Hey guys,

So I'm a teacher and I really like finding "new" ways for my students to learn French. In that spirit I devised ( haven't heard of it before at least ) a chess training regiment for myself and anyone foolish enough to try it.

After reading for a while I came to this:

Stuff you need to improve:

-tactics: ct-art and all are fine and dandy but when you know there is a tactic it's just too easy ( good for calculation and drilling though ) pattern recognition is fine too but better in context of an opening, a typical pawn structure ect...

-Play through master games and solitaire chess : it's fun and all but when playing solitaire chess you play against a master opposition ( might not be a problem ) quite far from my usual games.

-play chess slowly ( thinking chess ) : the name of the game, blitz is probably ok too but doesn't rock my boat ATM.

-strategy : not for my level (around 1200) but why not.

-opening theory : many people say "useless before 1800" or whatever I like to play sharp mainlines because people are just scared of them and play some inferior crap instead ( thanks Dire ).

OK that's about it. Now how to get most of those at the same time while having fun?

here's my poopoo:

On my computer screen a chessmaster 11, a rybka 3 and some porn (optional ) next to me a board.

I'll play against chessmaster personalities or weaker engines or innocent internet victims ( it's for science guys! and email chess only for soon to be obvious reasons)

When the bad guy (not me ) makes a move I pause the game, look at the board very hard and try to find the best move calculate variation and all not a half lazy look.

Then the bad guy move is showed to rybka whose plays his cold silicon day to day GM level. If it's the right one cool otherwise I check my move with rybka to see why it was not chosen.

then input rybka's move (or my move if it's a strong alternative ) in the first software and so on.

I can choose to practice any opening against any kind of opposition and get instant feedback. It's pretty neat. Playing weaker engines and people allows me to find some tactics and to be shown the others, same for endgames with the "set up a position" stuff.

One cool thing is that sometimes rybka goes for some crazy complex sacrifices or obscure plays and it's great to try to find the idea behind those.

Besides that I like to play won position by myself either from a rybka assisted game or a master game position. And full slow games alone obv.

If i'm not mistaken:
-tactics : check
-master games : sort of check
-slow games : check
-strategy : I like to spot dark/like square control pawn structure and stuff, maybe rybka does not have any strategy but quasi perfect tactical play lead to strategical play ( maybe?)
-opening : my openings have improved tenfold it's ridiculous especially since i can control the computer to try an unfamiliar variation if I feel like it.

Problems: well would be not playing enough humans but my unassisted slow games are always vs humans ( 3-4 a week i know it's not a ton ).

Feedback greatly appreciated, it seems to work for me ATM but maybe it's just normal natural progression and my method will handicap me later on?

Cheers

I'm not sure playing the engines is your best idea. Even the weaker ones just don't play like low rated players.

Regardless doing tactics/analysis/studying I'd think you're going to improve. So whatever keeps you interested/focused.

Suggesting porn for a chess training regimen ain't kosher imo.

I ain't jew IMHO and it's only lesbian porn anyway.

Let me make sure I understand the process before I give you any feedback.

1. You start a game vs a human or a chessmaster personality
2. Opponent makes a move
3. You figure out what move you want to play then put that into rybka
4. Rybka tells you the "right" move and you then play your move or (more likely) Rybka's move vs your opponent
5. Repeat 2-4 until game is over

Does this look right? If so, this is a really, really terrible idea The only good thing about your plan is that you're still playing unassisted slow games vs humans a few times a week. Sorry. I do appreciate the outside the box approach, I just think it misses the mark. Here is why:

1. You will NEVER learn to evaluate a position for yourself.

This is unbelievably critical to progressing as a chess player. I would never intentionally handicap myself or my students by avoiding this skill. I've played correspondence chess before, which is basically what you're describing. You learn to rely on the silicone monster to tell you what the evaluation is. I played cc for a few months as an OTB expert and when I got to play seriously OTB again I was paralyzed with self-doubt. That was after years of learning how to evaluate positions. I can't imagine how much worse it will be for a person new to the game.

2. You simply have to learn tactics which includes finding them and trusting your calculation.

Your objection to tactics problems being too easy when you know there is a tactic there is very common and still wrong. You simply have to drill those patterns into your head while at the same time playing tons of games on your own in order to translate that burgeoning tactical ability into OTB play. Oh, and this "pattern recognition is fine too but better in context of an opening, a typical pawn structure ect" is .. not correct. Overall pawn structure doesn't mean **** for beginning tactical study. That's because the basic ideas that you're trying to really learn involve very few pieces and pawns. Certain openings do have specific "tricks" or "traps" but these are nothing more than the basic tactical devices that happen to show up because of certain first moves. A solid tactical basis will let you play most openings at a reasonable level.

3. You're trying to learn to think like a computer

Your goal should be to find a way to think accurately for yourself. Trying to mimic Rybka isn't going to help this. Come up with your own ideas and plans. It doesn't matter what rybka says is the "correct" move. Learn the basics well and you'll develop your own style and the ability to plan.

4. You'll NEVER play bad positions

Face it, you'll never learn the mental toughness that you acquire after dropping a pawn (or piece!) in the opening but playing on as well as you possibly can. You like to play completely winning positions? Surprise! Everyone does. You'll never learn those defensive resources that are so important in real chess. You'll never fall for those silly tactical traps or mistakes and really learn from the experience. Those losses and hard fought draws or occasional wins are invaluable for developing a number of skills and you're intentionally denying yourself that.

I'd recommend playing as much as possible and learning to value your losses. Use CT-ART or a good tactics book. Learn a few basic endgames and the general opening ideas. You read this advice so often because it works.

Thanks for the reply:

I got the same kind of feedback on another forum ( not as well detailed and explained thanks again ).

I think there is two things that people don't get, because of my unclear explanation in the OP.

- First it's training, it's not the majority of my games, it's mainly for tactical ideas, calculation, openings and such. I play unassisted as much as I can.

-Second thing is I do not play rybka's moves that often. What I mean by that is that I select my moves two ways:

- First thing: Is my alternate move a mistake or just something maybe not as "good" but that I can understand? If it's the second category i'll always play my move. I lose quite often even with rybka's assistance, must be telling something ahah.

-Second thing: I always try to find a plan that I like, outposting a knight, launching a kingside attack and so on... If executing that plan doesn't lead to crap I'll do it whatever rybka's says. The nice thing is the instant feedback i get, if my plan isn't valid I know it, then think hard to understand why, maybe i opened myself to an attack, some tactics ect. I usually play the variation given by rybka to see my demise, or at least the why it's not a good idea.

Maybe I can't get why it's a bad idea on a strategical level but that's my role to try to understand that.

Then one might say ok, so you play with a blundercheck, why not just analyse your games postmortem?

I just have so much more focus when it's live, when i'm fully in the game already. I'm not able yet to focus much with just a computer analysis, post-mortem with the opponent are differents. I love doing it.

And more than a blundercheck and tactical trainer. The computer moves give me ideas and forces me to think outside of my box, just this afternoon I played two games in one, in the first I saw a possibility ( not ridiculed by rybka ) to kind of neglect the queenside and go for a rush to the king, so I went for it and got a nice attacking chess lesson from it.

When I decided for my kingside attack Rybka's idea was to advance queenside, something I just couldn't understand, so, after playing the first option, i went to the queenside route. -> I saw much more than my own idea and got a very nice "bother the guy queenside as a diversion until the kingside is far from his pieces and use the two bishops ability to cross the board to kill the king".

Hope that makes my procedure clearer.

Besides that : -I'll go for ct-art more often
-long games OTB as often as I can.
-keep memorizing ( easy for me I'm lucky ) opeings and the funny ways
rybka punishes sub-par moves.

Cheers

PS: Oh yeah the evaluation stuff: true, I learn to do that in OTB games and also try to understand why the comp. give avantages to one side or the other in my assisted games.

I do play bad positions, when my "not as good moves" accumulates, just not from the opening. BTW anybody knows how the ability to memorize long series of numbers easily is called? I start to believe I'm a bit gifted in that department.

why not just play a game against Chessmaster and then look for Rybka's feedback on it?

the only "disadvantage" would be sometimes you make a blunder and get a losing position, where Rybka would have left you with a good or unclear position. And learning to eliminate those tactical blunders would be the single biggest thing that would help you as a chessplayer anyway.

So the question would be: Is instant feedback as good as post-game feedback? dunno

All I can say is I don't blunder as much as before. I play post blunders positions OTB and in unassisted games but I feel that avoiding the cause is better than dealing with its consequences.

cheers

if you enjoy it and it improves your game, hell yeah it's a good training program

Thanks, i guess it's what it boils down too.