Rapid Chess Improvement Method vs The Woodpecker Method

Everyone takes chess puzzle trainers for granted but 20 years ago there was no spaced repetition, iterative deep learning, puzzle rush or sliding difficulty and puzzle ratings. The pioneer of the discussion about chess puzzles and how to train them was an unknown amateur player. No not The Woodpecker Method.



The Woodpecker Method is famous, thanks to Axel Smith & Hans Tikkanen but not original. 16 years earlier the method had been set out already.



However there was a method that existed before the Woodpecker called the Rapid Chess Improvement by Michael de la Maza

All these "methods" are most likely crap.

@michuk said in #1:
> Everyone takes chess puzzle trainers for granted but 20 years ago there was no spaced repetition, iterative deep learning, puzzle rush or sliding difficulty and puzzle ratings...

And yet Alekhine or Capablanca would smash 99.9% users of this server :)

"... de la Maza ... recommends ... going through a set of 1000 tactcs problems seven times. One might imagine that a suitable set of 1000 positions would then be provided, but no, readers are advised to buy a piece of software ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

I could understand if we took different puzzles from different books and collectively trained with them, but to pick out just one book and say, "Ah ha!! All we have to do is read this one book and miracles will happen" is as beneficial as Miracle Whip is nutritious.

@michuk said in #1:
> Everyone takes chess puzzle trainers for granted but 20 years ago there was no spaced repetition, iterative deep learning, puzzle rush or sliding difficulty and puzzle ratings.

Dude, there has never been secrets for improving at anything ever. You have to do the grind.

The only changes over 20 years have been the comodities of having everything at the reach of the hand, but puzzles and means of study were always there. The grind was more difficult since it mostly had to be set up manually, not many willing to do it, but it was there.

The only real new thing is the computer analysis. But its not essencial as you dont understand computer moves anyways. Dont call new ideas to old methods.

I’d be more than happy if I could stop playing like a damned imbecile.. The How To Stop Playing Moves like an Imbecile Method would be great if someone could invent that... or maybe just look at my games. The material is already there. It just needs turning into an app.

@kindaspongey said in #4:
> "... de la Maza ... recommends ... going through a set of 1000 tactcs problems seven times. One might imagine that a suitable set of 1000 positions would then be provided, but no, readers are advised to buy a piece of software ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

GM John Nunn the same guy who wrote a book describing the theory of the secrets to practical chess. No workbook in sight...

#1
You seem to miss a point.
There were books by theorists before and I am used to prefer reading books than online.
In fact, online resources aren't that effective and have lost significant thing.
Yet another reason why old is gold.

@MrPushwood said in #2:
> All these "methods" are most likely crap.

Snake oil basically. Snake oil has been discovered and re-discovered for 1000s of years. We just have to wait for the new snake oil to come to market. Then the currently popular one will be forgotten. Maybe Getting Things Done (GTD) for chess? Or a knowledge management system for your chess 'learnings'?