(2019 Version) My Woodpecker Method Experience

(Note: This is a copy-paste from my original 2019 version.  The more time has passed, the more I disagree with what I wrote.  Basically, I was too nice, and I will write an updated review shortly.  However, this was one my most popular posts on the old blog, so I have copied it here for reference.  Unfortunately, the images did not save, so you'll have to use your imagination on what my rating graphs looked like.  Sorry!)

The Woodpecker Method #10: Final Update

Final thoughts on my experience with this book.

It seems a lifetime since I went through the Woodpecker Method. It’s been 4 months since I did the last problem … and then I basically stopped playing chess. From mid-April until mid-June, I didn’t play a game. I did some other chess-related activities, such as creating my free course on openings, but I didn’t play a single game.

This makes it hard to draw conclusions. I had hoped to play several hundred blitz, bullet and longer-games and then compare the results, if any. This post thus has less hard data, but I can still state some conclusions with decent certainty, I feel. Let’s take a look.

Chess Burnout

This is the most obvious. I spent 70 hours studying these tactical puzzles, devoting more and more time each week, and completely burned me out. For about two weeks, I barely even looked at the chess board.

You couldn’t pay me to play. I went too hard, which is perhaps my fault, but it’s also what the Woodpecker Method demands: an ever-increasing workload with an ever-shorter timeline.

I mentioned repeatedly that this whole ordeal felt like work. And it did. And that’s the problem. Chess is supposed to be a game I enjoy, something I do for fun. By the end, this Woodpecker training became a second job. No wonder I needed a chess vacation after.

I had burned out from chess before, but never from over-training tactical puzzles. Not a fun feeling.

Minimal Immediate Returns…

The marketing materials for the book states something along the lines of one author doing the Woodpecker Method and then, boom, three GM norms in seven weeks. That raises the bar for expectations pretty high, and it didn’t really meet them.

When I first started, I got a nice boost to my blitz, bullet and tactics rating, which makes sense. I was training to solve tactics faster, so you would expected to see some improvement at the fast time controls.

That was it, though. I spent four months doing this, and nearly all the improvement came in the first six weeks.

… Potential for Longterm Growth

There are two indications that things may be looking up. First, look at my blitz rating graph (which is the rating I had hoped to improve the most):

[Note: I don't know if this is the exact timeline, but let's go with it]

The rating bounced up an down, but it more or less stayed in the same range as where I started (let’s ignore the uptick at the end for now). That’s, obviously, not ideal, and confirms the “no immediate returns” above. But there’s more:

[Note: This would be an image of my "best rated victories", which is now lost]

Literally all of my best victories came in the middle to end of the Woodpecker training, and the same is true for my bullet:

[Note: another imagine for my best bullet victories, also lost]

In this case, most of the wins came after finishing Woodpecker. If anything, my Bullet rating, the one I care about the least, may be what shows my most growth:

 

[Note: this is my entire bullet history.  I have basically given up bullet since writing this post, so this is more or less the same as when I wrote this]

Before Woodpecker, my rating bounced between 1700-1800, and peaking in the low 1900s. Since February 2019, my rating hasn’t dropped below 1900, and I have been inches away from 2100 during some hot streaks.

Woodpecker has had an undeniably positive effect on my Bullet rating. This makes sense, because you don’t have time to think with Bullet: it is pure intuitive and pattern recognition, and that is exactly what Woodpecker training increases.

I’ll be honest: if my Bullet rating hadn’t taken such a big leap, I would conclude that the Woodpecker Method is all marketing spin. The fact that I’m seemingly playing better, faster, after never being good at this mode, is a clear sign that I’m improving. It isn’t exactly the area I wanted to improve (woohoo, videogame chess!), but improvement is improvement.

Does NOT Prevent Blunders

This is my biggest takeaway, in all honesty: I still blunder. A lot. I throw away material, miss simple threats and hang my Queen just as often as before. Maybe even more often. And this makes sense if you think about it.

Working with the Woodpecker Method, or virtually any tactical resource, is about looking for YOUR moves. You scan every sacrifice, every shot, every attacking move, and then you play the best one you find. That’s great and all, but that’s 70 hours where you barely think about your opponent’s threats.

As such, if I have improved, it’s through seeing more possibilities for MY pieces. My ability to see threats hasn’t changed. Going through Woodpecker likely won’t prevent you from still dropping pieces. Now, my rating and tactical ability is a bit higher than average, so maybe beginners and intermediates will see more improvement in this area. For me, at my level, it’s non-existent.

You Don’t Need the Book

The Woodpecker Method book is nice and great and filled with interesting examples, but you don’t really need it. The magic of the Woodpecker approach is doing the problems several times. It works with any problem set. Just find some puzzles and go.

I would recommend doing smaller sets, in fact. 700 problems is just silly. Depending on your skill level, go somewhere between 50-200, and repeat those several times. Then grab a different set. Repeat as often as you like.

I would also suggest, given the choice, on using slightly easier problems. If you look at my ratings, and my tactics rating in particular, the biggest jump came after I completed the Easy Section.
Completing the Intermediate section, even after several times, had a lesser impact. The lower your rating, the more this applies: you want to see those simple tactical patterns instantly, so train simple tactics!

Recommended?

In the final analysis, I have improved, but not as much as I had hoped and not necessarily in the area I wanted. Part of this may be unreasonable expectations: perhaps I should be thrilled that my blitz rating is now mostly above 2000 rather than just below it. 50 rating points is pretty good.

When I trained with Smirnov’s courses, I went from 1800 to 2100 in correspondence chess, but that was over 18 months. Maybe there’s more to come? Maybe I’m still internalizing the intense puzzle training into my practical games?

I will say this: I am using Woodpecker-style training currently with some other material, but nowhere near as seriously as I documented here. I find it enjoyable and helpful. I think training this way has real benefits, but don’t get suckered into thinking it will instantly make you 300 points better. Don’t get caught up in the marketing, and don’t think you have to do it X number of times in Y number of days. Just train some tactics, and then do it again.

I should finish with this: I set new highs for both blitz and bullet ratings this week. Both then fell back down, but they are still new personal bests. That feels good.

[Note: this image would have shown that I set new max ratings for blitz and bullet the week this was published.]

I said at the beginning of the year I wanted to get a rating over 2100. That looked impossible six months ago, but with a little luck, just maybe I can get there.