've never really faced it all
that often and the games I've played always entered a pretty even middlegame.
More than likely, my opponents weren't entirely versed on its nuances either :.

In any case, here's my general plan, let me know what you think:

Study-Time Breakdown:

50% - Tactics, Tactics, Tactics!...just got Chess-ART and have been plowing
through the problems (CT-ART rating's at +1900 in two weeks :...I know,...the
'ratings' are a little gimmicky, but it's kinda fun).

20% - Endgame...got a hold Dvoretsky's 'Endgame Manual' and have yet to really
crack it open,...After browsing through it briefly, I'm convinced I might have
suited-up for the Varsity squad, when I should be down with the Freshmen. Any
suggestions here would be most appreciated.

20% - Middlegame...This category is a little nebulous, but my idea is to study
well-annotated Master games in just the openings I play. This will take a
little digging, but I should be able to come up with some good ones. Also, I
know they make 'books' of well-annotated games, but I have yet to see any CD's
that really really tackle 'instructive' annotated games (loads-o-text),...I'd
be up for buying a CD with 100+ 'instructively' annotated games that show
examples of typical motifs i.e. handling various pawn-structures, typical
sacrifices, utilizing the initiative,.etc. Anyone know if these exist? And if
they do, are they well-regarded? I don't want a lot of endless variations with
stilted English translations.

Another Idea was to take the raw game-scores of annotated games,...annotate
them myself,...and then compare them with the Master's annotations (can I say
annotate one more time?). Might be a little time-consuming, but I'll give it a
try and see.

10% - Playing (long games),...nothing less than 60-minutes per side. Reviewing
each of my games after each one, and annotating them 'solo' and later with some
'silicon' and comparing the two...

Well, what do you think? Am I missing anything? Any suggestions would be
appreciated. Thanks!

ryan

Rrb828 wrote:
I'd be up for buying a CD with 100+ 'instructively' annotated games that
show examples of typical motifs i.e. handling various pawn-structures,
typical sacrifices, utilizing the initiative,.etc. Anyone know if these
exist? And if they do, are they well-regarded? I don't want a lot of
endless variations with stilted English translations.

Not a CD but Kotov and Keres, _The Art of the Middle Game_ covers typical
sacrifices against the king and how to handle various pawn structures;
also, how to defend difficult positions and how to analyse. The chapters
on attacking the king and pawn structures, both by Kotov, aren't very
heavy on variations; the other two, by Keres, are heavier going. It's
translated into English by Harry Golombek so no worries about stiltedness.
Dover reprint, descriptive notation (but don't let that put you off),
available for next to nothing from Amazon and, no doubt, every other
online bookseller.


and then compare them with the Master's annotations (can I say annotate
one more time?).

Unfortunately, `annotation' has too many syllables to fit into the Monty
Python Vikings' `Spam' song.


Dave.

o/~ Notes, notes, notes, notes! Notes, notes, notes, notes! Lovely
notes! Wonderful notes! o/~


--
David Richerby Cyber-Clock (TM): it's like a clock
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that exists only in your computer!

(Rrb828) wrote in message ...
A study plan:

(snip)

. I have a buddy, who's a confirmed 1800-ish player that I'll beat
one-out-of-four times we play. The games are 30-minutes, give or take
(sometimes the clock is thrown to the side if it's an especially interesting
position and we're reaching the time control).

Why do you lose against him ?
- lose foot in the opening
- outplayed tactically
- lost in planning the middlegame
- lost in endgames
- bad defensive play
- bad time management
- "he is just the stronger player"

I think that would be interesting for you to analyse this, as this guy
is at the next step on the rating ladder - which weakness in your play
do you need to correct in order to play with him on equal terms. I
would start my work here.

(snip)
(about your repertoire)

Your repertoire looks consistent, with a bend towards active play.

In any case, here's my general plan, let me know what you think:

Study-Time Breakdown:

50% - Tactics, Tactics, Tactics!...just got Chess-ART and have been plowing
through the problems (CT-ART rating's at +1900 in two weeks :...I know,...the
'ratings' are a little gimmicky, but it's kinda fun).

20% - Endgame...got a hold Dvoretsky's 'Endgame Manual' and have yet to really
crack it open,...After browsing through it briefly, I'm convinced I might have
suited-up for the Varsity squad, when I should be down with the Freshmen. Any
suggestions here would be most appreciated.

20% - Middlegame...This category is a little nebulous, but my idea is to study
well-annotated Master games in just the openings I play. This will take a
little digging, but I should be able to come up with some good ones. Also, I
know they make 'books' of well-annotated games, but I have yet to see any CD's
that really really tackle 'instructive' annotated games (loads-o-text),...I'd
be up for buying a CD with 100+ 'instructively' annotated games that show
examples of typical motifs i.e. handling various pawn-structures, typical
sacrifices, utilizing the initiative,.etc. Anyone know if these exist? And if
they do, are they well-regarded? I don't want a lot of endless variations with
stilted English translations.

Another Idea was to take the raw game-scores of annotated games,...annotate
them myself,...and then compare them with the Master's annotations (can I say
annotate one more time?). Might be a little time-consuming, but I'll give it a
try and see.

10% - Playing (long games),...nothing less than 60-minutes per side. Reviewing
each of my games after each one, and annotating them 'solo' and later with some
'silicon' and comparing the two...

Well, what do you think? Am I missing anything? Any suggestions would be
appreciated. Thanks!

ryan

I would adjust the numbers, as playing and analysis is probably more
important than merely studying chess (I have a friend who has studied
a lot of chess ; he is now a very good chess scholar, but doesn't play
OTB any longer, as he has lost his abilities as a chess player). So my
suggestion would be :

50% (at least) - play and analyze your games
20% - tactics
20% - endgames
10% - other stuff

Assuming you've 10 hrs a week to devote to chess, that would be :

- 5 hrs. to play a long game or two quick games and look at them
(that's not a lot of time, is it ?)
- about 20mins of tactics every day (which is far enough, if it's a
regular training)
- about 20mins of endgame training every day (looking at some basic
endgame and understanding it)
- 1hr a week going quickly through some annotated games to get feel,
ideas and pleasure

That's already a good chess schedule ! Hope I could do that myself ;-)

Cheers,

In article ,
Rrb828 wrote:
A study plan:

Your plan looks really good. You have grasped the essentials--tactics
are very important, studying complete games and endgames is important,
openings much less important. A few comments:

. I have a buddy, who's a confirmed 1800-ish player that I'll beat
one-out-of-four times we play.

That pretty much is in line with your self-assessment as a 1600
player. I just wanted to mention that because players who don't play
tournaments are often wildly off-base about their strength.

I've probably spent FAR too much time on opening study, like most of the
players at my level

This is an important realization. Sticking with the openings you
already play is a good idea. I'd suggest that the only time you look
at the books is when you're analysing your own games.

I think your repertoire is perfectly OK. I especially like that
you're not afraid of open Sicilians--it's an important structure to
know how to play, and the sooner you start, the better. I wish I had
realized that when I was a 1600.

I also like that you seem to realize that your opponents at your level
aren't going to know reams of theory either.

In any case, here's my general plan, let me know what you think:

One thing you should keep in mind is that a study plan you enjoy and
that keeps you motivated to study more is always better than a
theoretically better plan that you dont like doing. _All_ of your
suggested areas of study will help you, so don't worry if you notice
that you're neglecting the endgames in favor of studying master games,
or studying your own games more than the master games, or whatever.
The only thing that it's important to study even if it bores you is
tactics.

Study-Time Breakdown:

50% - Tactics, Tactics, Tactics!

Yup.

...just got Chess-ART and have been plowing
through the problems (CT-ART rating's at +1900 in two weeks :...I know,...the
'ratings' are a little gimmicky, but it's kinda fun).

As I said, fun is important!

20% - Endgame...got a hold Dvoretsky's 'Endgame Manual' and have yet to really
crack it open,...After browsing through it briefly, I'm convinced I might have
suited-up for the Varsity squad, when I should be down with the Freshmen. Any
suggestions here would be most appreciated.

Yeah. That's a great book; I'm working through it right now. But,
I'm 2150 FIDE and I'm finding it pretty heavy going.

You might want to start with Alburt's book on the endings (I think
it's called _Just The Facts_), or the Silman book titled something
like _Essential Endgames, Move by Move_, or Averbakh's _Chess Endings:
Essential Knowledge_. Pick one of those and work through that; you
can come back to the Dvoretsky in a year or two.

20% - Middlegame...This category is a little nebulous, but my idea is to study
well-annotated Master games in just the openings I play.

Excellent idea! That's a good way to learn the typical middlegames
arising from your openings. Can't help you about CD sources--I prefer
books, since I spend so much time on computers as it is.

Another Idea was to take the raw game-scores of annotated games,...annotate
them myself,...and then compare them with the Master's annotations (can I say
annotate one more time?). Might be a little time-consuming, but I'll give it a
try and see.

That should work. A similar method is to work through the annotated game,
trying to guess your side's moves and to comparing your ideas to the
annotations.

10% - Playing (long games),...nothing less than 60-minutes per side. Reviewing
each of my games after each one, and annotating them 'solo' and later with some
'silicon' and comparing the two...

Studying your own games is a must. Someone suggested that your amount
of play is too low, and it probably is. I'd suggest considering your
playing time separate from your study, and aim at splitting your study
time 40-50% tactics, 15-20% each on endings, master games, and
analysing your own games. Don't get too hung up on the exact amounts,
but do try to keep tactics the largest single part or your study time.

The proper balance for study versus play is something you'll figure
out by experience. Play enough that you enjoy it, and not so much
that you get a big backlog of games you haven't analysed yet. I spend
more time on average analysing each of my games than I do playing; at
your level you should probably spend less time analysing your games
than playing them.

Above all, enjoy your study and your play! Hope this helps.

-ed g.

Studying your own games is a must. Someone suggested that your amount
of play is too low, and it probably is. I'd suggest considering your
playing time separate from your study, and aim at splitting your study
time 40-50% tactics, 15-20% each on endings, master games, and
analysing your own games. Don't get too hung up on the exact amounts,
but do try to keep tactics the largest single part or your study time.

The proper balance for study versus play is something you'll figure
out by experience. Play enough that you enjoy it, and not so much
that you get a big backlog of games you haven't analysed yet. I spend
more time on average analysing each of my games than I do playing; at
your level you should probably spend less time analysing your games
than playing them.

Above all, enjoy your study and your play! Hope this helps.

-ed g.







That does,...thanks for the insight. As to your recommendations for Endgame
books, thanks as well. I just saw a copy of "Just The Facts" by Alburt in the
bookstore the other day and I might stop by there tomorrow and pick it up - I
figure a former U.S. Champion and world-class GM probably has something worth
saying when it comes to Endgames

Also, you're spot-on in describing the key factor in motivating my study-plan:
to have fun! "If it ain't fun doin', it ain't worth doin'." Like a lot of
'extracurricular activities' in life (fitness training, sports, etc.) you have
to be aware of not only your physical/material limitations (time, money,
stamina), but also your mental/spiritual limitations (interest, enjoyment). Too
often, and I've done it myself many times, we create and strive for the 'ideal'
scenario/regimin for 'bettering' ourselves, and when we don't meet those
self-imposed expectations we feel that we've failed, regardless of the
impracticality of those expectations i.e. commiting to weight-training every
day for 2-hours when we have a 50+ hour/week job and a family,...ain't gonna
happen,...

My only 'goal' in this is to have fun,...and kick the living $# /+ out of my
1800-level friend regularly

Thanks again for your viewpoint.

Ryan

I have a suggestion/question. I have recently adopted a study method
that seems to be working pretty well for me. Basically what I do is:
1) Pick an opening variation, where I want to learn more about the
'typical' position types that result.
2) Go to an online database site (I choose chessgames.com, but I'm
sure there are others).
3) Find the appropriate starting position, and query for all games
that match.
4) Quickly go over the games (say, 5 minutes per game), looking at as
many games as possible until I'm bored or my girlfriend calls or I
decide that a beer sounds good.
5) As I go over the games, I try to pick out key move sequences, or
squares that certain pieces tend to go to, or little rules I can make
such as "When white moves the Knight here, black always replies
with...", etc. Generally I just try to get the feel for the position,
in a way that I think I can apply without memorizing exact move
sequences (although if you go over enough games, you start remembering
exact move sequences regardless).
6) I go onto ICC and hope someone plays the line against me (but
sometimes this doesn't come up until the next day, etc). My results
from this have generally seemed good: When I play the position, I feel
like I'm getting "the big picture" much more than I was, say when I
was looking in opening manuals exclusively. (It seems like a good mix
of opening & middlegame exposure).

My rating is 1855. Has anyone else used this type of approach, and how
did it work out?

Thanks.