Data Entry

I have just begun compiling my opening repertoire into a tangible form which will allow me to review and study my particular lines. I guess in today's world note cards are a thing of the past.
Several different options of software are available and various methods to approach this monumental task but the results will be well worth it. Once entered, being able to search and update your opening lines with just a few clicks will be worth its weight in gold.

Currently Steve Lopez the "How To Guru Extraordinaire" of Chess Base fame is running articles on his approach to creating such a study book. Really cool read if you have the time.

Since this post is starting to run long I will have to continue this a bit later.

Return to Caissa

Ok I promised to give a brief run down of my extended absence once I had the time.
March was fairly normal until my Grandfather passed away. He was 94, his mind was still sharp but his body was just worn out. His health had been on the decline since January. Anyway I spent some time away from chess after his passing. Time with my family was and is way more important. Since my father and mother had been spending every waking moment by my Grandfather’s side this is the first chance we have had to see them in over 3 months even though they live 400 feet away. It's been really cool getting to hang out with them, and watching my son play with my dad.

Work, work, and more work. I have a stack of stuff with no end in sight. I even went in today to try and sketch out a plan of attack. Not that I'm stressing over the work load, I refuse to stress.
My boss has always taken good care of me, and I do what I can to make sure that his job is to never have to do any of my jobs. Anytime I can I try and take the strain off of him. Seems to work out really well for both of us.

The Chess Program.
Exercises.
I have resumed the 1000X CD where I last left off, and will continue to work through them until the Circles are completed.

Opening Study.
I'm spending a little bit of time each evening working on my opening repertoire.
Basically condensing main lines of the openings I play into a study database.
I take 3 or 4 sources and compile the database using the various assessments given by each of the authors. Time consuming to say the least, but it really paints a true picture of what can and can't be played in certain positions. Neat to see GM's disagree on what constitutes a favorable advantage.
The trick is to find out what kind of style you possess and the positions you like to play. Then find openings that fit your style of play. Some things you can force some you can't. If you don't know what your style is just pick something and learn it. The main thing is to avoid jumping from one opening to another just because you lose with it a few times. Just learn and have fun by getting a feel for the opening. It is amazing what it will do for your confidence level.

Time Off

Been away from the exercises the past week and a half.
Had to take a break, too much stuff going on to even try and explain.
Anyway, it is now time to get refocused and resume the exercises.

For Garland

I love you and I miss you.

New Math?

Leave it to me to add up the number of problems incorrectly. It only took one complete cycle of problems longer than it should have for me to catch the error. I am actually doing 600 problems each cycle instead of the 500 I gave in the original layout. I was beginning to wonder why I was a couple of nights behind heading into the second weekend. Figured I had taken one too many nights off. Then it dawned on me that the original idea of taking a rest day each week wouldn't fit within the 2-2-2 plan, if I wanted to maintain the same start and stop days. I even have it on paper as not working in my sketch pad of ideas. In my haste and desire to allow for the club night I somehow managed to view the second grouping of 50 problems as just one pass when I was adding up the totals. That's what I get for trying to squeeze everything into a 2-week time frame.
Sorry for the confusion. So here is the corrected version which allows for time off if you don't mind starting and finishing on a different day with each complete set of 100 problems.
Really it hasn't been a problem to tackle the problems on club nights, and it actually seems to serve as a warm up. I think the only night I can remember not doing problems prior to playing at the club was this past week, which may explain why I wasn't seeing anything at the board.

(4 nights x 25 problems=100) 2 passes = 200 problems [200 completed total]

(2 nights x 50 problems=100) 2 passes = 200 problems [400 completed total]

(1 night x 100 problems=100) 2 passes = 200 problems [600 completed total]

Here are the results of the previous 2 cycles.

Cycle 1 96% success ratio

Cycle 2 97% success ratio

1,200 completed 4,800 to go.

How do I miss mate–in-one exercises? Well it’s easy if you start to push on how fast you can complete the task. Normally I can do them inside of 10 seconds, the fastest has been 2 seconds. The average is 5 seconds per problem. It takes about a second or so to get your bearings with the side move, and just locating the enemy King. Yes I know rushing is a bad habit, but it something I wanted to try just to see how fast I could solve these easier problems. Back to solving before moving now that I’m into the Mate-in-2 problems. I promise no more blitz!

Also I started working through Jacob Aagaard & Esben Lund’s “Right Decisions” CD.

This really is an excellent CD, I picked it up after purchasing Aagaard’s book “Excelling at Chess Calculation” which I’m currently reading. (I think I mentioned that I had just purchased the book during our first online meeting of the Knight’s Errant a few months ago.) This is the first time to my knowledge that this has ever been done. (Averbakh’s “Comprehensive Chess Endings” gets honorable mention.) Meaning a CD created by the author to further reflect his ideas of his written work. Where Aagaard differs from Averbakh is in the fact that he mentions the companion CD in his book, and not the other way around.

Just imagine if Kasparov published an interactive Chessbase version of his “My Great Predecessors” works showing all of his analysis while personally talking us through the games. It would be huge.

Thoughts continued...

First Welcome Back Jim! And I finally got around to updating the links of the ever expanding list of family and friends.

Here is something else to think about. When Don and I first started the Circles, my success rates were slightly higher. We never once looked at this as a competition, we only added our success ratios because one the readers requested that we do so, plus it made perfect sense to keep a record to use later for a reference point.

But as the Circles reached the higher levels Don's calculation muscle kicked into high gear. While I could still solve the problems matching or bettering my earlier success rates, my ability to solve them more quickly with each consecutive pass didn't improve as dramatically as Don's. He soon left me in the dust with his success rates when it turned to the critical portion of timed exercises.

In hindsight I believe it was because Don took great effort to use his full amount of time per exercise in the lower circles. I saw or guessed at the answer and moved on, all the while growing increasingly displeased at the random order of themes involved, thinking of CT-Art as a sloppy way to learn tactics. Of course I was spoiled by my earlier exposure to the excellent training CD made by TASC called “Chess Tutor”. I later found out that this was a highly successful 5 step method pioneered by Rob Brunia and IM Cor van Wijgerden. It breaks tactics all the way down to the fundamental elements. For example when describing and teaching pins it gives the themes of King + Material, Material + Material, Material + Square. I cannot give this CD enough praise, every beginning to intermediate player should own it, or at least be exposed to its methodology.

Anyway there I was, focusing on a pattern recognition/theme approach because at the time I thought that was the key to improved tactical ability and the basis of Michael de la Maza's plan. Now I realize that I couldn't see the forest because of all the trees. But until the Knights were formed no one had really thought about the difference between pattern recognition and "Calculation Muscle".

So really Michael de la Maza owes his rating increase largely in part to a heightened ability to calculate variations quickly and accurately. That is not to say his ability to find the correct move wasn't intact, because I have a feeling he was very good at seeing patterns, nor am I dismissing what he achieved as an easy feat of accomplishment.

While he stresses the benefits as tactical improvement, he really should be calling it an improvement in calculating accurately. Because CT-Art used as he prescribes certainly serves no other function better than a calculation exercise. If you wanted to use it in another capacity you should switch the setting to either 1. Tactical Methods, or 2. Combinational Motifs.

Once I reach that portion of my training where I want to work solely on calculation muscle I will certainly consider the MDLM version of 7-Circles. I will still be hesitant about using CT-Art but you never know...

Actually it would feel kind of good to slay that buggy piece of work. Technically I guess
I could finish my remaining circles but that would kind of miss the point. If I’m going to do something I want to do it properly.

I'm wondering if this post breaks the "obtuse" barrier.

Congratulations Don! and Hang in there J'Doube

Way to go Randy!
That was a pretty arduous task!
Cheers!

Jim,
I certainly understand your frustration with the program material. I certainly wasn't happy with it. I felt it was too broad in nature for actually mastering specific tactics. But what I have come to understand after taking a step back from the program and keeping a watchful eye on the other Knights/Non-Knights is what purpose CT-Art serves really well. It came to me while reading a post from Takches about pattern recognition versus calculation muscle. That really got me to thinking about the importance of each, and their dependence on one another. Mainly it got me to thinking about what would be the best way to train each of the disciplines effectively. This is where CT-Art in a sense is useful. Not the best of applications mind you, but used with MDLM's training plan it will bring about improvement results.

CT-Art and the 7 circles build calculation muscle, plain and simple, and of course it does help with pattern recognition too. (If one really wanted to train calculation muscle exclusively the study of endgames would be a great way to start.)

This is something Don and I differed on initially approach wise. I like you, found CT-Art full of holes with the programming errors, duplicate exercises, etc. Drove me batty. I had little faith placing that much effort in something so flawed and at the time seemingly haphazard in its ability to teach patterns. Impatient was I, to the dark-side I turned... oops, wait wrong story.

I simply chose to take the path of training pattern recognition first, and what turns out to be calculation muscle second.

This is not to say one way is better than the other, you have to have a solid grasp on both if you want to make it past a certain level of playing strength. Matter of fact I don't believe either one would last very long without the other.

I found starting with something simple as a basic forced mates CD and working through that also holds the ability to train calculation muscle.

Of course the variations are much shorter, and the number of candidate moves one has to list is much smaller. But is this really a bad thing?

How can one isolate and identify a thought process error if he/she is overwhelmed by the sheer volume of possibilities present. Likewise how can one build a check list of search patterns/to-do list unless you can clearly identify the strongest move or threat in a given position? Doesn't it make sense to hone one's ability one move at a time? Then expanding the depth of search move by move. Studying mates allows you to filter out the “noise” found in the position. Personally I don’t mind solving exercises with the same mindset as practicing scale patterns a million times, or shooting a million free-throws if it gives me the ability to do said exercise blindfolded and upside down. As long as I get the correct answer and without hesitation.

So anyway I hope my obtuse ideas about training methods will be enough to persuade you to stick around, or at least get you thinking about coming up with your own plan.

Go Don!

Don is very close to the end of the 7-Circles.
It will be interesting to see what kind of experiences he has encountered over the last few days.
I'm hoping he will give us a detailed report of his mental state and thought processes.

Once Don completes this particular journey I say we all raise a glass and give a toast.

2-2-2

Two Pizzas, Two Toppings, and a Two liter beverage Mr. Pawnza?

No, actually it's my new method of working through tactical exercises.
I take a group of 100 problems total then I proceed to work through them in smaller blocks of 25 problems per night for two complete passes.
Then two passes at 50 problems per night.
The finale consists of two passes at 100 problems per night.
Simple and effective. I get exposure to the same problem 5 times, and I complete all of the groupings within 12 days. This allows for two complete days away from chess if I choose, or another form of chess activity. (I.e. Club night)
Another bonus is the final two days can be tackled on a weekend if one starts on a Monday. (Including the “off” days.)
Of course the starting number of 100 is one that I picked at random based off the material I am studying currently. (1000 x Checkmate CD)
I just filtered the games by number of moves, and created a database that I copied to my hard drive for ease of use. Plus it allows me to track my success rate by right clicking on the DB, selecting properties, and then the training tab.
Since I'm working through mate-in-one problems at the moment I figure 100 problems would be a manageable figure. The bottom line of course is the success rate, on which I have set 90% as being acceptable. If I fail to meet that target number I will simply have to repeat that particular set of problems again for the next 12 days.
Fortunately I met the minimum during the test run, so it is now on to the second group of 100.
I wanted to play guinea pig before I mentioned what I have been cooking up during my blogging absence.

Ahhhh! It is so nice to have a life again.

Life in the fast lane

At the last post I was heading out to play at one of the local coffee shops with some new players. That was fun, went really well and I held my own against the Expert, I think he ended up one game better out of the 6 or 7 we played.
Spent the past week doing the "1000 X" CD, and playing a bunch of blitz games on ICC and Playchess. I started out great in the earlier part of the week, and as the week wore on I found myself picking up the old habit of reacting and not thinking ahead. When I reviewed my mail stored games I was amazed at the amount of missed opportunities found on both sides. So I'm going to put a block on blitz games until my standard improvement levels out. I don't want to undo everything I have worked so hard to improve.
Other than that it is business as usual.

Quick Review

Things are finally slowing down, enough to where I will actually have the weekend off!
Off translates into not having to fix anything, build anything, or be somewhere that isn't my idea of fun. First thing tomorrow morning I'm going to meet with a few players for chess and coffee.
A couple of us from the club are going to play some of the local talent, and hopefully recruit some new members into our Thursday night gathering. The rest of the weekend I will spend bike riding and relaxing with my family.

Review Time:
I have been playing through the first 100 problems of the "1000 X Checkmate" CD over the past week. Along with easing back into the openings. First off I can tell a difference using the 3-D Fritz board versus the normal 2-D version. Last night at the club I didn't experience my normal adjustment period from computer monitor to OTB. I only lost 1 game the entire night, and that was to our resident Expert in the first encounter. In our second game I returned the favor to even the score. I guess the tie-breaks will be held tomorrow morning, I can hardly wait.

Back to 2-D versus 3-D, as a test I switched the viewing board back to 2-D for the first few problems and it took a few minutes for my brain to make the transition. In fact it was so noticeable that I have no doubt that I'm one of those individuals that suffers more than the average person when it comes to this type of thing. So for now I'm sticking with 3-D.

No I haven't quit

To answer Pale Morning Dun's question from the previous post.
Not by a long shot, I have simply shifted the time and material involved into a more manageable form. It would be safer to say that I have returned to Circle 1 so to speak. Tactics are still the main course as they should be for any player under 2000, but I'm also including some appetizers, along with desserts, and a few side items.
I think Don has already proven with his success at his recent tournament, that a player doesn't have to complete the 7-Circles before they show benefit. I have already given reasons as to why I picked the "1000 x Checkmate" CD in previous posts so I won't bore you to tears with all of that again.
Each day will contain a certain amount of tactical exercises from this CD, sometimes it will be the only thing scheduled for a particular day. Other times it will serve as a warm-up before working on other aspects. Tactics will always be a part of my training, only the percentage will change. (I read once that even Tal was known on occasion to look through books on tactics looking for something that he might have missed, though I can’t imagine he found very much.) But the focus is now placed on accuracy not accumulation. The litmus test will be my games.

I don’t think I can be the Knight Deviant de la Maza even though I like the ring of it, since errant and deviant are synonymous. I will have to leave my new title to our editor-in-chief DG.

Pick a link, any link

It just about takes me longer to read the through daily updates of all of the links than it does to do the exercises.
Anyway I have added Fussy Lizard, Yet Another Patzer, King of the Spill, and finally remembered to add Logis to the list. BTW Logis congrats on your new OTB rating! Good job, and don't worry you will get out of the slump.
Still haven't finalized my new study plan, but starting tomorrow I plan on working with the first group of 100 problems from the Chessbase CD that I mentioned "1000 X Checkmate" by Lubomir Ftacnik. Looking forward to using a 3-D board it will be so nice, and hopefully beneficial to my OTB play.

We are going to need a larger castle...

Don must be busy shaking hands and kissing babies. :)
Membership continues to expand faster than FIDE can produce World Champions.
Celtic Death, Temposchuckler, and Fussy Lizard (not yet a blogger) welcome to the family!

Just about have the start of my new program finalized, of course I expect to make adjustments and incorporate other facets of the game periodically. (But I do happen to agree with Michael de la Maza's approach of repeating the same exercises. I think it was the crucial element in his success.)
For starters the majority of my study plan will focus on tactical exercises; somewhere around 65% of my total time spent per week will be placed here. The remaining 35% will be divided up with end game study, opening study (Which will include playing through master games), actual play (OTB or STC) with analysis, and putting it all together.
My approach to tactical exercises will vastly differ from MDLM's, as far as the amount of new material added to the study plan. I will refrain from adding new exercises until I have a complete understanding of the initial problem group. I liked MDLM's 1,000 problem limit, but found it silly to work on Level 70 problems when I would still choke on the Level 50's. How effective is it for math students to tackle trigonometry when they haven't even mastered basic algebra? While I'm ranting... might as well unload this concept too. For the sake of argument imagine that you have to memorize a book that contains 1,000 pages of text. Which of the following two approaches makes more sense? A) Read the book from beginning to end over and over until you had it memorized. B) Break the book into chapters and memorize it chapter by chapter, with periodic breaks for reciting the memorized chapters. "B" of course unless you are one of those rare individuals who can retain everything they ever read after just one viewing, and if you are one of those extremely blessed individuals I doubt you are hanging out in my lowly "How can I improve from class "C' to "B" "blog. Unless you find my plight entertaining. Which it is, plus I'm cheaper than cable T.V. :)

So I will be utilizing the “Cycle” method by breaking things down into smaller manageable chunks. Think of mini cycles as chapters and macro cycles as the book or goal that I am trying to obtain.

Still playing around with the percentages, and how much theme overlap I want to include. The focus will be on accuracy first and foremost. But at any rate I plan on sticking with the course I chart out for myself and making adjustments after weighing the results at the end of the first macro cycle.

Stay tuned.

Avoiding the Sniffles!

Sorry folks, once again real life has taken over.
But the good news is I will actually start to have a little more free time.
We managed to sell both of our apartments this past weekend. WOO HOO!
I did spend all of Saturday making some repairs to satisfy the new owners.
Well actually just to help them out a bit. They both purchased the units "as is" but I said I didn't mind helping them fix a couple of things if it would help in their decision making process. So of course they seemed to think it would help, so I was repairing furnaces and replacing lines to a water heater. I still have a slight bit more to do this Saturday but I don't mind. Both of the folks are really nice people and extremely appreciative. Plus it will save them some money on having to buy new items for a couple of years.

Anyway back to chess, I just can't bring myself to fire up CT-Art and work on the exercises.
I find myself spending more and more time working on revisions, and figuring out ways to tailor the program to my needs. Along with the tinkering I'm focusing on making the exercises more productive. I just cannot see where increasing the amount of problems and reducing the time per exercise makes any sense if I’m starting to tank. The primary concern should be accuracy. Imagine that you play golf. What good would it serve if you were to hit a thousand golf balls at the driving range if your form was incorrect? All you would accomplish is reinforcing poor technique that would have to be unlearned at a later date.

I have a fairly good grasp on what I want to achieve, so hopefully by this weekend I should have my new study plan finalized. Returning to the equivalent of Circle 1 doesn’t bother me. I know that this is the correct course of action.

Added a few links to some really cool blog sites.

Working on a plan.

I’m going to use Don’s reply to yesterday’s blog as an opportunity to expand on what I was trying to convey. Don raises some interesting points about calculation muscle versus
pattern recognition. So I thought I try to clarify my beef with the 7-circles.

When I sit down to a real game I am seeing more tactics than I ever saw in the past, it might be safer to say that I can't turn the calculation muscle off. I'm flooded with tactics, I start looking at each little move, wondering what if this, then what if that? I haven't lost a single game due to a tactical oversight. But more in part to having to make a somewhat seemingly safe move which turns out to be positional weakness at a later stage of the game because of time pressure. But that is another problem. :)

I knew that I had glazed over the muscle part in Circle 1 and placed the focus on exercising it in Circle 2.
For circle 2 I spent almost the full amount of time, not because I couldn't find the answer, but because of double checking my answer to be on the safe side. I would find the key move fairly quickly then I would look over possibilities until I thought I saw all the "surprise" moves that could be played. Like J’adoube said don’t expect your opponent to play the “best” line.

Where my gripe with the program lies is in the amount of time allowed for calculation of the harder problems. There are more candidate moves and more branches to examine. In the introduction to his book "Excelling at Chess Calculation" Jacob Aargaard gives this position.

White has a King at a5, Bishop at a4, Knight at d7, and two pawns on a7 and b5 respectively.
Black has his King on b7, Rook on a8, Bishop on h4, and a single pawn on f3. This example is "White to play and draw".

After giving many lines of calculation Aagaard states
that he imagines the average GM between 2500-2600 ELO would spend 10-15 to make the right choice and would occasionally fail.

If the "average" GM is going to spend this much time on a 9 piece endgame how much time is enough for the average C player in a 20 piece middle game?

Of course there isn't an answer, but my point is shortening the amount of time with each consecutive pass on problems that we have faced on numerous occasions just so you can cram in more problems in the same amount of time doesn't make sense. I think the focus should be placed on accuracy while using a constant amount of time through out. (Work on getting things right first, and the speed will come to you.)

The improvement could then be easily gauged by the number of correct problems answered over the same amount of time. X amount of minutes per problem, and X amount of total time. You could allow 10 minutes per problem max and 1 hour total. (Yes I know that is just 6 problems.) Obviously we don’t have to spend 10 minutes looking at the level 10 problems, so you would just answer the problem and then move along to the next. At the end of the hour record your score, and play over any missed problems. You could work through the entire set of problems using this method. But I would prefer to limit the amount of problems to say 100 per set as opposed to 1,000. I like the idea of drilling smaller sections as opposed to volume work. This allows you to actually complete something and gain a sense of accomplishment. Volume work is like going on a long trip without a map or stopping to regain your bearings and then being surprised that you are lost.

Placing all of my eggs in one basket may be ok every once and awhile. But I seriously believe I need to apply what I have learned to real games. This feedback allows me to make adjustments based off of my game analysis. Plus it keeps things fresh.

I’m still a firm believer in using mates as the first theme of the exercises, because like I said the variations are pure with limited lines of calculation. I want to focus on being able to see one variation accurately, and then after mastering the technique of one line first start branching out to multiple lines of calculation.

Anyway I have really enjoyed the dialog that has come about from sharing our opinions about training technique. It really has gotten me to start focusing on ways of trying to improve, along with forcing me to create a program that is fun as well as balanced, tailored to suit my individual needs.
Ok off to check my mail.

Don started it...

Don made a very good point about maybe saving the newer Knights from the agony we have had to endure in his news release called The Nine (Ten) Circle Program.
First let me say that I like Don's approach, and agree that the focus should be on nailing the lower levels before moving up. My plans were to wait until the end of the exercises before revealing my suggested modifications to the Plan de le Maza. (Michael's 7 circles)

Mainly because I haven’t finalized them as of today, but believe me I have been giving it some serious thought.

These are some of the ideas rolling around, please note that my suggested modifications are based off of my particular experience with the 7-circles. They are tailored to help with my own chess improvement after analyzing my particular strengths and weaknesses that have occurred in my own games. If you think they can serve you great! If you think the plan would better suit someone else that is great too! Everyone is at a different level in their ability to play chess and training is not one size fits all. For example during the Knights Errant meeting we discussed a few topics. I mentioned that one of the problems I was having was about thought processes. My particular problem was how to decide when to stop looking at variations. Since starting the program I’m getting good games, but wasting tons of clock time by chasing down every possible move down to the nth degree.

So where do I draw the line. I have some theories but I won’t bore you with those.

Tonight I’m going to present where I want to go with my tactical training. Not the exact program, just where my head is at this particular time.

Michael de le Maza's focus seems to be on just piling on a ton of exercises until either one of two things happens. 1) You get better from the shear amount of tactical themes you have been forced to stomach. 2) Your head explodes. As for the first part... of course any individual that devotes this much time to tactical exercises will see an improvement. Without a doubt in my mind you will see some sort of benefit.

Who knows where Michael de la Maza was in his chess ability at the time he created the 7-circles, his approach properly coincided with a need to correct a deficiency in his own game, and it worked well for him.

As for me I am seeing where my ability to solve the higher level material in the recommended time has reached its limit. To continue to plow through exercises with a dropping success rate just to be able to say that I did it would be a colossal waste of time.

In reality you can't expect a huge payoff in any endeavor without some preparation first. You have to build a solid base that begins with the fundamentals, and then you increase your range. If you have a spotty success rate while solving a mate-in-2 do you really think saturating yourself with mate-in-7 exercises is going to have much benefit? If I tried to jump back into cycling resuming my training at the level I was capable of sustaining the last season I raced (18 years and 55 pounds ago) I would pop a lung at the bare minimum. Today of course I would have to train like I was a beginning rider. My only advantage over a beginner would be my bike handling ability, and hopefully the ability to spin a reasonable cadence in a low gear.
Other than that I would still have to log about a thousand miles or so before starting any kind of work using a large gear, to do otherwise would more than likely result in damage to my knees. So where does that leave us now that I'm back from being on what my geometry teacher called "off on a tangent"?
Base miles and lots of them micro cycle after micro cycle of base miles, there's joy in repetition.
A tall building needs a solid foundation so the focus needs to be placed in creating said foundation. You have to be able to nail the easy exercises, then and only then do you raise the level of difficulty. But you do not abandon the easier exercises entirely. You still

have to cruise over them with a periodic refresher. We tend to forget what we don’t use. On occasion I’m forced to resuscitate some archaic math formula at work. It is not that the formula is hard to solve, it is just through lack of use I find myself pausing initially until it loads itself back into my memory. Once it does it is business as usual. I can remember the formulas because I know them. But the hesitation comes from lack of use.

Same with anything else.

So with my tactical training I plan on starting at the beginning, all the way back to mate-in-one exercises and working my way up. I’m choosing mates as my base because they are pure. Meaning it is either there or it is not. No room for discussion, besides GM Short said it best with “Checkmate ends the game.”

Do I think I can end every game with mate? Of course not, but having the exposure to the different mating patterns will help with calculation of forced lines. We have a 1700 player (ex 1900 in his prime) at our club who would rather push a pawn than deliver mate. Not because he can’t see a mate-in-one but more because that is where his focus lies. (Trying to promote a passed pawn.) So I want to train my focus to look for mates first and then bettering my position.

Don is quoted with “In particular I've noticed that I have learned many mating patterns with knights and kings in the corner. I could recognize a smothered mate before, but now I feel like there are 20 or so floating around in there.”

Once I have the patterns down then it is on to something else.

I’m setting a limit to the amount of time to be invested each day, probably an hour on average, possibly more on certain days of each micro cycle. The emphasis will be placed on accuracy and quality, not shear volume.

I want to include other facets of the game too. Some days will contain endgame studies, openings on others. As for studying openings, I think it is a good idea to work with a particular opening, not because I plan on trying to learn every variation but because it will give me a road map through the minefield. Plus it will save on clock time by cutting out variations that don’t require calculation. For instance 1.e4, c5 2.Nf3, d6 3.d4, cxd 4. Nxd, Nf6 5. Nc3 is played without hesitation. No one at the higher levels waste any time looking for a mistake in those first five moves. The only thing the first player is waiting for is to see what the second player’s fifth move is going to be. Then they get to formulate some plan based on what particular variation the second player chooses.

Playing through games of a particular opening will help smooth the transition into the middle game. It will even help with shedding light on some long range plans and ideas.

End games are self explanatory the knowledge gained through study will help dictate exchanges in the middle game. It helps to know which minor piece will be superior based off of pawn structure. Of course these are just my theories, but having a plan is better than no plan at all.

So now I’m left with assembling a training schedule with those ideas in mind.

More on that later, now it is time for bed.

Quick 25

Forgot about the meeting last night. D'oh!

Tonight we hosted a Birthday party for my Father-in-law, after everyone left I managed to sneak in about 25 problems. I guess a little is better than nothing.
The first problems of a new level are usually the easiest, but I found myself taking more time than usual. Trying to look at each possible move and see the continuation before I made my guess. Time consuming but makes for better results.
I doubt I will take that much time again, unless I want to move the completion date back to April.

ELO 1550 (Start) -> 2152 Current
Scoring Percentage
Level 10 - 100% (Completed)
Level 20 - 97% (Completed)
Level 30 - 93% (So far)
422 exercises completed 533 remaining in circle 4.
89 days down 13 to go.

The madness continues...

Still going wide open in every area except chess exercises,
just not enough hours in the day to get everything done.
We have a big project at work that has to be ready first thing Monday morning.
Spent all of the past week crunching to make sure that it will go out the door on time.
I have about an hour or two left, but I will be able to sketch everything out on paper
tomorrow and enter the calcs when I go back to the office.
Needless to say I really haven't had the desire to sit down in front of a computer at home, after being in front of one for the majority of the day. Besides I have to sleep sometime, did I mention food and shower?

I can now predict how the night is going to turn out based off the first few problems.
On the off nights I find myself disregarding the opponents possible replies, along with not taking the time to make a check list of threats or looking for the squares that will fall under attack after a piece moves. Evenings that start out like this are going to be rough. So I need to develop a check list and start practicing going through the steps until it becomes second nature, or just not play those nights. :)
Anyway I'm hoping to make the Sunday night meeting of the Knights Errant on Pogo.


ELO 1550 (Start) -> 2121 Current
Scoring Percentage
Level 10 - 100% (Completed)
Level 20 - 97% (Completed)
396 exercises completed 559 remaining in circle 4.
88 days down 14 to go.

Quick Post

Yes I am still going, just in the middle of another crazy week.
Started last Thursday when my internet went out, but that's another story.
Fortunately I was able to reroute my line in time to make the first meeting of the Knights errant.
That was a lot of fun; we need to do that on a regular basis.

Knocked out the first 200 problems, these are getting so easy that it is becoming a reflex.
I have to attribute the ease of the exercises mostly to memorizing the patterns and not so much the actual answers. Reminds me of the way a new player struggles with how the knight moves, but over a period of time they begin to become comfortable with the L-shape and start to relax. So I guess the mini combos are an extension of that feeling. Which is good! That means it is something one can train with relatively simple exercises. But it is also something that can accumulate rust. No magnets this time, not even a ripple. :(

The few goofy problems that snagged me in the past do seem to stick out more, like pot holes on a familiar road so to speak. The drop off point is rapidly approaching. I seriously doubt that I can maintain my success once I hit the higher levels, certainly not with the time limit. It will be interesting to graph the impending drop. I'm finishing the Level 20 exercises in about 20 seconds on average.

ELO 1550 (Start) -> 2022 Current
Scoring Percentage
Level 10 - 100% (Completed)
Level 20 - 99% (So far)
200 exercises completed 755 remaining in circle 4.
87 days down 15 to go.