What is the most effective way to study?

[Johnathan Rothwell]

Hello everyone,

Recently I have been wondering what the most effective/efficient manner of studying a subject (in this case chess, but it could be any subject really) is.

Is it better to:

A) Find a number of sources and then read them all completely in a linear fashion. A manner similar to that described in Euwe's The Development Of Style in Chess.

Or

B) Read them all synoptically, taking a particular concept at a time.

For example I have, The Development of style, Masters of the chess board, My System, Reassess Your Chess, Modern Chess Strategy, amoung others. Should I read them one at a time or take a concept - lets say the two bishops - and read what each author has to say on that particular concept?

Would it also be useful to study related concepts as well? Such as learning endgames of BvKn, BvB(opposite and same colour) before learning about the two bishops, in order to put them into context.

I haven't studied anything for a very long time, so it would be useful to hear what standard practice is, especially from teachers/students/educationalists.

Thank you,
Johnathan.

[Paul McKeown]

I assume this is you? About 100 ECF at the moment. Then I think any decent book will help, provided you work hard at it.

Practise tactics (insight into the resources of the board) and calculation (getting the accountancy right) as often as you can; a website like chesstempo.com may be of help there. Look at as many different types of positional ideas as possible, an annotated games collection is useful for this, e.g. 500 Master Games of Chess, Tartakower, or more recent, Understanding Chess Move by Move, Nunn. Endgame knowledge that you acquire should include getting the basics of pawn endings secure, the basics of rook endgames (rook on the seventh in the presence of many pawns, rook behind a passed pawn when pushing it or when defending it, activity of the rook, using the king to support passed pawns), the opposite bishops fortress, weakness of the knight when opposing a bishop with play on both sides. Middle game concepts you should study should include good bishop/bad bishop, good knight/bad bishop, strength of the isolated queen pawn when attacking the king or when creating play on both sides of the board, exploiting pawn weaknesses, particularly ganging up on an isolated pawn or doubled pawns with reference to Nimzowitsch's statement of the methods. With regard to openings, get a decent book with lots of explanatory text (emphasis on ideas, rather than book variations) on all the mainstream openings and try them all out to get a feel for them. Play lots. Play against weaker players to get used to beating them, play against stronger players to learn from them, play against your peers to test your progress.

Lots to learn.

Hope this helps.

[Andrew Bak]

I don't know if you are a junior or how long you have been playing for, but here are some of my thoughts:

If you have never read a chess book before, the first one you read will probably influence how you play chess for the rest of your life. My first book (when I was aged about 13/14) was called "The King Hunt" by John Nunn, as you can probably guess it was full of games where the king was chased all over the board with many sacrifices and tactical motifs. To this day I like to play open, tactical games (I am now 24 years old). Contrastingly, Kramnik's first book was a collection of Karpov's best game and he attributes this as a big factor as to why he has always enjoyed queenless positions, endgames and strategical struggles.

Personally, I think you should spend the majority of your time studying tactics, combinations and basic endgame positions. There is no point being an expert of which trade you should make if you make a tactical blunder 5 moves later. Tactics first, strategical concepts later.

[Johnathan Rothwell]

Hello Paul, and Andrew.

No, I'm certainly not a junior! I've played for twenty years or so but only on the internet, or before that with friends. This year, after changing my work hours from evenings to days, I decided to join my local club.

It took me a while to get used to league play, but this season I've started well, with four wins and a draw so far. My first rating - if i'm working it out correctly - should be around 110/120.

Both of you give good advice, the first book I read was Fundamentals - by Capablanca.

My question wasn't so much what to study - I gave the two bishops merely as an example - but how to study. I am going to follow the path laid down in the Development Of Style In Chess - Roughly - 1)checkmates, tactics, and kingside attacks. 2) Strategy(classical) 3) Endgames 4) Hypermodern/modern strategy 5) Opening theory.

Should I read, say, My System, when I get to learning about modern strategy - and read it all through or read the chapters on the pin and discovered attack as well as a lot of other chapters in separate books (the section on pins in Understanding Chess Tactics for example) together to get an overview on that particular concept (pins, discovered attack or whatever it happens to be) when studying tactics.

Thanks,
Johnathan.

[Arshad Ali]

If you have never read a chess book before, the first one you read will probably influence how you play chess for the rest of your life. My first book (when I was aged about 13/14) was called "The King Hunt" by John Nunn ...

*Sputtering up my coffee* -- you mean the book by William Cozens. Nunn changed it to algebraic, corrected some notes, and replaced a few games. And put his name in front of poor Cozens on the cover: "Nunn and Cozens."

[Arshad Ali]

For example I have, The Development of style, Masters of the chess board, My System, Reassess Your Chess, Modern Chess Strategy, among others.

With the exception of Silman's Reassess Your Chess (4th ed.), I doubt these books will make you stronger. They probably won't hurt you but they belong to an earlier era -- one more dogmatic, one tending to emphasise general principles over detailed calculation, and one often getting the detailed calculation wrong because of positional and strategic preconceptions. If I had to recommend something it might be Lakdawala's recent book on Capablanca or Polgar's How I Beat Fischer's Record or Gulko's Lessons with a Grandmaster or, say, Aagaard's 2-volume Attacking Manual or -- well, there's a plethora of more recent books on endings, combinations, positional play, development of chess style (e.g., Kasparov's My Great Predecessors), and openings.

[Johnathan Rothwell]

Thanks for the reply. To be honest the particular books, or the subjects, was irrelevant. I have plenty of sources, both modern and old. My question was not what I should study. It was how to go about studying. A question more to do with the theory of education/learning than with chess itself. I had been hoping there might be some teachers on the forum. Not to worry.

Thanks anyway.

Johnathan.

[Thomas Rendle]

I'll try and answer the question. My feeling is that it's probably a good idea to study a concept at the time, but I don't really think there's a wrong way to study. The important thing is that you're playing regularly enough to get a chance to put into practice what you learn. Otherwise you learn lots of new things but without getting a chance to use them it's likely that you'll lose a lot of that work.

[Johnathan Rothwell]

Thanks Thomas, my gut feeling is that you're correct - about both points. To really improve I think you need to play at least 50 games a year, if not more.

Cheers,
Johnathan.

[Greg Breed]

I would suggest you have the board and pieces set up when you read a book. Certainly better than using a 2D computer screen or your mind (that comes later). At the early stages of development you want to see what is being described in words and play out the thoughts on the board. This helps you to memorise the relevant patterns or themes. Try reversing colours for example and/or flipping the board left to right so that you can see the same pattern four different ways.

Personally, I tend to read a book through, but I actually believe it is better to work on a particular theme and work solely on that for a bit. Put your newly learned training into practice as often as possible when playing online by deliberately focusing on that aspect, but when playing league or tournaments try instead to incorporate it into the global scheme. Am I rambling? Probably.

I remember when I was learning about a particular Queen sacrifice that led to check mate with 2 bishops. That season I tried hard to get it and eventually succeeded. A very pleasant feeling I must say. The end result is that some years later I have retained that knowledge and can spot the opportunity for such a thing if it arises.

I will however, agree with most that to get back into the swing of things, tactics training is always a good place to start as it kick-starts the mental functions required to spot and follow through on the concepts.

[Greg Breed]

Thanks Thomas, my gut feeling is that you're correct - about both points. To really improve I think you need to play at least 50 games a year, if not more.

Cheers,
Johnathan.

Totally! I started chess back in 2001 aged 25. Pretty late some might say but I was enthusiastic. I played about 10-20 graded games a year. I was a steady 100 grade, then I started playing some rapid-play tournaments and long-play congresses and my grade went up. Playing in more leagues has bumped up my level even more. I can also attest that playing stronger players improved me. When I was playing lower board in a lower team i was perhaps winning more but learning less. As my grade went up so did the strength of my opponents. My grade dipped, then plateaued, then began to rise again. I hope it is a pattern that continues although sadly I think I have reached my peak right now unless I too start to do more studying!

[Johnathan Rothwell]

Hi greg,

I agree with using a board, trying to replicate the circumstances of league/congress play as much as possible must surely be the most effective training. I might try playing solitaire chess and trying to go through the whole game in 90 min - 180 min in a session. We play 90 min for all moves per player in my league, but my opponents may not use all their time.

Thanks,

Johnathan.

[Colin S Crouch]

Surprising perhaps that no-one has suggested yet the importance of the computer in analysing a player's game.
If you want to improve your own game, the best way must surely be to study and analyse your own games, and to work out where and why you went wrong. In the old days, like when I was young, this would have been an extremely difficult task, since all that is possible to do is to say "I think this was a mistake, and I think that this would have been a better move", and quite often you will be moving around in circles. The great think about computer chess engines is that you will instantly have several possible reasonable moves in any particular position, and there is a provisional assessment as to which moves are likely to be best in a position, and which is bad. If the computer suggests you have made a mistake, or even a minor slip, then think about it closely. You will be certain toimprove your understanding of your play.
I suffered a stroke many years ago, with significant damage to my brain, and the loss of most of the use of my eyesight. I dropped well over ten grading points, but I recoevered them back. It was only through systematic thinking about chess that I could have re-improved my game. I wish I hade done it much earlier.

Colin

[Clive Blackburn]

For example I have, The Development of style, Masters of the chess board, My System, Reassess Your Chess, Modern Chess Strategy, amoung others.

Personally I can recommend Jeremy Silman's "How to Reassess Your Chess" (4th edition).

I bought it in the Spring of this year, worked through it during the summer and already my performance so far this season is vastly improved. Hopefully the effect will be lasting!

I don't know how much time you have spent on the Silman book but I find that his style is extremely effective. He writes lucidly and keeps on reinforcing the same points over and over again (just in case you glossed over them the first 5 or 6 times). At the end of each chapter there are exercises to solve - don't just skip the exercises, spend as much time on them as you can afford to!

[Johnathan Rothwell]

Thank you to everyone who has posted.

I have recently got involved with something of a study group with a couple of other players in my club. This involves a number of things such as:

A book club, where we attempt to critically read books a chapter at a time and discuss them. We have decided to begin with Understanding Chess Tactics by Weteschnik. In part because we all had copies of this book.

Also, the annotation of each other's games.

Playing email games where we write down our thinking process and then share these annotations after the game. We have tried to come up with a systematic decision making process, which we apply to each move.

Sharing resources and general discussion.

Thanks again.
Johnathan.