Rapid Chess Improvement

What Hacker News says

1. creature_xDec 2023
   I built a Chess app called SpicyChess(https://spicychess.com) that has a training component which leverages spaced repetition and strict time constraint to increase your pattern recognition ability for tactical motifs. SpicyChess also allows you to "bookmark" a puzzle for review later on. The philosophy behind the training regiment is inspired by the following two books which have been very helpful in improving my game: reading Rapid Chess Improvement, The Woodpecker Method.
   Show morethread
2. pclmulqdqAug 2024
   Here is IM Silman's (known for being one of the best chess coaches in the world when he was alive) review of his book:

   https://web.archive.org/web/20190911065113/dev.jeremysilman....

   > When all is said and done, I can’t recommend Rapid Chess Improvement (a book that, in my view, offers a philosophically bankrupt vision of what chess is). It smacks of "the blind leading the blind.” But, as I said earlier, his book might prove useful for some.

   Also, a rating improvement from a 1300 start after a long spell of no rated games often means a lot of skill improvement in that gap, and then a corresponding adjustment in rating. Perhaps the guy was a bridge or Magic: the Gathering player and already had a decent intuition for games and needed to transfer that to chess. Disregarding that drilling 1000 tactical problems sounds a lot like a memorization plan to me, he also clearly knows the e4 opening given the game analysis quoted in Silman's review.

   From https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-michael-de-la-maza-st...:

   > Like many adults, he assumed that he needed to augment his natural skills and intelligence by compiling chess knowledge: he studied openings, endgames, and other "chess knowledge" information. Despite all that accumulation of knowledge, he was getting nowhere.

   Huh... did someone study some openings and endgames? His tactical game was likely the weakest part of his game so he remedied that error and got rapid improvement. Not in spite of failing to study openings and endgames, but because he did study them, just out of order.

   Sure he didn't know the quarter-pawn-advantage grandmaster lines (which you don't need to know as a 1600), but he knew the traps and how to avoid them.

   Show morethread
3. rmrfrmrfNov 2013
   > "One big mistake is to rely heavily on computers for chess analysis. Computer analysis should be done only after you analyze the game on your own."

   This isn't correct information anymore, in my opinion. Chess engines have improved tenfold over the last four years (when the author says he stopped playing). The increase in the strength of chess engines has subsequently caused an increase in the "humanity" of chess engines, meaning that, instead of playing bizarre moves that are strong yet incomprehensible to humans, they play principled, sound moves that are strong tactically and strategically.

   The main thing that you will miss as a sub-2000 player (or ever, really) is tactics, which is exactly where computers excel. A computer will be able to tell you tactics you missed and will allow you to experiment to see how different moves would have improved your game.

   I agree that you should analyze games with your opponent after the game (and also with stronger players), but keep in mind that, if you're both sub-2000, you'll both miss obvious tactics even as you review the game, which doesn't really improve your chess thought.

   One last thing: the 400 points in 400 days training comes from the book Rapid Chess Improvement, which I do not recommend for the beginning player (the knight exercise is good, though). In it, Michael De La Maza wastes time blasting Jeremy Silman and the strategic approach to chess games. Some people like the book for the mild drama it started, but the tl;dr is "tactics, tactics, tactics," which pretty much everyone will tell you.

   Show morethread