So I think' New Methods are Cool 7 cannot but help 7 older methods as well ... as long as you are working at your game you will do better than not doing so ... I even on facebook have h=games popping up at me all the time under videos GMC Chess ... Kings Hunt & Others seem to pop up & I watch with that catchy music Fischer sweep Taiminov for Instance or Botvinik vs Petrosian Match etc etc .... Then I go over many Complete games here under Broadcasts so many games ! that are already completed
@kajalmaya said in #10:
> 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.
in case of woodpecker method author assumed that which book/set of puzzles does not make difference. Mr Tikkanen - after whom the method was named - used random books. And description of method does fit into one page. It was demand from the snake oily buyers to get a specific set of puzzles.
Well at least both methods require huge amount of work. So no good snake oil here. we want a half an hour video after we crush everyone who makes misktaks of opening with e4. I don't want stuff that require several hundreds hours of work with huge intensity.
> 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.
in case of woodpecker method author assumed that which book/set of puzzles does not make difference. Mr Tikkanen - after whom the method was named - used random books. And description of method does fit into one page. It was demand from the snake oily buyers to get a specific set of puzzles.
Well at least both methods require huge amount of work. So no good snake oil here. we want a half an hour video after we crush everyone who makes misktaks of opening with e4. I don't want stuff that require several hundreds hours of work with huge intensity.
Very easy to write off these "methods" as crap or as snake oil.. Statements most likely made by people who haven't attempted them.
It may say Rapid on the cover but in my opinion there is nothing rapid about it. An enormous amount of time and effort needs to be expended while working through these "methods".
But alas people don't want a simple and hard method they want a complicated and easy one
It may say Rapid on the cover but in my opinion there is nothing rapid about it. An enormous amount of time and effort needs to be expended while working through these "methods".
But alas people don't want a simple and hard method they want a complicated and easy one
@michuk said in #8:
> GM John Nunn the same guy who wrote a book describing the theory of the secrets to practical chess. No workbook in sight...
I do not see "the theory of the" in GM Nunn's title. Inside the book, I do not see promises of great results from doing something or other seven times. I DO see a substantial number of specific examples illustrating GM Nunn's ideas.
web.archive.org/web/20140708110907/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review580.pdf
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Secrets_of_Practical_Chess_-_New_Enlarged_Edition.pdf
Here are some excerpts from an approximately page-long Michael de la Maza description of one drill:
"Use [these drills] if you feel that you are missing obvious opportunities or are taking too much time to find simple moves. ... start with the knight on a1 and move it to b1 in the shortest number of moves, ... physically hit the squares that the knight moves to, but do not move the knight itself. Once you have completed the a1-b1 circuit, move the knight from a1 to c1. ... After you have completed all of the circuits that start on a1 and go to all of the other squares on the board ..., move the knight to b1 and repeat the process. ... This drill will take half a day to complete. ... (64*63) pairs of squares ..."
GM Nunn subsequently commented: "Quite honestly, I think most people would prefer to give up chess rather than go through this!"
> GM John Nunn the same guy who wrote a book describing the theory of the secrets to practical chess. No workbook in sight...
I do not see "the theory of the" in GM Nunn's title. Inside the book, I do not see promises of great results from doing something or other seven times. I DO see a substantial number of specific examples illustrating GM Nunn's ideas.
web.archive.org/web/20140708110907/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review580.pdf
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Secrets_of_Practical_Chess_-_New_Enlarged_Edition.pdf
Here are some excerpts from an approximately page-long Michael de la Maza description of one drill:
"Use [these drills] if you feel that you are missing obvious opportunities or are taking too much time to find simple moves. ... start with the knight on a1 and move it to b1 in the shortest number of moves, ... physically hit the squares that the knight moves to, but do not move the knight itself. Once you have completed the a1-b1 circuit, move the knight from a1 to c1. ... After you have completed all of the circuits that start on a1 and go to all of the other squares on the board ..., move the knight to b1 and repeat the process. ... This drill will take half a day to complete. ... (64*63) pairs of squares ..."
GM Nunn subsequently commented: "Quite honestly, I think most people would prefer to give up chess rather than go through this!"
IM Jeremy Silman reported about a Michael de la Maza passage purporting to show how one could think move by move:
"... Opponent's threat: No significant threats. Decide move: 1.e4 of course! 1.e4 c5 Opponent's threat: No significant threats, but watch out for ...Qa5. Decide move: No tactics. 2.Nf3 or 2.Nc3 are both reasonable. 2.Nf3 d6 Opponent's threat: No significant threats. Decide move: No tactics. 3.e5 is most shocking. Continue development with 3.Nc3. ..."
web.archive.org/web/20200526115123/https://www.jeremysilman.com/book-review/rapid-chess-improvement/
"... Opponent's threat: No significant threats. Decide move: 1.e4 of course! 1.e4 c5 Opponent's threat: No significant threats, but watch out for ...Qa5. Decide move: No tactics. 2.Nf3 or 2.Nc3 are both reasonable. 2.Nf3 d6 Opponent's threat: No significant threats. Decide move: No tactics. 3.e5 is most shocking. Continue development with 3.Nc3. ..."
web.archive.org/web/20200526115123/https://www.jeremysilman.com/book-review/rapid-chess-improvement/
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/WoodpeckerMethod-excerpt.pdf
One can see the table of contents of the woodpecker book:
1 Easy Exercises 31
2 Intermediate Exercises 69
3 Advanced Exercises 197
4 Solutions to Easy Exercises 223
...
One can see the table of contents of the woodpecker book:
1 Easy Exercises 31
2 Intermediate Exercises 69
3 Advanced Exercises 197
4 Solutions to Easy Exercises 223
...
@kindaspongey That is exactly what I was going to quote. What a dumb exercise. Nunn points out that Michael de la Maza's rating didn't go beyond ~2000 and he gave up chess. Nunn then suggests that traditional training methods are much better.
@michuk Nunn has written dozen-plus books on all sorts of topics - understanding chess move by move, understanding middlegame, understanding endgame, grandmaster chess move by move, chess puzzle book, tactics, 1000 checkmates, Nunn's Chess Openings, endgame challenge, various other endgame tomes, and so on, and also added notes to several older collections like Alekhine's best games, Keres's best ganmes, .... So what more workbook are we expecting?
Woodpecker Method - the book - may be very good as a collection of challenging problems. So are many other puzzle books (and also several puzzle collections available online). My negative feeling about the book is because of the spaced repetition spin, which is is trendy, and some elaborate guidelines (which are in both these books - woodpecker and rapid ...). As a result, the book has been successful in selling.
@michuk Nunn has written dozen-plus books on all sorts of topics - understanding chess move by move, understanding middlegame, understanding endgame, grandmaster chess move by move, chess puzzle book, tactics, 1000 checkmates, Nunn's Chess Openings, endgame challenge, various other endgame tomes, and so on, and also added notes to several older collections like Alekhine's best games, Keres's best ganmes, .... So what more workbook are we expecting?
Woodpecker Method - the book - may be very good as a collection of challenging problems. So are many other puzzle books (and also several puzzle collections available online). My negative feeling about the book is because of the spaced repetition spin, which is is trendy, and some elaborate guidelines (which are in both these books - woodpecker and rapid ...). As a result, the book has been successful in selling.
From above mentioned silman reference:
"How much work did de la Maza do? Lets have him tell us: “It took me about twenty months to achieve a rating of 1900 and during that time I studied two to three hours a day for a total of approximately 1500 hours of study. In addition, I played approximately 200 chess games, each of which took approximately three hours for a total of 2100 hours of study time."
well not a snake oil. actually if some put 2100 hours directed to study to chess in what manner what so ever he is gonna be lot stronger thatn that
and woodpecker method let see what Mr. Tikkanen did (being IM and aiming for GM) Fom "Pump Up Your Rating" says that Tikkanen spent 6-10 hours daily to solve problems till solved 1000 problem then 1 day break and the same 1000 problems again. no mention how many times he did those or how long the rounds took. exept round 2 took half of the time of round one and he repeated it untill he could solve all 1000 in a long day.
so estimate that is hundreds of hours of work and hard to say more accurately. Anyway again amount effort spent on problem solving in anymanner again would make most players stronger
Not that many people have the time or determinatio to do it
"How much work did de la Maza do? Lets have him tell us: “It took me about twenty months to achieve a rating of 1900 and during that time I studied two to three hours a day for a total of approximately 1500 hours of study. In addition, I played approximately 200 chess games, each of which took approximately three hours for a total of 2100 hours of study time."
well not a snake oil. actually if some put 2100 hours directed to study to chess in what manner what so ever he is gonna be lot stronger thatn that
and woodpecker method let see what Mr. Tikkanen did (being IM and aiming for GM) Fom "Pump Up Your Rating" says that Tikkanen spent 6-10 hours daily to solve problems till solved 1000 problem then 1 day break and the same 1000 problems again. no mention how many times he did those or how long the rounds took. exept round 2 took half of the time of round one and he repeated it untill he could solve all 1000 in a long day.
so estimate that is hundreds of hours of work and hard to say more accurately. Anyway again amount effort spent on problem solving in anymanner again would make most players stronger
Not that many people have the time or determinatio to do it
I completely subscribe to the notion that doing a ton of easy puzzles will help improve tactical vision. I'm not 100% sold that it has to be the same set of 1000 puzzles that repeats....
skimmed first page only.
I think the woodpecker method may have been applied to chess after intuition began to be acknowledged as an integral part of chess decisions, if not a dominating one the further one would get experience and test it in time controlled chess games a la tournament variety. I am asking if that is an ok statement (not going into details).
Is is possible that the method would need dissection itself, into parts and it might be blending many aspects of chess learning and performance (i already made one split here). That from such dissection as to what exactly it might be good for, and what it might be missing about the components needed, one might identify complementary things to devise training regimen with?
To people who managed to get where they are by pure person-hours and random walk through chess space (so they keep telling, as if they had looked at themselves going all those year), any word about speed or rapid would smell funny.
But maybe, there is something to pick worthy in all those sources of information. I think reasoning, self-awareness, and dissecting preconceived truths, while appearing a waste of time, with some transient expansion might help making some progress.. Yes some data could also pepper such discussion process.. here or anywhere. been done?
What is intuition. how does it gather information and how does it impart itself into non-intuition cognitive processes (is it out of reach of rational thinking just by being sub-conscious in one individual?).
I think the woodpecker method may have been applied to chess after intuition began to be acknowledged as an integral part of chess decisions, if not a dominating one the further one would get experience and test it in time controlled chess games a la tournament variety. I am asking if that is an ok statement (not going into details).
Is is possible that the method would need dissection itself, into parts and it might be blending many aspects of chess learning and performance (i already made one split here). That from such dissection as to what exactly it might be good for, and what it might be missing about the components needed, one might identify complementary things to devise training regimen with?
To people who managed to get where they are by pure person-hours and random walk through chess space (so they keep telling, as if they had looked at themselves going all those year), any word about speed or rapid would smell funny.
But maybe, there is something to pick worthy in all those sources of information. I think reasoning, self-awareness, and dissecting preconceived truths, while appearing a waste of time, with some transient expansion might help making some progress.. Yes some data could also pepper such discussion process.. here or anywhere. been done?
What is intuition. how does it gather information and how does it impart itself into non-intuition cognitive processes (is it out of reach of rational thinking just by being sub-conscious in one individual?).
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.