@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/v7by5KzR)
> Tactics: you cannot study tactics. Tactics puzzles are overrated. Best way to train tactics is from your own games, or from annotated grandmaster games.
> Calculation: you cannot study calculation. Best way to train calculation is from your own games, or from annotated grandmaster games.
> Endgames: Yes, you can study endgames, e.g. from Fundamental Chess Endings - Müller & Lamprecht
> Strategy: the best way to study strategy is from your own games, or from annotated grandmaster games. A book can help.
> Openings: not really useful.
Aagaard references are from "Thinking Inside the Box" ('it goes to 11' type of chess book - if you know, you know).
**Tactics** can be studied thematically; it has been show that not everyone is aware of all tactical motifs and thematic study of tactics 'opens the mind' to such motifs where you begin to see them in your games and has a direct correlation for improvement in play.
**Calculation** is defined by Aagaard as **finding variations you do not see intuitively.**. you have two systems:
System 1 is the fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic and subconscious, known as intuition or pattern recognition.
System 2 is the slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, and conscious.
As for **Endgames and Openings**, very much studyful.
**Strategy** differs from Positional play (some try to refute this, but are confused) in that Positional Play is short term, intuitive and generally void of surprises, where Strategy looks into the future development and plans for them. It's hard to study Strategy from only your own games as much of those games may have faulty strategic lines. Best way is to study with a partner or sick the engine on if for better idea of moves along with good middlegame books. for strategy, Aagaard says you need to **slow down the variations running through your head in order to be in control of the process.** This is System 2 of Calculation - they are intertwined.
Thankfully you do not need to memorize any rules or processes here, except **slowing down**. It either comes or it does not. many players play strictly by **System 1: thinking - intuition**, and do not access **System 2** very often because they are unaware of strategic concepts nor how to calculate effectively. Their rating suffers from this. Often these are players who rarely use their time efficiently and often have a large percentage of their time left at game end, win or lose.
Accessing System 2 is **counter-intuitive** and requires effort on the player. Most chess players are lazy sods so they do not spend the effort on System 2. How many times have you stared at a position and just scream into your monitor "screw this; this move looks good..." with no further effort and rationalize the move to yourself as 'intuitive'. Yah, no. It's lazy chess.
It's not easy to slow down your chess, but that is where the wins are.
Even though I disagree with @tpr on a few of the points, it's a useful post. Thank you.
@tpr said in #16:
> ... I am of the opinion that after 200 hours like Lasker said you should reach 2000 rating. ...
Elo ratings were still decades in the future at the time that Lasker wrote.
@tpr said in #18:
> ... I mean 2000 lichess rapid. ...
Lichess was also decades in the future at the time that Lasker wrote.
@tpr said in #2:
> The largest part (50%) should be play and analysis of your own lost games.
> Then (30%) comes study of annotated grandmaster games.
> Then (20%) comes endgame study.
(Not Lasker’s advice.)
https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/chess-is-one-of-easiest-things-in-category-hard-stuff
Maybe, look at the table of contents of Learn to Play Chess Like a Boss (2019) by GM Patrick Wolff.
https://www.amazon.com/Learn-Play-Chess-Like-Boss/dp/1465483810?asin=1465483810&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1
Maybe, you can find something useful at https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/i-need-advice?page=2 .
"... annotated games vary widely in quality. Some are excellent study material. Others are poor. But the most numerous fall into a third category - good-but-wrong-for-you. ... You want games with annotations that answer the questions that baffle you the most. ... masters usually don't make the kind of instructive mistakes that amateurs learn the most from. In master-vs.-master games, the errors are usually minor and the punishment is so slow coming that the educational value is often lost. Perhaps the best game collection written specifically for novices is Logical Chess, Move by Move. It provides an explanation for every move and shows why the good moves are good and the bad ones are bad. Many of the games were lost by non-masters. ... there are major advantages to studying older games rather than those of today. The ideas expressed in a Rubinstein or Capablanca game are generally easier to understand. They are usually carried out to their logical end, often in a memorable way, ... In today's chess, the defense is much better. That may sound good. But it means that the defender's counterplay will muddy the waters and dilute the instructional value of the game. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)
If you decide to go for the Logical Chess book by Chernev, you might want to make sure that you get the Batsford edition in algebraic notation.
"... converted into algebraic notation ... Batsford's new edition of Logical Chess: Move by Move ... by Irving Chernev ... a collection of 33 games ... is definitely for beginners and players who are just starting to learn about development, weak squares, the centre, standard attacking ideas, and the like. In many ways, it would [be] a wonderful 'first' book (or first 'serious' book, after the ones which teach the rules and elementary mates, for example), and a nice gift for a young player just taking up chess. ..." - IM John Watson (1999)
https://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/assorted-recent-books
"... the situations in which trainers work vary enormously. ... Some trainers work with large groups of students and others individually; with average low-category players or with bright and highly talented potential stars. ...
That is why I am skeptical about any attempt to introduce a rigid methodology, rigid rules telling us what to do and how and in what order to do this or that. What should one begin with? Openings or endgames? Should he play open or closed openings, should he concentrate on main lines or 'subsidiary' variations? What is more important: a tactical mastery or a positional one?
Opinions of respected specialists, grandmasters and world champions differ greatly. Some claim that chess is 95% tactics, while others hold that the basis of chess is positional play. We should not take such statements seriously; they are worthless and only disorient people because each one reflects only a single facet of the problem. In fact, when we think over a dilemma, be it the one I have just mentioned or another one - for example, should we work to develop strong qualities of a player or to liquidate his weaknesses? - any unambiguous answer like 'we do either this or that' will be a wrong one. The truth lies in skillful combination of the opposite approaches, in search for an optimal proportion between them. And this proportion is individual for every particular case. ..." - IM Mark Dvoretsky (~2003)
@tpr said in #9:
> ... Puzzles are overrated. Solving 4 puzzles before you play is a good warm-up, but that is about it.
> In a real game nobody tells you there is a tactic, or for whom. ...
"... The fact that a position is offered as a puzzle to solve, profoundly changes the attitude of the player. ...
... the (justified) expectation of the solver: there is one -- probably rather special -- move that clearly surpasses the alternatives, and will bring big profit. ...
This is not meant as a criticism of puzzle books, for in my opinion, solving puzzles is a very valuable training tool. ..." - Move First, Think Later (2012) by IM Willy Hendriks
@tpr said in #12:
> ... Endgames: Yes, you can study endgames, e.g. from Fundamental Chess Endings - Müller & Lamprecht ...
"... Silman’s Complete Endgame Course ... I'm convinced that Silman's book will take its place in history as one of the most popular endgame books ever. ... He writes in a clear and casual style, and time and again has shown the ability to reach those who feel intimidated by the lofty approach that a grandmaster will often take. ..." - IM John Watson (2007)
https://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/theres-an-end-to-it-all
https://www.amazon.com/Silmans-Complete-Endgame-Course-Beginner/dp/1890085103?asin=B00H273OJS&revisi5a3244f2&format=2&depth=1
@tpr said in #12:
> ... Openings: not really useful.
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ... Read many annotated game collections ... By looking at entire games, the aspiring player learns about openings, middlegames, and endgames all at one fell swoop. Playing through annotated games spurs improvement as the reader learns how good players consistently handle common positions and problems. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf
[Event "rated classical game"] [Site "https://lichess.org/hCJPaDwl"] [Date "2026.09.23"] [White "attackingsultan"] [BlackElo "1847"] [Variant "Standard"] [TimeControl "1500+10"] [Annotator "lichess.org"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 Bb4 6 Nxc6 bxc6 7 Bd3 d5 8 exd5 Nxd5 9 Bd2 O-O 10 O-O Re8?? (0.35 --> 2.57) Blunder. Rb8 was best. ...
What went wrong here? 10...Re8 was an approximately 72-second choice. Could it be that you were attempting too much calculation? 11 Nxd5 Bxd2 12 Nxc7 Qg5 13 Nxe8 Bh3 14 Qf3 did not turn out well. If you had continued at the 72-second-per-move rate, and the game had gone on long enough, you would have been out of time before move 33.
Well I didn't read much
I believe the best way to train is:
GM Game analysis (2 hours- use either preannotated games from authors like Cyrus Lakdawa,Fischer etc or analyse from scratch)
Playing and analysing (3+2, 1 hour. 30 mins play- 30 mins analyse (openings only)
Openings (2 hrs)
Encyclopedia of Chess Endings (ECE) (2 hrs)
Tactics (morning- 30 mins night- 30 mins. 1 hr)
8 hrs a day (obviously not possible for some people, but this is the best way)
"... everyone is different, so what works for one person may likely fail with another ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf
I thought this was a discussion for best training ratio?@kindaspongey said [^](/forum/redirect/post/TlWRSafW)
> "... everyone is different, so what works for one person may likely fail with another ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
> https://web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf
I mean, sure. But everyone HAS to do openings, endgames,tactics and game analysis
Only the timings differ
@tpr
I must disagree with your opinion on puzzles.
Just because nobody will tell you that there's a tactic, it doesn't mean that they aren't good.
Furthermore, I would say one more thing. No matter how you look at it, tactics are a huge part of chess. And how do you expect to find tactics in games if you don't do tactics puzzles?
"how do you expect to find tactics in games if you don't do tactics puzzles?"
* By analyzing lost games and studying annotated grandmaster games.
@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/vQejI0lw)
> "how do you expect to find tactics in games if you don't do tactics puzzles?"
incorrect, not all games will be tactics.
Like that, in 50~ games you may only learn 5 tactics.
And 1 game should take 1 hr, so 50 hrs for 5 tactics?
Also, attacking players don't have "tactics" is their games, its mainly just deep calculation
"not all games will be tactics"
* incorrect, most games contain several tactical opportunities.
Most may go unnoticed prior to analysis. The winner of a game is often the player who spots a tactic.