99% of masters are unfit to be coaches. They're living in their own world of openings and lines and engines. The best coaches for beginner/intermediate players are the advanced players because they can relate both to masters (to some degree) and very much to beginner/intermediate players. It's much easier to relate to a 1300 player when you yourself were 1300 just a couple of months or years ago versus a GM who was 1300 like 25 years ago. It's not rocket science.
Your average chess player does not need to study any openings until they're into very advanced, almost master territory. Simply playing tens of thousands of blitz games will teach any beginner or intermediate player way more about openings than any course. And it will all be relevant stuff for their level as opposed to useless GM lines. Experience beats every other resource.
No amount of coaching or analyzing beats simply playing the game. Playing lots of blitz games without analyzing is way better for improvement than playing a few rapid games and analyzing. This is because beginner/intermediate players cannot analyze their own games properly.
Chess courses are useless for beginner, intermediate and advanced players. They only make sense past master level.
Tactics are the most important thing in chess after king safety. This is because a tactic can change the course of a game in an instant. People who can spot 3+ move tactics are better at chess than 99% of people. They're usually GMs but not always. Spotting tactics that work for yourself is great but even better is being able to spot tactics that work for your opponent and deal with them.
Stop worrying about blunders. If Magnus Carlsen still blunders his queen, you will too. Just accept that you'll always blunder something. You're human. Mistakes happen. And playing perfect chess is boring anyway. We have engines for that.
All that being said, the fact is that improving at chess is pointless and will harm you in the long run, just like any other multiplayer game. This is because competitive games are toxic for your mental health. The best advice I have for chess players is to stop caring about ELO or improving. Log off and play anonymous games. Or go play against old people in the park. You're going to have a much better time that way. Try to eliminate competitiveness from your life and you'll be much happier.
I have spoken.
Your average chess player does not need to study any openings until they're into very advanced, almost master territory. Simply playing tens of thousands of blitz games will teach any beginner or intermediate player way more about openings than any course. And it will all be relevant stuff for their level as opposed to useless GM lines. Experience beats every other resource.
No amount of coaching or analyzing beats simply playing the game. Playing lots of blitz games without analyzing is way better for improvement than playing a few rapid games and analyzing. This is because beginner/intermediate players cannot analyze their own games properly.
Chess courses are useless for beginner, intermediate and advanced players. They only make sense past master level.
Tactics are the most important thing in chess after king safety. This is because a tactic can change the course of a game in an instant. People who can spot 3+ move tactics are better at chess than 99% of people. They're usually GMs but not always. Spotting tactics that work for yourself is great but even better is being able to spot tactics that work for your opponent and deal with them.
Stop worrying about blunders. If Magnus Carlsen still blunders his queen, you will too. Just accept that you'll always blunder something. You're human. Mistakes happen. And playing perfect chess is boring anyway. We have engines for that.
All that being said, the fact is that improving at chess is pointless and will harm you in the long run, just like any other multiplayer game. This is because competitive games are toxic for your mental health. The best advice I have for chess players is to stop caring about ELO or improving. Log off and play anonymous games. Or go play against old people in the park. You're going to have a much better time that way. Try to eliminate competitiveness from your life and you'll be much happier.
I have spoken.
Doesn't get played != shouldn't be studied.
It's not about learning variations, it's about learning how to play positions that arise from / during these variations. There might be a bit of rote learning and knowing the main line and why those moves are chosen as well for practicality to reach said positions or get through bits that can't be worked out over the board. Though even then, if you forget or the opponent deviates, can you play what's in front of you without memorised book help.
Just because something is a bit rare at a level (especially tricky sidelines) doesn't mean it shouldn't be practised (without worrying about the moves too much) to learn what to do in positions like that. Quite possibly it would help towards understanding the lines you are likely to encounter (sidelines especially) and what players are aiming for both sides (if it's the mainline at top level). Also these days 'doesn't get played' doesn't mean much either as any 'fool' can study a GM repertoire and know some opening moves really well. The question is who is better at playing the position that results. This can be coupled with strategic lessons (e.g. IQP) which arise and analysis can show different ideas and help to get a feel for what is right when.
There is a lot to be said though for keeping the number of positions down to a minimum for the level and gradually adding to it, rather than having to be able to play anything from the get go. This is slightly different in feel to the OP where the word 'lines' get mentioned lots of times.
It's not about learning variations, it's about learning how to play positions that arise from / during these variations. There might be a bit of rote learning and knowing the main line and why those moves are chosen as well for practicality to reach said positions or get through bits that can't be worked out over the board. Though even then, if you forget or the opponent deviates, can you play what's in front of you without memorised book help.
Just because something is a bit rare at a level (especially tricky sidelines) doesn't mean it shouldn't be practised (without worrying about the moves too much) to learn what to do in positions like that. Quite possibly it would help towards understanding the lines you are likely to encounter (sidelines especially) and what players are aiming for both sides (if it's the mainline at top level). Also these days 'doesn't get played' doesn't mean much either as any 'fool' can study a GM repertoire and know some opening moves really well. The question is who is better at playing the position that results. This can be coupled with strategic lessons (e.g. IQP) which arise and analysis can show different ideas and help to get a feel for what is right when.
There is a lot to be said though for keeping the number of positions down to a minimum for the level and gradually adding to it, rather than having to be able to play anything from the get go. This is slightly different in feel to the OP where the word 'lines' get mentioned lots of times.
> “A small comment to my Grandmaster Coach about not fully understanding the French ....
Thank you for this comparative view of teaching offerings. Overwhelming quantity over well-chosen smaller quantity. Also, thank you for the visit into the shoes of the coaches that are also chess players from top level competition, or otherwise, having lots to display. As their knowledge, of improvising ability to recreate on board.
Although, clearly there is that issue for a big world of experienced based learning, to have an adaptive progression. And, yes, it is not automatically part of the offerings, which I might suggest (and I do) as inheritance from a certain tradition of looking at the best and assuming that imitating the best will magically make us, play like them; that might work only for opening lines that well educated players, but not necessarily best players, know to be playable and not branching too much, while still playable.
I wonder if there are no other ways to teach, that are not lines tracked forward, and then trickle of ideas in hindsight, that would justify that one line, but that on a real game, it might have been better not to have learned any lines, but have been dumped in many positions, and learned the ideas from their actual deployment, not when it was just an upstream idea. If players of same "level" were to not have learned their same line for example.
The coach, knowledge in the many lines, would be able to provide such a gamut of possibilities representing ideas that might exist in the bush of playable if one were just know the first 4 plies, approx. But the training would not be about how to get to one line of ideas, but give a transversal position sampling deep enough to feel the heat of those ideas in their face.
And then do the many times tested induction fun search task with student on wonder how could this position even happened, given the first few plies, that my lazy brain gets saturated already with, before it needs to switch into problem solving (including imagination of foresight nature, proportional to my experience). Yes. I switched to the I form.
Would that not be about the same amount of study hours than any given number of branching points (lines, as they are usually follow to end of book in one line), so same number of lines (too many, or few is not the question, sure few, but which few), but it might be covering more of chess neighborhood still remaining after 4 plies of committing away other positions.
And as some new theory of learning, trust that chess reasoning and chess knowledge can be independently very good in any chess interest or curious student, to the point that they would amaze the coach, if the coach just gave those tools, and let the student go wild with them, as building block in the autonomous experience.
The task of diving into already ripe positions for ideas to be manifest at current position, would not be a passive lecture or a video stream, it would have to be a question driven and guided exploration, within the knowledgeable coach guidance (choice of seeds, and herding of the Q&A (Socrates via Plato anyone?). Sometimes the students might even challenge the coach, that might have not had to verbalize a rational argument from position to action for others, because, they had it internalized for their own play, better that way.
Why the quote above? For the word "understand". The student did not say "not knowing" the french. But not understanding it. That might be a hint (even if fictitious :).
But I am only dreaming, and using self as point of reference, and my ambitions, which do exist, about chess, are not necessarily the user case intended or even the bulk of the audience. But not knowing what that is, I drop my iota (?) in this space.
Thank you for this comparative view of teaching offerings. Overwhelming quantity over well-chosen smaller quantity. Also, thank you for the visit into the shoes of the coaches that are also chess players from top level competition, or otherwise, having lots to display. As their knowledge, of improvising ability to recreate on board.
Although, clearly there is that issue for a big world of experienced based learning, to have an adaptive progression. And, yes, it is not automatically part of the offerings, which I might suggest (and I do) as inheritance from a certain tradition of looking at the best and assuming that imitating the best will magically make us, play like them; that might work only for opening lines that well educated players, but not necessarily best players, know to be playable and not branching too much, while still playable.
I wonder if there are no other ways to teach, that are not lines tracked forward, and then trickle of ideas in hindsight, that would justify that one line, but that on a real game, it might have been better not to have learned any lines, but have been dumped in many positions, and learned the ideas from their actual deployment, not when it was just an upstream idea. If players of same "level" were to not have learned their same line for example.
The coach, knowledge in the many lines, would be able to provide such a gamut of possibilities representing ideas that might exist in the bush of playable if one were just know the first 4 plies, approx. But the training would not be about how to get to one line of ideas, but give a transversal position sampling deep enough to feel the heat of those ideas in their face.
And then do the many times tested induction fun search task with student on wonder how could this position even happened, given the first few plies, that my lazy brain gets saturated already with, before it needs to switch into problem solving (including imagination of foresight nature, proportional to my experience). Yes. I switched to the I form.
Would that not be about the same amount of study hours than any given number of branching points (lines, as they are usually follow to end of book in one line), so same number of lines (too many, or few is not the question, sure few, but which few), but it might be covering more of chess neighborhood still remaining after 4 plies of committing away other positions.
And as some new theory of learning, trust that chess reasoning and chess knowledge can be independently very good in any chess interest or curious student, to the point that they would amaze the coach, if the coach just gave those tools, and let the student go wild with them, as building block in the autonomous experience.
The task of diving into already ripe positions for ideas to be manifest at current position, would not be a passive lecture or a video stream, it would have to be a question driven and guided exploration, within the knowledgeable coach guidance (choice of seeds, and herding of the Q&A (Socrates via Plato anyone?). Sometimes the students might even challenge the coach, that might have not had to verbalize a rational argument from position to action for others, because, they had it internalized for their own play, better that way.
Why the quote above? For the word "understand". The student did not say "not knowing" the french. But not understanding it. That might be a hint (even if fictitious :).
But I am only dreaming, and using self as point of reference, and my ambitions, which do exist, about chess, are not necessarily the user case intended or even the bulk of the audience. But not knowing what that is, I drop my iota (?) in this space.
So what do you think about courses like the ' Keep it Simple' repertoires from Sielecki? The way I use them is I only study the quickstarter chapters and play the repertoires, use the rest as a reference and only study lines I face a lot in my games. In the courses Sielecki is very instructive with explaining plans in the positions and the lines in general don't go too deep. I feel the lines are very well selected and perfectly playable when you don't know a lot about the opening or don't remember your lines.
It feels good to at least have some kind of repertoire while in the meantime not spending too much time on openings.
It feels good to at least have some kind of repertoire while in the meantime not spending too much time on openings.
Yes, but there are GMs who are good coaches (not because they are GMs, but because they have an additional ability of thinking like a normal chessplayer). Even if their percentage is not extremely high. I've learned the Zukertort variation (sometimes classified under "Rubinstein opening") in a GM course and this did indeed help me (for example in reaching draws against stronger players). Btw he never said "never offer a draw". :)
It's not a real GM line - it is a solid line which is quite easy playable.
And - playing with Black - I've returned to my old habit of playing the Sicilian, and this did also well in the last games (I've tried 1... e5 also on quite a few occasions, but the Ruy Lopez against a stronger player is no real fun, the Sicilian allows at least for a little pressure and uncertainties, although it is sometimes risky). After 1... e5 the only way for real confusion are some dubious gambits (but one still might try them...).
The Kings Indian with Black was another try after 1.d4, I am still not entirely convinced by this approach, I usually get "killed" on the queenside long before the kingside attack is even starting to bother the white king.
It's not a real GM line - it is a solid line which is quite easy playable.
And - playing with Black - I've returned to my old habit of playing the Sicilian, and this did also well in the last games (I've tried 1... e5 also on quite a few occasions, but the Ruy Lopez against a stronger player is no real fun, the Sicilian allows at least for a little pressure and uncertainties, although it is sometimes risky). After 1... e5 the only way for real confusion are some dubious gambits (but one still might try them...).
The Kings Indian with Black was another try after 1.d4, I am still not entirely convinced by this approach, I usually get "killed" on the queenside long before the kingside attack is even starting to bother the white king.
@Hurluberlu2 said in #6:
> (not because they are GMs, but because they have an additional ability of thinking like a normal chessplayer).
I think, that at some point that might be detrimental to performance, if not kept compartmentalized, which needs the same kind of dedicated effort as might have been put to the continued board performance.
There too experience, and results feedback loop, but about the coaching, will have the expertise effect have its word. I do not speak myself from experience as coach, but more as learner, and not necessarily about chess only. (I might have dablle in some teaching elsewhere, but mostly from learning and reading what poeple consider advice or teaching in chess).
so some salt on this post, please.
> (not because they are GMs, but because they have an additional ability of thinking like a normal chessplayer).
I think, that at some point that might be detrimental to performance, if not kept compartmentalized, which needs the same kind of dedicated effort as might have been put to the continued board performance.
There too experience, and results feedback loop, but about the coaching, will have the expertise effect have its word. I do not speak myself from experience as coach, but more as learner, and not necessarily about chess only. (I might have dablle in some teaching elsewhere, but mostly from learning and reading what poeple consider advice or teaching in chess).
so some salt on this post, please.
This is why I love Aman Hambleton's (chessbrah) opening speedruns. They are the most effective learning tool I have found across the whole internet.
He gives you the main ideas, where you want your pieces to go, and then just gets into playing through the rating levels using that opening. As he goes along you get constant reminders of what the main ideas of the opening are, and by the time you've finished the series you'll find you can play the opening to a very reasonable level.
He gives you the main ideas, where you want your pieces to go, and then just gets into playing through the rating levels using that opening. As he goes along you get constant reminders of what the main ideas of the opening are, and by the time you've finished the series you'll find you can play the opening to a very reasonable level.
While I agree that most of the GMs seem to live "in their own world" and have problems thinking "like a normal chessplayer" some GMs (I know at least one of this latter group) have - as a result of their coaching experience - the (additional) ability of explaining chess to normal chessplayers. Whenever Zigurds Lanka comments a game (for example in a magazine) he uses a lot of text and metaphorical language (like "porcupine attack" - although I forgot which specific position this was). An example of the other group is Boris Gelfand (he writes long complex variations nearly without verbal explanations).
Today I won (with Black) against the "Barry Attack", and it was helpful that I have played this setup myself a few times.
Today I won (with Black) against the "Barry Attack", and it was helpful that I have played this setup myself a few times.