You must be in a really bad place then man, as it has even affected your reading abilities!

The top post in this page states:

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

So, I never said that u were 2200 strength, but rather 2000 strength Not sure if that makes you feel better or worse, but based on your post, maybe actually better!

Apart from that, this seems like a pretty textbook case of over-studying and being burned out.

Over-studying = too many separate things in your head that you are not ready yet to implement as a whole, so they all just form some sort of mumbo-jumbo in your head which hinders your ability to make decisions. My suggestion is to limit your studying greatly and give your brain time to process everything you've learned (and yes, your brain will do that even without you looking at chess at all). Something like one or at max 2 lessons per month won't hurt, esp. if you tell your coach to focus not on new stuff, but reinforcing older stuff. Tactics also won't hurt and will give you a feeling that you are still working on chess.

Burned out = completely disappointed in yourself and lost faith in your abilities, even though you results can be explained by the above.

Thankfully, less studying will also mean less burn out, so one solution to both problems

Most important part of YKW's post.

If I may suggest a non chess book to you, check out: Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning

Lol, yeah I dno wtf I'm thinking! Well, okay, so 2000 strength but 1950 rating now!

Although, that doesn't bother me as much as it would if I had gotten to 1995 or something and then dropped back down.

Can I just wait to do this when the 2nd kid arrives? I am treating this phase like the time before an exam where I'm cramming nonstop I think. But if I slow down now, I'll have no momentum built up when the kid comes!

We're probably averaging 2/month anyway. We just go over games I've had, we don't review anything else unless I ask for it. He's not always completely reliable (although I haven't been recently either). So a lot of lessons get pushed back.

Hmm, yeah, okay. But there is SO MUCH TO STUDY! And how do I actually make this actionable - like....what should my actual routine be and how do I know when I'm not burned out .

It is kind of tough b/c I set chess goals - how do I feel I've accomplished anything if the goal I set is "only do 30 mins tactics each day and no other studying." (I'm not saying that is necessarily your recommendation).

Yeah, I do know that happens. I will likely check out that book too .

Read Make it Stick instead. Especially the numerous parts in it about cramming (and how bad it is to... well, make it stick).

This will be a separate post. I really do enjoy everyone's commentary but I think YKW will have the best advice not just due to his coaching and own chess experience but b/c he actually did coach me. Having said that, Sugar Nut has read that book so perhaps what's in there will allow the best advice!

I kind of wish YKW was my coach again. My current one is positive but we miss just as many lessons and I feel for whatever reasons (I guess just not coaching me as long - although he has for sure looked at as many or more of my games) he doesn't know me or my chess better.

What should I do to adjust my approach to chess?

I have two more months of 1 kid. Then a new baby so time and resources will be very limited (and non-existent for a week) for I would guess at least 4 months.

I agree I'm clearly burning myself out. Probably starting with The Woodpecker work and even with thinking I was taking "breaks" not really taking real breaks as I'm constantly thinking about the next chess work and studying I "need" to be doing. I should also probably take into account that I haven't missed a lifting session since I started again after Thanksgiving. The accumulated stress of doing that probably also affects things as I have many hobby goals each week that I feel I "have" to stay on top of.

So, currently each week I'm trying to:

- Play 1 OTB game
- Play 2 15+10 games online
- Play 1 30+10 game against Play Magnus
- Do 7 studies
- Do 70 tactics
- Review all games (kind of doing this) and put tactics and strategy ideas into chessable (not really doing this)

Then I also try to look at the Gelfand book, read the Kramnik book (which is really a story, not chess work), do several Chessable books (Woodpecker review, Trompowsky book, simple pawn endgames book, I have several Trompowsky tactics books lined up), Excelling at Chess Calculation, GM Prep: Calculation.

This is sort of all on my mind all the time (and more books that will be released soon that seem very useful).

What should I actually be doing?

Also, if I'm burned out should I take a break from playing rigorous OTB games (and stick to accumulating 15+10)? It makes sense to me that many shorter games would make me face many more decisions and that's where I need things to come together in my mind.

But maybe the long thinks is what's necessary for that.

In other words - do I go play a 4 hour game against a ~1750 player tonight (or could be a 1980 player) or not? Lol

Ok, not playing tonight, may try to watch TV, but may try one study so I don't feel too guilty.

Yo, had a work party tonight so I am not in a very capable mood to give very specific advice re: your post, however if we speak on broader terms, I feel like you currently need a bit less chess study, and a bit more chess inspiration, to remind you why you love this game. Kramnik’s book sounds good, Gelfand’s book without the board is also proly good, some studies book with easily accessible answers instead of solving is also good... at least thats the type of stuff that used to help me in stages like this

Ok! We'll, if you do have more thoughts on it at see point, I feel I need a different plan or tweak something so I don't feel as burned out. I'd prefer still doing chess stuff so I can feel like I'm making some progress.

February log:



I guess my plan is to continue to try and do tactics regularly - I can't really say I'm too spent after them or too frustrated (although I seem to always be missing 1 or 2).

With studies, OTB games, PlayMagnus games, and 15+10 games I'm not sure what to do.

I do plan to start logging all work I do in chessable - I don't consider a lot of it "hard study" but I think I should track it in the details and total time anyway.

I think part of my issue is that studies are tough and I miss most of them, and the games I'm playing are not going well and reviewing them is tough. So the bulk of what I'm doing is tough and the results make me feel badish. So doing things that are more fun seems like a good idea.

YKW's advice is good and I need to "up" the fun studying. Also, maybe I should let myself feel prouder moving back up the Chessable leaderboard (I was 50 and dropping and now I'm 43 and climbing) and the other work in there I haven't been tracking.

March log:



Let's see how I did on my plans I made at the end of February:

This went pretty well. I mainly just now do 1 puzzle rush every day I remember it. And also am working my way through Woodpecker Method which I plan to schedule for every 6 weeks.

I basically just stopped doing them! Lol, or at least worrying about keeping the pace of the goals I had set.

This went well and I spent quite a bit of time really trying to learn/memorize my openings. I got to the point where I know them very well but then I stop reviewing them for too long. The plan going forward is to review every month and if I somehow get under 95% of the moves right then doing it more often.

This went quite well. Not worrying about doing studies or playing lots of games helped.

I'm at 31 on the leaderboard. I may stop using that as motivation b/c it doesn't really matter.

I read through "Make it stick" and realize that I am using spaced repetition only sort of helpfully. I need to keep reviewing and likely sooner than 3 month increments (which is what chessable defaulted to as the longest wait time between reviews). My plan is 1 month for openings and 2 months for other stuff as long as I seem to remember almost all of it.

I also often treat Chessable as a sort of speed run thing where I impulsively click buttons, b/c, hey, I get most of them right anyway. But it's very clear from Make it Stick that learning goes better when I have to stop and think - I don't actually want everything to be a speed run b/c it either means I am not waiting long enough to forget things (or struggle to remember) or I'm not concentrating and helping myself remember the moves.

If Sugar Nut (or anyone else) is up for discussing relatively efficient ways for me to approach other parts of my training I'm very interested. Chessable is the nuts for testing moves, but there isn't really an option for testing concepts or plans - just the moves that make up those concepts. What I mean is that I can memorize the moves of a plan without actually learning the plan properly.

One thing I realized after reading the book is that my game analysis is lacking. I've created an algorithm to follow when playing games and then to analyze them. I have to go through each step. It may feel annoying but I think I will get much more benefit even if I end up having to spend 2.5 hours instead of 1.75 hours - I'll have created training positions for chessable and actually approached the game in a way that hopefully I can improve my decision making.

I played last Thursday and my main goal was the first three steps of the algorithm:

1) Write down time for each move (I already do this so it's easy to continue)
2) Write down a code for the type of decision the move is
2a) Think through the move based on the type of decision
2b) Critical and strategic moves - stop and review analysis before deciding on a move
3) Write down "*" for any opponent moves/ideas I completely missed

I did that for every move in the game! Granted, it was a short game, but I'm supposed to be doing those things already but somehow haven't even though I've tried for quite a few games.

Also, the game turned out well. I played a 2260 player and he blundered in the opening. It required a precise follow-up and I think I did a good job hammering the win home. I was quite lucky to have a higher rated player make that mistake since I would have to have done just as much work after the mistake against a 1200 rated player .

Sure, I'm up for it. Learning abstract stuff is more complex, of course, than hammering concreteness into your brain. The book is now fresher in your mind than it is in mine (I read through in in the Summer of 2016), but if I remember correctly, retrieval practice is given a great deal of emphasis. Also I think the authors recommend writing down summaries of learned themes in your own words.

The way this could work for general strategic plans or concepts in chess could be via flashcards maybe? For you this would mean that you read a chapter from Gelfand's or Aagard's nutso stuff that's way over my head. For me it would be more along the lines of Nimzowitsch, Stean or Grooten. Read a chapter of one of those books, write a few paragraphs in your own words about what you've learned, then condense those paragraphs into a few flashcards. You could use the free and open source program "Anki" for this, for example.

As you become a stronger player, periodically review entire chapters to make sure you didn't misunderstand the lessons you were meant to learn.

This is just an idea, and I'm not sure about its validity. Just to throw something out there to start a discussion.

That said, I don't think strategic concepts are a hugely important part of training. You have to know about strategic concepts, of course, but I'm pretty certain that the bottleneck for most club players isn't strategy, but mere, "boring" calculation. The guy who wrote "Move First, Think Later" said he'd much rather titled his book "Moves First, Thoughts Later" but marketing decided on the former title. That's really the core concept of chess. Fischer might as well have said, "I don't believe in psychology strategy. I believe in good moves."

So, in my opinion, a rich diet of very tough (for your level) calculation exercises (chesstempo in the the logged in standard mode for example) and endgame studies should make up the bulk of the (adult) improver's learning. In a recent Perpetual Chess Podcast, GM Alex Colovic said pretty much the same thing.

Yes, writing down summaries (elaboration I believe) utilizes a bunch of helpful tools - retrieval and generation. It weaves in new meaning and "layers" what you've already learned with whatever existing concepts you already have in mind.

I see some of the #chesspunks mentioning studying habits like this on Twitter.

Yes, again, some of the #chesspunks are definitely doing this. And, I mean, Dvoretsky is famous for having bajillions of flashcards/notecards with exercises on them - which is basically this.

Yeah, the trick is - what to create flashcards for and how much to space it out. Also, the time necessary to go through something in this way. For instance, does it make sense with Gelfand? I'm not sure.

Also, I really need this on Chessable, not Anki, to help with compliance. I really feel the fewer tools I need to juggle, the better. That is one reason I seem to be able to put so much time into Chessable stuff. It is simply more fun and motivating. This should be possible. Perhaps the way to do it is to have a position with questions about it - e.g. What are 3 strategic plans here and while Chessable can't fully test me on them, I certainly can test myself and if I get it wrong I can then intentionally fail the exercise so it shows up again.

I think this would be much better for me even if it's likely a more awkward way to do this vs. Anki.

Well, it has to be valid and useful - it's a matter of figuring out where to fit it into training/studying.

Yes, I agree completely that it is moves that matter. I think Aagaard may have even almost said the same thing about Fischer.

However, and this is a big however, moves are decided upon through decision making. And calculation or tactical vision is only one part of that. Perhaps it is the engine. Having a bigger engine is nice, but if your car is pointed in the wrong direction, well, good luck with that .

So strategic/positional understanding helps you figure out where to point your car. Decision making is is the process of efficiently checking out the different directions you can go (and you need a big engine to do this properly, doing it on foot takes forever and is too tough).

Yeah. Andrzej Krzywda "famously" said that endgame studies is the most valuable thing he does by far. Did Colovic say that kind of? I listened to it recently and of course can't remember that. What stuck in my mind was him saying the importance of going through master games very slowly the way Fischer did.

------------------

I was trying to make a big push on calculation a up until last month but got burnt out and was pretty discouraged in general. And in some ways I think I struggle focusing on too many things at once.

I also noticed that while I've played a lot of games in the last year and even annotated them "properly" - I do not feel I've improved too much from it. The elaboration step is missing - me writing down conclusions in my own words and creating chessable exercises (flashcards) to reinforce that learning.

So, I'd like to do this properly going forward, even if it means playing a lot less for a while. Also, I think I really should do it for all long games I've played the last year too. This will be quite time consuming but learning from one's own mistakes is necessary to improve my decision making and, maybe even more than calculation or any other studying, is necessary for an adult improver. Kids can play thousands of games, review them with a coach as they go along, and likely soak up enough of the learning. But I need to unlearn a bunch and connect new techniques with old things. And I think much more dedication to my own games may help a lot with this since I'm not magically fixing mistakes in my games over the last year even though I know about them.

However, I also want to work on Calculation via Excelling at Chess Calculation, the GM Prep book, and endgame studies. But perhaps I simply need to wait on that to tackle my own games, openings - which right now feels more exciting and fun - and tactics.

And I want to work through Chess Structures and the Alpha Zero book and read Gelfand and the American Chess Magazinese I now have and finish Yusupov and get to Hellsten and do endgame work and Dvoretsky's recognizing your opponents' resources (which I just bought on chessable). That is just what comes to mind without trying to think of things lol.

I have recently randomly came upon a concept by GM Avetik Grigorian (I am sure there are others that do this as well, but the explanation I saw was from him, so I am crediting him) which I am eager to try.

His idea is basically this - when going through an annotated game in the book, the concepts are ingrained much deeper if you first "play" that game yourself. So what he does before going through the annotations is fire up chessbase, find the game in question, use the chessbase option which allows to go in to training mode (basically hides notation), and starts "playing" that game himself, i.e. guessing every move (or I guess after the opening, cause it might be futile to guess stuff in the opening) of a side that he is reviewing the game from. If he gets it incorrectly, chessbase automatically labels it as "new variation" so it's easy to get back to it and see if there are explanations in the book as to why it's not as good. When he is done "playing" the game, he opens up the book and reviews the annotations, especially of the moves he missed. Since he at that point has already thought deeply about the position and understood at least a part of its nuances, the annotations then make more sense and, at least in his theory, more deeply ingrained.

I am eager to test it

Congrats on beating such a high rated guy man, very well done! This has to be close to the top of your scalps, no?

Well, yes, this is basically the "guess the move" of well annotated master games which I think is recommended in many, many places.

Having said that, it is a more motivating way to implement it since you can be reading any sort of book and do it this way to get more out of it. Does Chessbase 13 have guess the move? I basically hate using CB but it does seem to have some unique features that really help certain things.

The way I've done this in the past is simply hide the next move and write down my own choice, and then mark it via paper when I get it wrong and why. But this takes a bit more time of course.

I think I might try too!

It is! Not only that but I think it's the highest rated player I've ever played (his rating is a bit higher than it was last year when I lost to him).

I did win against a 2200 player a couple of years ago but he has/had a rating floor and hadn't played in several years.

I had never heard of the #chesspunks (I'm not a big social media user) but just looked up that hashtag, and it seem to be a bunch of adult improvers uniting under that umbrella term on twitter?


That's definitely a valid concern. However, as you pointed out yourself, a tool that's specifically designed as a move trainer, might simply not be the right tool for the job. With you being one of their most active users, maybe you can suggest to them to work on a "concept trainer" feature? I don't really use Chessable. That's mostly because of the general reservations I have against freemium models, but maybe I'm a bit too dogmatic there, and they are actually the rare exception that do freemium in an ethical manner. I used to think the same about Chesstempo, but I'm using it now for calculation practice, and their opening trainer's UI is also better than Chessable's imo. You do have to create your own opening books, though. They don't come pre-made the way they do on Chessable.


Yeah, of course. Strategy is important, because the human brain is not capable of going through an entire gametree. If it were, then what we call "strategy" in chess would simply not exist. It would just be like pawn endgames where every position can, even by humans today, be classified as win for white, draw, or win for black.

There simply is no "slightly better" crap in the underlying "Truth" of chess.

However, since us humans are incapable of thinking this way, we formulate rules and guidelines, crutches if you will, to guide us through the vast jungle of variations to calculate. Our understanding of strategy determines what candidate moves we're capable of looking at. That this is an inherently flawed concept, though, gets highlighted when commentators (like Ashley, who operates the engine in the SLCC broadcasts) point out things like "That's a total computer move" when explaining how the computer would crush the given position with a move no human would ever look at in the first place. Or when Aagaard in the Perpetual Chess Podcast says that there is one exercise in his calculation book that 1600 players solve way more easily than 2600s. Just because the correct move is super counterintuitive to a player with a 2600 level of strategic understanding.



It went something like this:

Johnson: So, how did you become a GM after all?
Colovic: Pain and suffering!



He explained how one day he was simply fed up with his never-ending struggle to become a GM. He had had all the norms he needed and at one point was at 2496 FIDE (or thereabouts. really close to 2500 suffice it to say). So he made the decision to just force the matter, and for a year straight (or something ridiculous like that) he forced himself every day (tired, hungover, sick or otherwise) to do one hour of endgame studies. Blindfold.

Then he crushed a tournament, got the rating and the title, and that was that.

Yeah, I have noticed that tendency in you before. I guess the advice I can give you here is an old chess study saying:

What's the best chess book to study?
The one you're studying right now.

That's obviously only partly true, as there are truly atrocious chess books out there. But we do have a good understanding about which books are good and worthwhile to study, and among those the best one to study is most certainly the one you're studying right now. Finish it, and then worry about what to study next.

Oh, I forgot to mention. The founder of Chessable (not John B., the actual founder) is a former Facebook browser game developer/entrepreneur. I really have no love for people like that.

Yeah, I guess. I lurk on Twitter a lot and there are several pretty active posters who are adult improvers who use that hashtag. In many ways the types of things they are doing seem to at least be along the lines of "best practices" for learning.

Sure, I totally can, and there is a good chance it's been brought up before. I wouldn't be surprised if David Kramley (the other founder) has given it some thought already. They've been branching out of just openings pretty heavily/quickly and many books they publish now are not even exercise books.

Well, I'm not sure why this is or what kind of freemium model you loathe. I can say for Chessable, it really is a paid service (and marketplace for chess material that costs money) that simply has a ton of options for free.

And I think it's that way because both David and John basically want users to get tons out of it without having to pay anything. They also, from day 1, have wanted it to be a platform where author's can publish materials without the red tape of print publishing and with a better cut of the revenue.

Yeah, I used chesstempo a bunch before chessable and did have a year of the highest membership class. But I found the free version (and even not logged in version) is really all you need. What is it about how (Bob I think?) does it that is ethical vs. other freemium models?

Well, there kind of is. I mean, AlphaZero evaluates more like this than what we have been calling "the computer" for the last couple of decades. It just spits out "I expect to win XX% of the time from this position" so it really is simply choosing a "slightly better" position and doesn't come close to any sort of "truth."

Since we cannot just calculate and evaluate like a computer we do need strategic rules or ideas to assist, so I do think training them somehow is very important too.

Oh, yes, for him he then did pure hardcore endgame study. But based on him saying what he likes to do (go through games like how he describes Fischer doing so) I assume he was way "ahead" in strategic/positional strength. But, yes, he could only get so far and really had to boost up his engine. Tbh, I suspect John B could really benefit from very hardcore calculation training. He is obviously "very good" at it but at the level he's at it seems (to me anyway) that it is something he somewhat avoids or is at a level lower than his opponents.

I agree and think I do a pretty good job of this. I mean, just compare my log to Loki's log . i do tend to stick to my plans and carry things through for a good while, not just jumping constantly all over the place.

Yes, David Kramley. I have interacted with him quite a lot and am a pretty big fan. I am not colored in any way about FB developers, though. His story involved him hiring staff to try and do more and better games and then getting clobbered when real game companies entered the market. So his stuff was near the beginning. I have no idea if the games were super ethical or a preyed on users a bunch or anything like that. But I can vouch pretty strongly that Chessable does not try to lead anyone, anywhere by psychological tricks (well, except to help them learn!).

Their blogger/hype guy, Leon Watson seems a bit prone to wild statements or overselling, things like that. But my assumption is David tamps down on that a lot and then works his ass off if something gets put out there. For instance, Leon basically throws out tweets to chess players baiting them into writing books. And after Sam Shankland responded last year, I happened to be emailing with David around that time and he was like "oh crap, we need to do that book now ASAP b/c it is public and Aagaard has said yes." In many ways a big win for chessable since it continued to help them get QC titles (even somehow convincing Yusupov series to go online, something he had vetoed for Forward Chess all along) but they went pretty hard to make it happen sooner since the tweets concerning Small Steps were public.

Anyway, there have been a lot of examples like that - this is likely more David's "baby" than anyone else and he really looks to do do everything as high quality as is feasible at the time.

Yeah, like I said above, I might just be a bit too dogmatic and steadfast on my distrust of Chessable. I made an account there way back when John B made a video about it, and left pretty soon thereafter when I saw the whole grind for "Diamonds" or whatever make-believe currency it is they want to make you "earn", and had read a bit about the main guy's past endeavours. The entire thing screamed ****ty, click-baity, bottomless moneypit to me. Also, their UI sucked ass, and Chesstempo's was (don't know if still is) just way ahead of them in every which way.

I might give them another go to see if maybe I was a bit too harsh on them.

ETA: Yusupov's 9 are on there? Isn't he super adamant on using real pieces and a board?

I believe Yusupov only has his first one on there as of now (I'm working through it). I'd be super pumped if they put them all on there.

He is adamant about using the board and writing variations so I've been doing all the initial positions and exercises with the board but all the spaced repetition on phone/computer.

Yeah, first one is there, second is on the way. They're planning to do all 9.

Their library is getting pretty ridiculously good at this point. I think it's finally hit critical mass and I kind of hope they focus less on pumping out more existing books.

Also, the unique books are really starting to come in their own. Normally just published what looks like an excellent book. Simon William's is soon. Harikrishna is doing one or already did. And I'm getting bogged down in books by lesser known guys who I've had lessons from online who have put out excellent books too.

Rubies. Rubies are almost completely unnecessary. One of the main features you could get with them is now essentially obsolete and I don't even think you need to be premium to use the feature that made it obsolete. The main thing I use rubies for is to buy back my streak one time when it was super expensive. Almost have enough saved up to do it again if necessary lol.

I'm not positive being premium is worth it for most ppl. But I have to admit I don't know what you don't get. I do know there are many features I assume are only for premium that are for everyone.

Last month went pretty well. My biggest struggle is still wanting to do too much and approaching burnout simply due to the pressure I feel - which is all very silly, this is a hobby for fun. And it is fun, but for some reason there is too much of an urge to push myself. This might be worthwhile if it was not just a hobby, but it's just a hobby!

I played all 4 OTB games. Won vs. the highest rated opponent I've ever faced (~2260) and won in the 3rd round against an 1800 player. But lost the other two games vs. 21xx players. The last round was particularly frustrating. I tried very hard to make good decisions, and in many ways I think I did. But I didn't hold a tricky endgame even though there was one moment when I didn't even consider the holding move. I ended up getting down to 8 seconds and spazzing out my second choice move for some reason. So time management at least in that game was lacking.

I've been spending a lot of time helping a strong titled player with a chessable book and that has actually been pretty fun. It ultimately isn't likely the most valuable use of my time but it may be worthwhile to develop a relationship with him for future coaching and simply for me to stay engaged. I kind of feel opening stuff is never super valuable but it has been fun and exciting so I think it's okay if I continue concentrating on that to some degree.

One thing I'm going to try to do is expand on YKW's recommendation and start reading some of the books I have without a board and without doing some sort of intense studying. Just read for fun and not worry about extracting every secret out of it. Leave the more intense stuff for training books or looking at my games.

Ok, I may also try to blog more - we'll see. Kid #2 is going to be here within a week so...yeah, who knows what I'll actually end up doing!

Time is short with kid #2 here. But everyone is healthy which is the best!

Also, apparently it helps my puzzle rush lol . Old record was 28.

Grats man!

And healthy kids (and mum) is >>>>>>>>> 2800 FIDE anyway.