"What do you guys think about the Woodpecker Method?"

Hey everyone!

I've recently started working through The Woodpecker Method, and I'm curious about what other chess players think about it.

For those who have used the book, how effective did you find the method? Did you actually notice an improvement in your calculation, pattern recognition, or tactical vision after solving the puzzles repeatedly?

Also, how do you approach the repetition part? Do you solve the same puzzles until you can recognize the patterns quickly, or do you prefer solving them from scratch each time?

I'd love to hear about your experience with the Woodpecker Method and whether you think it's worth the time and effort.

If put amount effort Mr. Tikkanen put in I am fairly sure it will have impact. Regardless whether it was Woodpecker or not. And you repeat full book puzzles I doubt that you would learn them by heart.

The title sounds better than the method.
The author GM Axel Smith is rated 2428.

Originator of the "system" Hans Tikkanen peak rating of 2596 and current rating 2475 is event better sounding. Of course he did not plan as system it just something he did as push to GM title. As said other training with equal intensity (6-10 hours a day) for several months will have impact no matter which sensical method of study will have huge impact

I'm not sure. I kept banging my head against a tree but it didn't help me get better at chess. Maybe I bought the wrong book?

More seriously, I think it's a good approach. Focusing on one area and drilling down on it so that you understand all of its intricacies, then doing the same with other areas, and coming back and reviewing makes sense to me. Haven't read the book myself but a friend did and he started getting good results in tournaments.

When it comes to puzzles, I prefer a mix of both. Some essential puzzles that cover a theme I want to learn, but also some puzzles where I have no idea what the theme is and I've never even seen the position before (so that it's similar to an actual game. Never forget the feeling of what an actual game is like!)

Here's an example: The Woodpecker Method 2: Positional Play starts with 60 "priyomes" (russ. приём) - there is no word in English for this. Sometimes it's translated with device or gimmick. A priyome is a kind of positional motif. You can call it gizmo if you like. Here is number one:

White continues with g5-g6 or Ng4, Ra2-g2 and h4-h5.

I've found it effective. But I would say it doesn't cause a permanent improvement. I feel like it helps you get into tactical form before a big tournament. Also I've used the method, but not the puzzles in this book. I have my own set of simpler puzzles. About 3000 that I try to solve under 10s average.

I feel like that it's not as good as it could have been, since they gave the restriction of world champion games only. Missed out on players like Rubenstein, Keres, and Korchnoi, to name a few

"I fear not the man who has practised 10000 kicks once but I fear one who has practised one kick 10000 times" ~Bruce Lee

Does this apply to chess, though?

no it does not apply to chess, but then again going 1000 puzzles several times in not really comparable single kick.