Def 2100, u kidding me? You were 2000 strength already when we trained together!

That is just by year. I assume Loki can extrapolate games/month from that.

Or, to just spell it out, I'm averaging 4 games/month this year.
Last year: 1.67/month.

One bad sign, however, is that I have not done much "hard" study (Yusupov, seriously done homework games analysis) the last 1-2 months. Perhaps after the National Open this year I will get even more inspired to improve. That has happened every time (except last year which had the opposite effect). I also am not sure I will continue with my coach - he always seems so busy. So I may try to just work on my own for a little while, although that could go badly where I just get disillusioned and quit randomly.

I can't really weigh the family considerations too much, but 5 games at the National Open? Seems weaksauce. I read that you're playing a lot of rated games and you're not sweating 1 or 2 lost games, but, isn't all the work and practice ultimately about crushing in the big tournaments? That's how I look at it anyway. I don't ever miss a game in a weekender tournament unless there are some major circumstances.

Hmm, I guess the point for me is to enjoy chess and get better. The point certainly isn't to try and make $$ or something like that. I would have stuck to poker if that were the case.

But yeah, part of it feels quite weaksauce to me - at the same time, I imagine I'd enjoy the trip better this way as long as I don't just regret taking byes. I've never really done that proactively before...

Sure, I don't even mean the money side of it. Chess is a money sink for sure. But wanting to do well in the tournaments is what motivated me to train harder, that intense level of competition is what makes chess so great to me. Fair enough if your mindset is a little different. Have a good showing and report back!

Just read/skimmed this entire log. Very inspiring. Sick work ethic!

Thanks!

As you can tell my posting ethic has drastically declined. I realized that all the Yusupov stuff I was posting I basically wasn't ever referencing later and it was a waste of time. I still track my results although haven't done a new chapter in a couple of months. But I still plan to track my overall results when I get back to it.

This year I've played a game almost every week and am at the point now where I am doing very little other chess work. In fact, I'd say almost no other real work other than playing, going over that game, and having some lessons going over the game(s) - although I'm not sure a lesson I count as work.

I do stuff on openings but mainly just for entertainment and at this point don't consider that real work. I think I've posted about this my last couple of posts but I guess I'll continue to complain about it until I fix it .

I'd list things like this in terms of what is real study and what is pretend study (this is similar to what Andrzej Krzywda said on The Perpetual Chess Podcast recently - which was all on adult improvement.

- Playing long, rated, games
- Going through your games and writing everything important down (1hr/game at least)
- Yusupov study (not as Aagaard advises but as Yusupov does)
- Analysis homework (as my coach recommends, which ends up being at least 1 hr/game)
- Studies (the ones I've mainly done were a long time ago from YKW or from Yusupov)

Other stuff that I'm not sure really makes me improve:
- Opening memorization or fixing lines - I should say anything above and beyond having a repertoire and more or less knowing it...that certainly has made a difference in a practical way on my results and I've likely won at least a few games 80%+ due to it. But the vast majority of my games really involve making good moves after the opening and I've even been lost or screwed up in the opening even since "knowing" my repertoire.
- Chess tactics (e.g. not logged in via chesstempo) - I guess this is training too but more like keeping sharp than making me too much better most likely
- 100 endgames/tactics/other memorization training stuff via chessable
- Chess 24 videos
- Going through books like Modern Chess Strategy by John Watson
- Going through opening books

That "other stuff" surely can be made to be "real study" but me sitting and really concentrating on it and pushing the limit of my calculation and strategic thinking. However, I don't do that and I'm not sure many do.

Another way to put this is that there is Training and Learning. I think the Training is really what allows for improvement once you've hit a plateau and learning won't really move the needle (at least without the training).

When YKW says I was 2000 strength already my opinion is he meant in terms of Learning but I certainly was not 2000 strength in terms of actual ability 3 years ago. I mean, my rating just stayed at ~1800 until the last 1.5 years. It is the training that makes a bigger difference.

I may have a bit of this jumbled or change my mind but it's what I've been thinking recently.

I'll check out that podcast today.

I have found similar things in my chess habits. Things like watching videos, just playing in the chess club, doing tactics puzzles, streams, basically being around chess... But not seriously invested into it. This has resulted in me not being where I would like to be.

Basically lazy training = lazy results. I'm setting out to be different this time! My USCF graph tells the story tho, brief periods of infatuation and then long periods of downtime. It's like a 3 year itch.

Well, the good news according to this graph is that you'll be 2500+ after only a few years if you stick to it. You seem to gain 100 or 200 points every time you get back into it .

What do you mean by this?

You don't think studying tactics is worthwhile? I must not be understanding this correctly.

Good questions!

Hmm, I think I had "training tactics" in the first bucket but then moved it since it is not very demanding and I'm not sure it provides much improvement once you are familiar with tactical patterns and have a decent grasp of them. At that point I think it's calculation and/or vision (which is part of calculation) that come into play and tactics training is really just upkeep rather than any sort of improvement.

However, I go back and forth on this and am interested in seeing The Woodpecker Method book once it comes out I can understand it better since that is supposed to be for tactics (not calculation) according to Axel Smith (Pump up your rating, where it was first mentioned). Allegedly this tactics training (which I am suspecting is really what I'd consider calculation training) does really help one improve even after a more basic level.

The analysis homework is similar to the "play GM games and guess the move" or something like that but I think I've done that in the past and this is much more rigorous - or making sure to record and concentrate on the analysis helps to get more out of it.

1) Find a high-level game

2) Pick a side

3) Play the game as that side and hide the next move. You should write down the move you would play and other lines should include the moves and ideas you seriously considered and/or dismissed. You can start somewhere later than move 1 - obviously the first few moves are whatever opening is chosen. I generally go through games in a specific variation in my repertoire and while the game deviates at some point I sometimes don't start doing real analysis until move 14 or something as all the moves before that I remember.

4) Don't spend more than 3 minutes on any moves unless it is a point where deeper calculation is required and you really need to keep looking at more and more ideas

5) Record all of the lines you saw/considered throughout the game

6) Turn on engine and find ideas that you missed, also figuring out any ideas of the GMs that you weren't able to figure out on your own. You will still likely miss stuff the GM saw or can't tell why the computer recommends something or other, but, ok, those ideas may be beyond the player until later anyway.

The main idea of the approach is that better players see more when they play - whether it is straight calculation based on tactics, or ideas, or strategic elements, etc. What you want to do is try to see more each game you do than the one before and over time you can track progress (generally).

However, my coach has never really tracked my progress in any concrete way - he thinks I've clearly made progress at it and it helps, and I agree. However, if there was a somewhat easy way to grade myself I think I'd be more motivated to keep doing it as there would be something tangible to strive for each time I did it. So it gets easier and easier for me to somehow turn on an engine at some point during the homework - even if it's in between moves, but then it gives me ideas of what's going on evaluation-wise and possible moves, which help me moves later. I don't know why I struggle so much with turning on the engine. I guess I need to find an app that has no engine but hides moves b/c so far everything I've found that helps me hide the next move has *some* kind of engine on it that is 1 or 2 clicks away.

I have the same problem when i am reviewing my own games. I use SCID and input the games into that and it's so easy to just turn on the engine when I want to know what I should have done in a given spot and once you see the move it's hard to impossible to unsee it.

Thanks for the write up - that was very illuminating, and maybe something I will have to add into my own training.

I think I have a serious problem with calculation and board vision as I completely miss moves by my opponent over and over again. I'm not sure how to work on this. I feel like harder tactics is really the only way I can think of. I've considered studies, but I feel like they will be extremely difficult and I don't know of a book that sort of has them categorized by difficulty. I know that when I went through the mate in 2 chapter in the first Yusupov I was surprised by how difficult they were as they are only two move calculations, but it's the breadth of the search that provided me the challenge and I want more of that but I'm uncertain where to find it.

I've played some embarrassing games recently.

I agree the two move mate studies are always surprisingly difficult.

I review my own games on an actual board so there is no engine nearby - although yes, if I do it on the computer I often cheat sooner than I want to. But if I just do it over the board then it's much harder to cheat. And it's easy to do that way since I know the next game move anyway. The trouble is when I need to hide the next move!

As for calculation - standard chess problems on chesstempo.com could help - they just get harder and harder and definitely get into pure calculation. Honestly, I think Yusupov helps with this since most problems at the end of most chapters do require calculation and you get scored and write down all your stuff - so it's very good for motivation and also good to compare what you saw to what is given (even if you get credit sometimes you've missed an idea).

Honestly. Yusupov covers everything quite well. The one thing it does not really help with is playing an actual game move after move after move and the psychology that goes into it. A game is not a series of independent positions to solve. It is for a computer but for a human all games have a narrating arc, momentum, and other things that are quite real which greatly affect what's going on. And they tend to last a long time - you can't just solve 6 problems and take a break like in Yusupov, or even do all 12 and say "well I passed" although you made two game-losing decisions on the ones you got wrong.

But, other than that I do believe there is a lot of value since it really does train the skills that you need in games without leaving any big holes. Whereas most other training methods will concentrate on one thing but not others.

How far are you in Yusupov and do you feel you are seeing or calculating out things better than you used to or still not?

I stopped the Yusupov at like chapter 23 of the first book. At first it was a forced hiatus as work became insanely busy and chess took a back seat, but then, when I started studying again I decided I derived more enjoyment from studying strategy and game collections so I'm working my way through Mastering Chess Strategy, which is very problem based.

So, to answer your question, not far.

Ahhh, well, still enough that you might have a feeling as to whether you think it's making you better. I have Mastering Chess Strategy by, I think Hellsten? Also gos endgame book. I haven't tried either, the plan was to go to them after Yusupov. But maybe I'd get more back into things if I started on it in a couple of weeks instead. I know curtainz thinks it's better, although Yusupov is of course so much more material.

Then I'd move on to Aagaard and/or Dvoretsky stuff. But this always ends up very quickly being a 5+ year plan lol. Especially since I didn't finish Yusupov in my original 3 year plan. Although if you count the extra workbook I did, I've gotten fairly close.

Yes, it's by Hellsten. I also want his endgame book, but I am trying to restrain myself from buying any new books until I make it through a couple of the ones that I currently own. I have a large collection of unread books.

I think it is definitely helping me. I am learning some new positional ideas, reinforcing some that I already have, and, if nothing else, it has identified some key weaknesses as I did rather poorly on the quizes for how to improve your bishop and queen whereas I did quite well on the quizes regarding knights and rooks. This is all in the first chapter and it is taking me quite a while to get through it. I am going to start timing myself on the problems and spending no more than 10 minutes on each before I force myself to make a move.

The one thing that I don't think the book is helping as much as I'd like is my calculation as these are positional problems without a concrete solution. He is giving a proposed solution, but it's not like it's a forced win or anything. I guess this accurately simulates game conditions, and they are all problems from actual games, but the lines I calculate are only a few moves deep once I find the concept that needs to be utilized. But, I guess that is true of a lot of positions in games as well. It's hard to go too deep into them if there is not a forced line.

Anyways, that is my focus atm. Going through this book, and then supplementing it with calculation practice - which I am going to be using chesstempo on standard / hard as I have no other resource. I am strongly considering buying Kasparyan's Domination Endgame study book, but it is currently out of stock at amazon.ca and I think it's probably too hard for my 1600 rating level. You are above 2000 so I suspect you should be fine.

Great stuff! I think I am very likely to check that book out in a couple of weeks. I'm sure there are other ways to get studies besides that book, it just happens to be the one the guy is using. Maybe YKW knows of some....

Getting on a plane for Vegas later today. ~1.5 weeks in with acute bronchitis and still have it - biggest trouble is sleeping but it's been going okay.

Still on the fence about exactly how many games to play. Hoping I can just start with the two shorter ones tomorrow and see how I feel. If it completely wipes me out or I feel doing an evening game just isn't worth it I may try to take a 3rd bye Saturday night, just going a bit easier on myself and only playing 4 games.

It seems not worth it to play more unless I think I will enjoy it.

My cough got much worse now that I'm in Vegas. Played first game, opponent sacrificed a piece, pretty sure unsoundly. I spent 20 minutes calculating and realized I just can't calculate. I ended up losing, missing alot and plan to just skip games unless I feel better. I am not too bummed about the game in terms of losing but I certainly didn't enjoy the game even though it was quite interesting and in a line I've been hoping to play.

Sorry to hear about the illness yugo.

Thanks! Frustrating. I went over my game with an engine (not going to get much benefit doing it myself in this mental state imo) and the 20 minutes think I had was at a critical moment, I just never found a solution and there were multiple ones that were for sure seeable. Maybe I miss them with only 3-5 minutes but with even 10 I think I almoat surely would normally go for a winning line rather than simply some defensive looking move because even after 20 minutes I hadn't been able to calculate a couple of forcing ideas properly. I really did miss as much as it felt like I was missing.

Updates, bro?!

I played this morning. Played bad moves buy my opponent missed a forced win and then blundered into a loss. Blundered may be too harsh, I put the position up for my dad and cousin and told them white to play and win - neither found it which surprised me.

Not playing tonight so 1 win, 1 loss. I am not sure playing while sick works for me. I have no idea how top players do it. I guess they just try to make a draw and hope their opponent doesn't know they're sick?

White to play and win. I saw it on my opponent's time before he played ...Nf5.

Dunno if it's a problem on my end, but I don't see the diagram, says image not found :/

Gratz on the win!