So you beat one or two guys some unknown amount below 2000 skill in blitz...solid sample size!

My sample size wasn't any better really. I was estimating off 2 players who I know. 200 might be a better guess. Even then if Howard left off at 19xx, we're only looking at 17xx strength today. I still don't see any problem for Allen getting to 1700 minimum (probably 1800 is easily in reach if his estimation of his own strength is accurate) at which point he's getting close to even chances vs Howard.

LOL. Good point. You got me --I am relying on being able to estimate my playing skills based on my years of chess experience.

Enough about me though...

Gotta say. Allen's study plan looks sound to me. I would indeed have suggested CT-ART to speed up tactics, but cannot argue with "too much computer time already" argument.

I would also recommend playing over the game of Bent Larsen's "ZOOM 001" if you can still find a copy. It would teach you how to play a family of related positions.

I would think its impossible to make such big leaps without working seriously with Rybka+chess-assistant or some similar programs.

I went from about 1350 to 1750 in one year at age 20, and gained another 200 points in the following year. This was back in the mid 80s when there were nothing like today's programs.

Yeah, who needs "bots" or a big database?

That's a pretty big jump and a rare accomplishment, but to be fair:

- getting from 1350 to 1750 isn't as difficult as getting from 1600 to 2000;
- you were 20 years of age

During that time, how much time was spent per day playing/studying chess?

Allen Cunningham

LEARN THE GAME OF GO

Get to 1d in one year.

It's a far more rewarding, intricate, challenging game than Chess.

How the F would you know? Go to a Go Forum or something instead of hijacking a thread with stupid opinions. Many chess players actually do play Go, as did former World Champion Emanuel lasker. None of the players I know that play Go consider it a ,,far more rewarding, intricate, challenging game than Chess" You were probably just very bad at it.

Yeah most go players that say that usually are not very good at chess. Though why play much something you do not like? And good chess players that try go usually have more friends on chess so they can not easily change fulltime. Go is imo a bit boring because it takes too long to play a game. And especially when you begin to play go you are just guessing all the time. So random.

Learning that AC's rating was only in the 1300's was a bit disappointing. I think this shoots down DS's argument that AC is brighter than the average chess expert.

I had been playing Sargon III and had studied the half a dozen random chess books that my local library had for two years before I played my first tournament. My initial rating was 1650. With AC's intensive studying there is no reason why he shouldn't be 1900 by the end of the year. If HL hasn't truly touched the game in 10 years he is in serious trouble.

A coach would beneficial even just purely for motivation. Studying 6 hours a day for a few months is going to get very boring.

It doesn't, the correlation is way too vague and obscure.

Because no grandmaster has ever, EVER had a 1300 rating, EVER!

I wish AC luck, but I'd put my money on HL.

It is far more difficult to reach 2600 for a 2500 player in 3 years than going from 1400 to 2100 in 1 year, which should be pretty easy. Even 6 months 3 hours a day should be enough for an adult to reach that level, unless he is very untalented. My advice would be:
1. to learn tactics: solve at least 10 puzzles every day
2. to learn strategy: read a book, for example My 60 Memorable Games
3. play 2-3 games per day and analyze them (NOT using a chess program, since it won't teach you anything). A coach would be helpful but not necessary.

I wouldn't recommend spending much time on learning openings, they are not very important at under 2000 level. Also learning endings would be a waste of time if it is only 1 game to be played.

Lol

LOL. I know tons of adults who are club members and play tournaments regularly but never make it past 1600. Going from 1400 to 2100 in a year would be very impressive indeed.

A coach would be very helpful why wouldn't it be? I was about 2230 at my peak. I never really studied the game but there was a period of time where after every tournament I would go over the games with an IM friend of mine and those were tremendous learning experiences.

Playing blitz chess is like riding a bike IMO, it's not easy to forget how it's done. Howard doesn't need to prep seriously, just playing blitz an hour a day for one week in advance of the match would boost his playing strength 50-100 points I think, it's like stretching before an athletic event.

Why lol? Even I went from 1400 to 2150 FIDE in 2 years without much training. And I am not exceptionally talented. I know a guy who reached 1800 starting from 1000 in 8 months. It's certainly doable. And for someone who is a great poker player it should be much easier. Playing chess games doesn't make you a better player if you don't analyze them.

This is the ´Lol´ part for me ,,going from 1400 to 2100 in 1 year, which should be pretty easy."
I´ll just refer to the only (former) professional chess player who has posted in this thread (Curtains), who says Allen needs pretty big odds in this say 1400 to 1800 in a year bet. So the ,,pretty easy" of your post makes it lol. A great majority of players NEVER make 2100, no matter how hard they study. It is not ´pretty easy´, much less so within a year. Give some examples of FIDE rated players who have done so, every FIDE rated played nowadays has a nice little graph that shows his progress over the years. I assure you, you will not find many, if any, 1400 to 2100 in a year. And that is not an opinion.

I've already given my example. My 2 years of studying chess for 2 hours per day (on average) are equivalent to 1 year of studying for 4 hours per day. Roughly 1500 hours of chess training is all an averagely talented player needs to go from 1400 to 2100 (actually, I went from 1000 to 2150, but my real strength was 1400 at my first tourney ever, so I don't count it as 1000). It was in mid 90s, so I won't show you any graph, since these FIDE rating records you mentioned date back only to 2000 (also, 1400 was a national rating - FIDE lowest was 2000 at that time).
I assume that a great poker player must be far more intelligent than an average person, so he should be able to improve his chess much faster.
Let me explain my point by an example. In Eastern Europe where I live, most people speak very poor English (even poorer than mine), although they are studying it for about 10-12 years at school. Does it mean that learning a language in 10 years is nearly impossible? No, it only proves that teaching methods at schools are wrong. The same is in chess. The only reason why so many people can't reach 2100 is that they don't study chess the right way.

Or maybe you are just more talented than other people. Going from 2500 to 2600 in 3 years is not really as difficult. It took Magnus 2 years to go from 2480 to 2620. But it took 3 years from his first tournament to get to about 2070 strenght. I actually have his book but I can not find it at the moment so can not go into much detail.

sorry to derail, but d2d4 doesn't have PM's enabled.

where from in eastern europe are you, d2d4?

Magnus progressed faster at 2500 level simply because he was older. In general, at higher level it's more difficult to make a progress.

YouKnowWho, I will PM you when I have PMs enabled.

Yes it is always a plus to be older.

Based on his statements ITT, I'd say fantasyland. My two favorites include "easy to do" and describing studying 2hrs per day as "not much training".

Is 2 hours really that much?

World Champion Emanuel Lasker must also have lived in a fantasy land. In his book Lasker's manual of chess, he claims that a beginner with no chess talent can become a master after 200 hours of training, if he follows a good training method.