
How to Get Good at Chess, Fast (2013) - andyjpb
http://www.gautamnarula.com/how-to-get-good-at-chess-fast/
======
b_emery
How to get good at anything (cribbed from the excellent Talent is overratted)

1) Practice just above your level (enough to be difficult and stretch, but not
demoralizingly hard). Get a coach to help you find this range. Do this as many
hours per day as you can tolerate, and the number you can tolerate should go
up over time.

To quote the book, practice:

"It is activity designed specifically to improve performance, often with a
teacher's help; it can be repeated a lot; feedback on results is continuously
available; it's highly demanding mentally, whether the activity is purely
intellectual, such as chess or business-related activities, or heavily
physical, such as sports;"

2) Be clear about your goals and motivations. These will help you get through
the difficult hours in 1)

The book is excellent and lays out the basics about getting good at anything.
(Notice that I'm not saying anyone can be world chess champion. The book
argues that it would be highly unlikely that any chess champion would get that
way without applying these principles.)

A lot of what is discussed here is the what and how to practice. These are
very valuable questions that I gloss over by saying, find a coach. Presumably
a coach would know this. Knowing what to practice, and designing practice is a
skill in itself.

~~~
j_s
_Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from
Everybody Else Kindle Edition_

by Geoff Colvin

[http://amzn.com/B001HD8NZ8](http://amzn.com/B001HD8NZ8)

$13.99 Kindle

an expansion of this article:

 _What it takes to be great_

[http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive...](http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391794/index.htm)

~~~
b_emery
Someone posted a pdf here:
[https://analizamatematicampt.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/tal...](https://analizamatematicampt.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/talent-
is_overrated-what-really-separates-world-class-performers-from-everybody-
else.pdf)

------
cven714
Stuck in the mid 2100s. The main difference I see when I play 1800s, and most
levels beneath that, is still tactics. A 1200 lets you fork their king and
queen. An 1800 goes into a variation that lets you fork their king and queen 3
moves in.

I make the same kinds of mistakes, allow positional concessions or just
straight-up blunder because I overlook tricks in the lines I thought were
safe.

Building up that mental repertoire of tactical and positional patterns by
solving puzzles and reviewing well played games is essential, no matter what
level. It's like building a huge in-memory cache of correct answers so you
quickly solve problems at the board.

~~~
S4M
Interesting, I am myself stuck in the mids 1900 (used to be 2000+), and I feel
that my tactics are quite good but it's my positional understanding that keeps
me under 2100.

~~~
j_h_s
My experience is that tactics is a spectrum. You can always improve your
tactics, no matter who you are. There is no player who never makes tactical
mistakes.

Whenever you feel like it's positional understanding that holds you back, that
just means that your tactics are at a higher level than your positional
understanding, so your opponents are less able to exploit tactical mistakes in
the games you play. Once you improve your positional understanding, your
rating will rise until you are facing opponents who are once again able to
take advantage of you tactically.

------
civilian
If you're someone who enjoys intense strategy games like Chess (and Dominion
and other modern euro board games), but you're disappointed in Chess for some
reason or another, I've got a game for you--- Go. Here are some chess players
speaking about Go:

 _" While the Baroque rules of chess could only have been created by humans,
the rules of go are so elegant, organic, and rigorously logical that if
intelligent life forms exist elsewhere in the universe, they almost certainly
play go."_ \-- Edward Lasker, chess grandmaster

 _" Chess has only two outcomes: draw and checkmate. The objective of the game
. . . is total victory or defeat – and the battle is conducted head-on, in the
center of the board. The aim of go is relative advantage; the game is played
all over the board, and the objective is to increase one's options and reduce
those of the adversary. The goal is less victory than persistent strategic
progress."_ \-- Dr. Henry Kissinger, quoted in Newsweek, 11/8/04

 _" What's happening with chess is that it's gradually losing its place as the
par excellence of intellectual activity. Smart people in search of a
challenging board game might try a game called go."_ \-- former Wold
Correspondence Chess Champion Hans Berliner, The New York Times, Feb 6, 2003

Learn to play: [http://www.usgo.org/learn-play](http://www.usgo.org/learn-
play)

The Seattle Go Center has events multiple times a week:
[http://www.seattlego.org/](http://www.seattlego.org/)

~~~
Jach
I think you lose a lot of potentials by comparing to (or outright bashing)
Chess too much... That said I have come around to seeing Go as the better game
after a coworker taught it to me, but it took Hikaru no Go and realizing that
playing mirror moves is punishable before I decided to get into it more with
books and try to reach my equivalent former chess level of 10 years ago, which
I think roughly matches somewhere in the single-digit kyu range.

I've been to a few lectures at the Seattle Go Center, and can confirm it's
pretty great. Unfortunately I live in south Renton and work from home so I
don't make it up there much.

~~~
knodi123
I, too, watched Hikaru no Go and then took up the game myself. Wound up
playing a few games with guys at work, it's a lot of fun.

------
onion2k
I've played chess casually for years, and my main observation is that no one
actually wins if both players are reasonably well matched. The balance tips
when a player makes a mistake that leads to them losing. Consequently, the
only thing you really need to do to not lose is to make sure you don't make
daft blunders, and to recognise when your opponent has. I'm pretty sure it's
different at higher levels where people don't make those errors nearly so
much, but if you're just starting out, rather than trying to win just remember
to not screw up.

~~~
modzu
"The winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."

~~~
V-2
Tartakower

------
SeanDav
I started playing chess at a fairly young age (5-6) and moved into competitive
chess vs adults at age 8 and playing near national level at around age 12. In
all that time I never read a single book about how to play chess, or try
memorize openings. What I did do is play a lot of competitive chess and
discuss strategy / tactics at every opportunity with strong players, both in
terms of my own games and also in general.

The original article pretty much nails it as a guide, in my opinion. Highly
recommended.

------
ColinWright
The massive discussion from two years ago is interesting:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6791742](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6791742)

------
erikb
He only mentions it indirectly but two things are crucial to your game as
well, and you should spend significant amount on that:

1) Get good ressources. He mentions a few books, but they may not be best
suited for you. There are also a lot of other tools, like training websites,
programs, video guides, classes. Reason is: Instead of experimenting out the
best path through some ideas, you can read about them and get that realisation
much faster. Having better ressources and knowing how to use them may cut 80%
of your time to achieve a certain goal.

2) Find the right better players. Not everyone that plays better can also
transfer some of that to you. And some people are simply just not right for
you.

Where books etc are the way to learning the right thing (instead of
everything), the right teacher is about giving you better feedback. You can
only see your own lacks and mistakes so far. A lot of your stupidest mistakes
you simply don't even see as a mistake. For instance, one of my major problems
in hitting (kung fu training) was that I slightly lean back while stepping
forward. How could you even realise that without a teacher/experienced friend?

Find good resources, find good teacher, learn from the mistakes/experiments of
others what is the right path, then do it a lot, then get feedback from the
right person, then continue exercise and feedback sessions for a few years.
Recipe to learn anything.

------
kenoyer130
"Chess and Programming - You have to be smart enough to understand it and dumb
enough to think it matters."

------
PaulHoule
If you want to revive Chess you should play Chess960.

It was such a bummer for me to explain to my son that you don't really have a
choice of moves in the opening...

A little study of openings definitely improves your games, but in ordinary
Chess the opening is about as interesting as bowling or watching golf on TV.

~~~
jegutman
1) Chess 960 is cool, but really misses a lot of the interesting parts of
chess. Also completely ridiculous to talk about "reviving" chess since chess
is at near peak popularity. Unclear what goal you're suggesting could be
achieved. Chess on TV? Chess a mainstream activity? I think there are lots of
reasons why this is really difficult starting with chess is very very complex
due to the availability of perfect information and several hundred years of
people studying it. It's still more popular to watch videos of people playing
chess than it would be of people doing biomedical research.

2) Openings are not as dead as you think. There are certain lines that are
more well studied than others, but until you're 2650 FIDE (don't worry, 99.99%
of players won't get there) you can deviate and have just fine results.

3) I think your thoughts about the opening are probably mis-informed. Look at
the games from the recent london chess classic here:

[https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-tournaments/london-
chess-c...](https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-tournaments/london-chess-
classic-2015/3/1/5)

In round 3 Vachier-Lagrave already spent 9 minutes as white on a single move
at move 9 in a open sicilian (maybe not as few choices as you're suggesting).

Again in round 4 he spent 5 minutes on move 9 in a sicilian and then 12
minutes on move 11.

~~~
apetresc
I have a feeling that the kid's frustration has less to do with deviating on
move 11 in an open Sicilian than with not getting to play 1. a4, 2. Ra3, for
example.

~~~
jegutman
Chess 960 isn't going to change that. Plus I bet a player would have only a
minor effect on his rating (the improvement might be slower) from playing 1.
a4 any except 1.. e5 or 1.. e6, 2. Ra3 every game.

------
V-2
I'm rather mediocre (1700ish on Lichess), but I feel one can't really improve
without playing long games. Blitz is addictive and doesn't require cutting a
committing chunk of time out of the schedule - but it remains a game of
chance, I believe it even develops some bad habits such as guessing, or
gambling moves (bet he won't notice that...). What do you think?

------
nikdaheratik
Started playing at a young age. Got really obsessed again for a few years in
college when online play was first coming out (Yahoo! Games, FTW), but it's
not something I've played for awhile. The advice is sound, especially the
"just study one set of openings and know it really well".

However, Chess is less fun than alot of other options because it does take
more practice to get really good and it's less social than board games (e.g.
Settlers of Catan, Pandemic, etc.), card games (Poker, Hearts, Bridge), or
online video games.

The plus side is the logical planning and longer term strategy boost from
study. The downside is that it's not going to help social interactions as much
and alot of what it teaches is contrary to alot of what you need to pick up
now, which is how to navigate among many different groups some of whom may be
working for or against you. In many ways, running a raid in an MMO teaches you
more useful skills than what it takes to get a really good ELO rating.

------
cybertronic
What would be a right way if I just wanted to play very aggressively, you
know, to impress or scare friends? :-) Lots and lots of tactics/puzzles?
(SFMBE)

~~~
anExcitedBeast
This wouldn't make you "good at chess", but you can learn a bunch of opening
traps and mate patterns like the Scholar's Mate and the Légal Trap. Some traps
are wicked simple (ie, e4 e5, nf3 nf6, nxe5 nxe4, qe2. If black moves their
knight to safety, nc6+ sacrifice wins the queen.).

------
Jabbles
Does anyone have an estimate for how much time "50 puzzles a day" takes?
Surely if the puzzles are actually stretching you, they'll take a few minutes
each? Is 50 realistic for an amateur player?

------
FireBeyond
Tangential, but:

1) best app for Mac (once upon a time I'd care if it was pretty, but not so
much now) for computer chess? 2) best communities for 'beginner-enthusiast'
and online games?

------
kushti
I would like to know how to get from 1800 to 2100, fast. I'm stuck at 1800
level for many years(I'm not an active player though).

~~~
ColinWright
From the article:

    
    
        To improve quickly you
        need to play often.

------
HardDaysKnight
I have no idea why this article is so popular. It claims to show the way to
get better at chess by the doing the following: 1. Study the opening, 2. Study
the middlegame, 3. Study the endgame, 4. Study your own games, 5. Study master
games, 6. Play OTB, 7. Study tactics, 8. Use "psychology," meaning, don't be
afraid and never give up. Along the way a few books and other recommendations
are thrown in.

This is all rather trivial stuff.

While, I don't disagree with everything that the author says, I think that it
should be acknowledged that his claim is pretty much unfounded. There are
those who have not done any (or all, or much) of these things and their rating
is above 1800, and there are those who have done all of these things and their
rating never comes close to 1800.

Beyond that the author does not seem to be aware of the well-known debate on
this subject.

There are at least, broadly, two views on chess improvement. One side, as
represented by Silman and Aagaard, argues that chess "meta-knowledge" is key.
A player must first look at the characteristics of the positions (e.g.,
understand Silman's imbalances), and with this understanding, and only then,
can a suitable move be found. This group usually advocates a "thinking
process" as well. The other side, as represented by Watson and Hendriks,
argues that it is only the moves themselves that are important, and the
correct move in many cases contradicts the "rules" of strategic analysis. For
this group, only "concrete analysis" of a position (i.e., looking at the moves
without prejudice) has any possibility of leading to a good move. In this
"concrete analysis" group, at least Hendriks (if I understand him correctly)
argues that in a tournament situation where there are significant time
restrictions, and experimentally moving the pieces is not allowed, only
knowing the position itself, or similar types of positions, can help the
player find the correct move.

So, we have the "meta-knowledge" group advocating the learning of strategic
and tactical ideas, and then applying that knowledge to a given position with
proper thinking technique. Accordingly, this group believes that if you want
to improve your chess, you need to learn more strategic and tactical ideas,
applied with an improved thinking technique.

And we have the "concrete analysis" group advocating the learning of the
correct move in specific positions. Accordingly, this group believes that if
you want to get better at chess, then you must learn many hundreds, even
thousands, of positions.

The truth is probably somewhere between the two extremes. My own experience is
that as far as tournament OTB play is concerned, I have benefited more from
the concrete analysis approach than anything else.

------
xyzzy4
Well the biggest obstacle to getting good at chess is finding a solid reason
why it's worth pursuing, as opposed to getting good at something else (or
doing nothing).

~~~
logfromblammo
This is very relevant. In the past, Chess was _the_ highbrow game in the
Western world--the one played and esteemed by those who believed themselves to
be above the median. Becoming good at Chess was therefore a means to impress
those people, and in turn everyone impressed by the opinions of those people.
If you were good at Chess, you had at least one socially redeeming quality.

There was a brief period where the ultra-intelligent switched to the highbrow
game of the Eastern world, Go, likely due to its greater difficulty at
grandmaster levels, and its well-established handicapping system that allowed
for entertaining games between people of different skill levels.

Now, there are thousands of games played by elites, and none of them have such
a clear advantage that anyone would put their leaderboard position on their
resume. I already know how to play Chess well enough to let my boss win
(without making it obvious that I threw the game), and I have plenty of other
games that I can play when I actually want to have fun.

So why would I spend any more time practicing just that one game? I could try
to improve my Go ranking, or play Hive, or build a new M:tG deck, or get
better at Risk.

Many of the reasons people had in the past to play Chess well are no longer
applicable _exclusively_ to Chess.

~~~
qntty
>esteemed by those who believed themselves to be above the median

An interesting counter point to this idea:

[https://medium.com/message/why-chess-will-destroy-your-
mind-...](https://medium.com/message/why-chess-will-destroy-your-
mind-78ad1034521f)

~~~
logfromblammo
That 1859 article-writer is lucky he lived before computers were invented.

His head would have exploded in moral outrage, from all the people engaged in
non-productive amusements, to the general detriment of society.

Those who attempt to make other people ashamed of having fun are just the
worst. I catch myself being judgmental and snarky sometimes, but in keeping
with the nerd code, I have never intentionally tried to make someone else feel
bad about themselves for liking something I don't like. My personal niche
obsession might be infinitely superior to yours in all possible ways (in my
opinion), but that doesn't make you a bad person. It just means you're from a
different nerd tribe.

