How I Made My Biggest Leaps

Frustratingly, improvement in chess rarely comes in neat linear fashion.  We like to imagine that spending X number of hours means Y number of rating points, but it doesn't work that way.  Chess is a grueling climb, with ratings slowly inching up in between long periods of plateaus and dips.  Sometimes, though, we seem to magically level up and jump dozens if not hundreds of rating points seemingly overnight.  

I have been fortunate enough to have at least three of these level-up moments.  Today, I want to briefly list what I was doing just before each phase, and then to give a summary of the common factors.  I can't guarantee copying this will give you equally large leaps, but perhaps training like this is something to consider.  Certainly I plan on doing this more.

TL;dr: play lots, study master games and master one book / course / subject before moving on.

From Noobie to Strong Beginner: Immersion

I learned chess at the age of 6, and I quickly became the best person in my school.  This is not saying much; it wasn't a big school, chess was not popular at all, and I doubt anyone would have hit 800 on today's online sites.  Simply put, I was the only person to take it seriously.

More than that, I played essentially a different game.  My grandfather and I played long games, maybe 2-4 games over several hours.  My grandfather played slowly, and that forced me to spend time thinking.  I naturally put more "reps" in.  My school friends didn't think at all, instead playing the first move that came to mind near instantly.  It's no surprise I improved more than they did: I put far more quality time in.

By grade 3 I was the best person in my class and by grade 6 I was unquestionably the best person at school.  Three things stand out.  The first two are obvious: I played a lot and I played slow, the standard advice for centuries.  Something else stands out, though.  My grandfather took chess seriously.  Our games were sacred, a semi-spiritual bonding.  My friends played chess once a month on a rainy day, whereas it was something that I lived for.

Conclusion: I started playing chess online in high school, and I was in the 1300-1400 range.  Not prodigy level, but stronger than many people that start out online.  Technically, I did it without studying.  I did not review books or do tactical puzzles; it was simply pure immersion, of spending quality time at the board and treating every single game seriously.

I suppose that this is not so much a "leap" as it was "building a solid foundation," which helped with my next (legitimate) leap.

From Beginner to Intermediate: Books and Videos

I won't lie: when I was the best chess kid at school, I assumed I was hot stuff.  When I started playing online and lost ... a lot ... it hurt.  I did not have the greatest self-image, and chess was one thing that gave me confidence.  In this one area I thought I was good ... and suddenly I realized I was not.  I had to right this wrong and restore my self-esteem, and that's when I found chess books.

My local library had about three books, and one of them became my new best friend: Tarrasch's "The Game of Chess."  I read that book cover to cover at least four times, and I probably read the middlegame section alone another ten.  Yes, Tarrasch is dogmatic, but that's exactly what I needed: give me a bunch of general rules that work 90% of the time and then I can use them.  Tarrasch did that in spades.

I also played a lot during this time.  I don't have the exact numbers, but in a three year span I played roughly 1,500 correspondence games.  I had between 30-50 games going at any given time, and I dove deep into some of these positions.  On an average day I spent 2-3 hours playing and analyzing these games, which doesn't include my time reading the book.  It didn't feel like work, though.  I loved every minute of it.

Conclusion: For about two years Tarrasch was my constant companion. My rating quickly spiked up to 1600 and then slowly climbed to 1800.  Somewhere around this time I got a copy of Chessmaster 8000 and access to Josh Waitzkin's lessons. I wrote about that elsewhere, so I won't rehash it here.  Suffice to say, for two years I relied on two sources and made my biggest sustained rating increase.

From Intermediate to Advanced: GM Smirnov

Once I hit 1800 I plateaued for nearly a decade.  I describe this as my "wandering in the wilderness" phase.  Sometimes I played chess 20 hours a day, othertimes I didn't touch it for a calendar year.  I read voraciously, hoping to find a new book that would spark improvement, just as Tarrasch did at first.  No dice.  Indeed, despite how hard I studied at times, I remained rooted in place.

At some point I found GM Smirnov's YouTube channel and his associated site.  I resisted the urge for awhile, but I eventually gave in and bought his big course, "Grandmaster's Positional Understanding."  Wow.  Best chess investment ever.  I studied it for three months, roughly an hour each day, and afterwards my rating steadily climbed passed 1800 and over 2000.  My results floored me, and I bought all his existing courses and most of the follow-ups as well.  None produced the same breakthrough feeling, but it barely mattered: I busted the plateau.

It's worth pausing here to describe this course.  It has about 6 hours of video instruction and then several hundreds of exercises.  You look at an exercise, think about it, apply the course concepts, and then compare your notes with Smirnov's.  These are "positional tactical puzzles", if that makes sense.  The entire game is also included.

Conclusion: I spent about three days watching the videos and then three months going through the exercises. This course was my solitary focus. I would think hard on the given position, doing the recommended 10min think.  Afterwards, I also reviewed the entire game, trying to use the same thought process on the resulting moves.  I thought of this as extra homework, a chance to practice the ideas even more.  I really, really enjoyed it, and it sure helped that my rating jumped way up.

What Do These Have in Common?

1. Time: I spent many hours going through the material and/or thinking through each position.
   
2. Quality: I used good material and tried to find the best move (as opposed to quickly guessing without much thought).
3. Focus: I immersed myself in one book / course, and I went through until I had it cold.

I think this last point is key.  In each case, I focused on one thing (games with my grandfather, Tarrasch's book, Waitzkin's videos, Smirnov's exercises) to the exclusion of all others.  Nor did I do it once.  I read that book many times; I watched the videos many times; I did the exercises ... okay, I honestly did most of the exercises only once, but I applied the same lessons and ideas to the entire game rather than just the one position.  Effectively, I expanded the exercises, giving myself a chance to practice many times.

In other words, I went through these materials and extracted every last drop of wisdom.  I didn't get to the end and move on to the next thing; I got to the end and did it again.

It's also worth looking at the actual process.  Generally, I spent a large amount of time studying real games.  With my grandfather, each game lasted a minimum 30min.  Josh's videos ranged from 20min at the low end to well over an hour.  I spent 10+min on one position in Smirnov's exercises, and then another 10-15min going over the rest of the game.  At the maximum, I went through three games an hour, and it was often fewer.

Compare this to my "usual" routine.  Read a book once (not even completely) and immediately jump to the next.  Watch whichever YouTube videos randomly appear in my feed.  Do some puzzles here, then some Chessable reviews there, with various blitz sessions thrown in.  There is no focus, no quality time.  It's all superficial, just going through the motions.

In contrast, my big leaps focused on going through complete games (or at least the critical positions) played by strong chess players.  There's an expression, "If you want to fly like an eagle, don't hang around with chickens."  I think the same applies here: if you want to be a strong player, look at what strong players do.  See their games, see what moves they make, and compare that with your own.  Do that enough and the strong moves will become intuitive ... at which point you will be a strong player.

How I Will Train Going Forward

Basically, I am going to copy the above commonalities in my training:

1. I will immerse myself in one book (or one topic, such as calculation or endgames);
2. I will invest lots of time, with a focus on quality and understanding (as opposed to just getting to the end); and
   
3. I will repeat it until I know it.
   

This doesn't mean I will never do some internet puzzles or watch a YouTube video.  That would be silly.  Rather, that will not count as training.  I can't kid myself that I'm improving if I just do those things.  Training requires something more.  I've perhaps only truly trained during these few times in my life.  Let's see what happens when I change that.

I don't know what topic I will start with, and I have no shortage of chess material to work through.  Honestly, I might just start doing some deep analysis of a few master games to get my feet wet and then see what sparks my interest.