Rapid Chess Improvement Method vs The Woodpecker Method

@swimmerBill said in #40:
> Our library had de la Maza's book. I read it and thought it would have made a good 4 or 5 page opinion post on a blog about how to develop tactical vision. Padded with lots of repetition to be a thin book it became terribly boring. His description about how to pick a next move was borderline nonsense. He does deserve some credit for pointing out early that class players can improve their results by improving tactics rather than studying openings.
####
I take it it that you swimmerBill never got the promised 400 points in 400 days! Neither did poor I! (!?xyZ?! grr)

However MdlM himself went to like 2040 USCF and won the under 2000 class prize at a World Open ($10,000 US smackers). So something in his approach worked for him based on his empirical results. I think that he got + 600 points USCF in like 2.5 years. These results provide some basis for him to spout his ideas and experiences.

I agree that the book was flawed for sure. I think that he needed a better editor to help him. BUT hard to argue with Cycling through a large set of exercises aiming to go faster with greater accuracy each cycle/ crop circle.

The specifics about the quirky move generation procedure are not the real issue. If you can come up with your own consistent move generation approach - well you could reduce blunders especially and also tactical mistakes - the most common ways to lose games for non-titled players.

The links to the original blog-like posts:

Part I
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles148.pdf
Part II
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles150.pdf

MassChess - (I could not find part1 on this site)
http://www.masschess.org/Chess_Horizons/Articles/2001-04_Sample_400_Points_Part_2.pdf

This critique seems toned-down from what I vaguely remember maybe a different piece
www.jeremysilman.com/book-review/rapid-chess-improvement/

www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/2hryuq/does_de_la_mazas_400_points_in_400_days_training/

PS: Based on current chess improvement scientific literature, you can pretty much do anything that you want. There is no consensus and the findings are all over the map.

@SaltWaterRabbit said in #41:

> PS: Based on current chess improvement scientific literature, you can pretty much do anything that you want. There is no consensus and the findings are all over the map.

I am actually curious about that literature. I am not surprised about the lack of conclusive experiments, but i am curious about the state of the art in possible metrics used in such literature. Perhaps some author name or "seminal" paper title. could get me started. I would search in semantics scholar (something of the kind) and would get my finger on related streak of publication.

or a link if that is easier. Thanks for that mention about possible data.

@SaltWaterRabbit said in #41:
> ####
> I take it it that you swimmerBill never got the promised 400 points in 400 days! Neither did poor I! (!?xyZ?! grr)
>
> However MdlM himself went to like 2040 USCF and won the under 2000 class prize at a World Open ($10,000 US smackers). So something in his approach worked for him based on his empirical results. I think that he got + 600 points USCF in like 2.5 years. These results provide some basis for him to spout his ideas and experiences.
>
It was long ago, but the best I can recall, from 18-20 I went from 1600ish to high 2100's, won our state championship all while finishing a college degree and passing my grad school PhD prelims in math. Pretty much I did it by playing & studying Fischer's book, Keres's book and Pachman's MCS. I think a big jump is highly plausible at some early times in our lives. I dont think my jump was particularly special. Alas, I cannot give him the credit. -Bill

So studies like this aren't going to turn an average player into an IM or GM, It's for beginners and people seeking to improve their elo by 100-200 points. Right? I say bravo!

@ThunderClap said in #11:
> 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

How do you work at your game, though? Play? Watch videos? Tactics trainer? How did you get so good?

@Dallasisanortard2 ... I'm not THAT good but yeah Decent ... You get better by doing everything' ... So Play Study Study Play ... Play through Complete Games as you will get different Openings Middlegames & Endings Tactics Attack & Defence . You can also watch Chess Videos Read Chess Books & these days You can check everything with computers GL Study Play Play Study . Even on Facebook I get games popping up under videos GMC Chess king's Hunt etc . also try some Common Sense ... if the position demands Defence or Counterattack do so

@Akbar2thegreat said in #26:
> Don't know what's the discussion regarding John Nunn has arose but let me tell you that he is literally the best theorist ever and I am saying cause I have read many books and found his most beneficial.

And then at his peak after writing a book on the Najdorf he gets smashed off the board in the same opening by Kasparov. Hmmm let us think about that empirical evidence!?

Did MdlM ever play Kasparov?

For what it's worth I was around 1800 USCF when I read the woodpecker method and increased to 2050 USCF over the course of 6 months, although I trained a lot of other stuff and read many other books so it's definitely not just that book that improved me but who knows...

You just have to play. A lot of games. Then a coach can help to lighten the agony, but if you're on your own then be prepared for a long haul ...