I came across this article the other day and I was wondering if anyone out there has tried it and, if so, what their experience with it was like. Please include your starting/ending ratings and a brief summary of your feelings about the article (or the related book).

For those who don't know, 400 Points in 400 Days is an article that was written by an expert who claimed to have gone from Class D to Expert in two years using his "radical" training method. In a nutshell, he advised focusing on board vision and tactics, but his approach was unique in a couple of ways. First, he recommended studying the same problems repeatedly in the following way: take 1000 tactical exercises of increasing difficulty, and solve them in 128 days. Then solve the same set of problems in the same order in 64 days. Repeat in 32 days, then in 16, 8, 4, 2, and finally 1.

Second, he recommended using specific time constrains when solving tactical problems. I'm not absolutely sure, but I think that he recommended successively halving the solving times in parallel with the number of days spent on the problem set.

Third, his board drills were pretty interesting. One exercise, called the "concentric squares" exercise, has the student place a king on one of the center squares and a friendly rook on an adjacent square. The student then attempts to fork the king and piece with an enemy queen by simply placing it on the forking square. Since this is impossible, the student then chooses squares for the friendly piece from the next largest square surrounding the king. Repeat until the friendly piece is in one of the corners, and then try the exercise with a different friendly piece. Repeat the entire process with a different enemy piece. Repeat the entire process, but look for skewers instead of forks.

Anyway, that's pretty much it.

All these people will their silly training methods.

I had planned on following his recommendations but after a couple of days of trying it the drudgery got to be too much for me. I believe him when he says tactics carry the day but if the training method you choose is too painful you will be less likely to carry it out. For a few months I was regularly studying tactics for two hours a day, but not the Maza way.

I don't understand the "I tried it, but it was too hard/boring/demanding" excuse. How hard it it to modify a training program so that it takes twice as long and demands half the daily time investment? Or even so that it takes four times as long and demands a quarter of the daily time investment? Come on, people.

I don't know about this.

If de la Maza's idea really is some miracle method for chess improvement, it probably depends on devoting the appropriate amount of time to it.

If it's not a miracle method, then you might as well spend your "chess study time" in some other way anyway, tactics or reviewing your games or whatever suits.

Obviously I think the second situation is more likely

Why would it be any different to use his method over the course of 1200 days spending a third of the recommended time per day? If anything this would probably produce better results, because, as is well known, the human brain learns and retains information best when studying time is spread out over a long period. I would actually venture to guess that if you spent a third of the time per day and stuck with it for 1200 days, then assuming his program will get you exactly 400 points, the modified version would likely get you 500 points. In any event, that (in my opinion) is more likely than it getting you, say, 300 points.

I think this can only work going from Class D to Expert, not higher. There is just only so much you can learn without reading a book and memorizing imo. Openings and end game tactics just need to be memorized and understood.

I agree with you on that one. Also I think there may be modifications to his "system" that may make it less drudgery.

I've only casually and briefly looked at his material chesscafe some years back so I'm sorry I don't have any modifications to suggest.

I used to see De La Maza at local tournaments in Massachusetts playing the U2000/U1800 sections. He'd usually win his games with some cheap tactic. In the games I saw showed to me by friends, he had serious gaps in his chess understanding. I personally couldn't wait for him to start playing open sections so I could dismantle him (he beat a lot of my lower rated friends), but he quit after he got over 2000. I think he realized that he was gonna hit a wall if he continued playing, and so just decided to quit before that happened.

I think that his entire plan was to get from Class D to Expert as quickly as possible and then write a book about it. He quit because he couldn't risk dipping below 2000. Once the book sold well he lost interest in chess. That's just my take on it.

As for games won with "some cheap tactic", I'd say that this describes 99% of games up to the 2400 (USCF) level, so I don't know what your beef is. Maybe De La Maza won his games with "cheap tactics" while you win your games with "brilliant combinations" (hint: same thing unless you're titled)?

Well Im about 2400 USCF so I guess my games aren't always won by cheap tactics.

I knew Michael before he started his own study program. I was even the tournament director (or supervising a new TD) in several tournaments he played in in the summer of 1999. In fact, these were the first three long time control tournaments he played in (40/90, SD/60).

It's a bit absurd to think that an unrated player who went 2-8-2 in those twelve games was planning to publish a book, three years later, teaching others how to rapidly improve in chess, possibly becoming an Expert.

I'm sure Michael's studying, improving, and writing were an organic thing. Massachusetts has an excellent state chess magazine called Chess Horizons. Michael's article, 400 Points in 400 Days first appeared in the January, 2001 issue of that magazine. Part 2 was in the next (April) issue. The book, which I haven't read, is an expansion on that.

I can't say why Michael stopped playing tournament chess. Though, his last rated tournament was his win in the U2000 section of the World Open. Presumably, the possibility of getting a book published (which happened the next summer) became very realistic and he focused on that.

Michael had no reason to fear his rating dropping below 2000. The guy won the Class A section of the World Open. That's a lot more impressive to most potential book buyers than a 2000+ rating.



Something unusual may have contributed to Michael spending so much effort on chess in such a short period of time and then stopping. Sometime in 2000 (possibly late 1999), Michael sustained a very bad broken arm. He had his arm in a sling for a very long time, maybe more than half a year. It was obvious that his arm was limiting what he could do physically. Chess, though, wasn't something a brokem arm would hinder.

I stand corrected. Since you knew him, you obviously know better than I do.

frappeboy:

What are the odds that you'd be 2400 USCF?!

gg

I started to do this then modified it after 90% of the first circle. It's extremely time consuming to do it as written in the book or articles. I did it as a 14-1500 player and did the 7 circles just on the 10 and 20 point problems. Then I did 7 repetitions of the 30 point problems. Then the 40s. I'd occasionally go back and do the 10s again or 10s and 20s. I have no idea if this worked as well as the plan outlined in the book would have, but my tactical ability improved really quickly.

Hey Dire, did you ever use this system? You posted in another thread something along the lines of, "It's not just about doing tactical exercises, it's about doing exercises over and over until you internalize them"...which is the whole idea behind this system.