Road to Grandmaster

[Arshad Ali]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that hard work is a great substitute for natural talent in chess ... Personally, I'd consider 4 years to go from 1900 to 2200 realistic ...

What might be a road map from 1900 to 2200? What has to be studied, practiced, and honed? A trainer like Mark Dvoretsky takes players who are already rated ~2200 and takes them over a period of some years to ~2600 level; his attitude is, "I don't care how you got to 2200 level, and I might not know how to advise you how to get to that level -- my forte is getting you from 2200 to 2600." The initial part of the road -- from 1900 to 2200 -- seems to be unmapped. Accepting your premise that hard work and basic intelligence suffice begs the question of what kind of hard work is needed.

[Michael Jones]

I'd suggest endgames would be a good place to start, simply because the stuff you've got to learn won't change. If you spend hours studying (say) the Accelerated Dragon today, it could all become redundant if someone finds a strong novelty in it tomorrow. If you spend hours studying the endgame R+P vs R today to the point where you know when it's won and how to win it, when it's drawn and how to defend it (and how to convert one to the other if your opponent slips up), then provided you don't forget it, that knowledge will remain valid for as long as you continue to play chess. After that, probably tactics and improving your calculation/analysis, before you start to develop an opening repertoire and prepare for specific opponents.

[Roger de Coverly]

I If you spend hours studying (say) the Accelerated Dragon today, it could all become redundant if someone finds a strong novelty in it tomorrow.

That's true if you learn some really obscure tactical variations. If you stick with the tabiyas and the typical tactics, it's unlikely to be redundant as the underlying theme, play c5, g6 and Bg7, is common to many openings.

If you spend hours studying the endgame R+P vs R today to the point where you know when it's won and how to win it, when it's drawn and how to defend it (and how to convert one to the other if your opponent slips up), then provided you don't forget it, that knowledge will remain valid for as long as you continue to play chess.

That's also valid but it's not a lot of practical use if you get murdered in opening or early middle game nine times out of ten.

After that, probably tactics and improving your calculation/analysis, before you start to develop an opening repertoire and prepare for specific opponents.

You can prepare for specific opponents at any level. I would have thought that at "Minor" level, there are players around who know a handful of possibly dubious openings really well, so a bit of research into their play could be very helpful in practice.

[Thomas Rendle]

The key to improving (at any level, so it would be the case from 1900-2200) it to first identify a weakness in your game and then work to address it. It's important to be playing as much chess as possible and then to carefully analyse your games afterwards (not just to stick Fritz on to auto-analyse!).

Then you start to see patterns emerging in your games. Maybe you are always struggling in the opening so you decide to invest some time (and perhaps money) in opening study. Anyway the point I am making is that if you want to improve it's most efficient to first work out where you're weakest and then you can direct your study time to this area.

[Ola Winfridsson]

The key to improving (at any level, so it would be the case from 1900-2200) it to first identify a weakness in your game and then work to address it. It's important to be playing as much chess as possible and then to carefully analyse your games afterwards (not just to stick Fritz on to auto-analyse!).

Then you start to see patterns emerging in your games. Maybe you are always struggling in the opening so you decide to invest some time (and perhaps money) in opening study. Anyway the point I am making is that if you want to improve it's most efficient to first work out where you're weakest and then you can direct your study time to this area.

Would you also say that for this purpose it would also be worth paying a strong coach to do an evaluation to complement your own? (On the basis that we're sometimes blind to some of our own weaknesses.)

[James Coleman]

Good question Ola. I wonder what Thomas Rendle the chess coach's opinion will be?

[Thomas Rendle]

I think finding the weaknesses of a student is one of the first things a coach should do. Paying a coach to help you look at your games is probably the fastest way to improve but it's not the only way. I think most players can be reasonably objective about their own games - obviously analysing them with the computer is helpful. The computer tells you where you went wrong, then you have to try and work out why.

James - I would say if people have the time/money to employ a chess coach it's a good route to take to improve your game but it can certainly be done without a coach!

[Arshad Ali]

I think most players can be reasonably objective. about their own games - obviously analysing them with the computer is helpful. The computer tells you where you went wrong, then you have to try and work out why.

What does it mean to be "reasonably objective?" One of the reasons a player is weak is because -- as Ola suggested -- he is oblivious to his own mistakes. A stronger player can point out the flaw. And a stronger player who is also a seasoned coach can point out -- unlike a chess engine -- the strategic and psychological flaws that are responsible for what went awry in a particular game.

I find it hard to be "objective" about my own games -- not necessarily the tactical mistakes which caused my rapid demise but the way I got into certain positions that made tactical mistakes easy to commit. I often don't know where the mistakes -- in a higher sense -- were made. Fritz is likely to gloss over these without comment, merely pointing out better moves in already difficult positions. A coach is, to repeat myself, handy for this elusive "objectivity."

A seasoned coach can also understand a player psychologically. Thus, I don't have the devil-may-care penchant for chaotic positions that characterises players like Tal and Shirov -- and I certainly don't have either their calculational ability or their intuitive sense of what will or will not work in tactically explosive positions. But this has taken decades to figure out -- an experienced coach could have put his finger on it within days.

[Michael Jones]

You can prepare for specific opponents at any level. I would have thought that at "Minor" level, there are players around who know a handful of possibly dubious openings really well, so a bit of research into their play could be very helpful in practice.

But at minor level, far fewer games make it into databases so you're likely to have less material to go on - for someone who only plays local league matches, for example, the only preparation you can really make is to ask round your teammates to see if anyone's played them before and can offer some general hints as to what openings they might play. Of course, unless the opposing team has a particular group of players so committed that you can almost guarantee them having the same player on the same board every week, at club level you may well be unable to predict who you're going to be playing.

[Thomas Rendle]

Basically I agree with you entirely. It's a very tough job to work out why certain mistakes were made and for that an experienced coach is much better than a computer for the reasons you've stated.

However it should be possible with lots of time and work to get to grip with your own weaknesses. It doesn't take too much objectivity to realise that every time a player faces a certain opening he gets bad positions. Or perhaps against players of a similiar level a player gets bad results in rook and pawn endings. These things shouldn't be too difficult to identify (if you annotate every game you play with a little care) and then you can play through master games in that opening/ending or buy a book on the subject. A coach is a fast track through this work.

[Arshad Ali]

But at minor level, far fewer games make it into databases so you're likely to have less material to go on - for someone who only plays local league matches, for example, the only preparation you can really make is to ask round your teammates to see if anyone's played them before and can offer some general hints as to what openings they might play. Of course, unless the opposing team has a particular group of players so committed that you can almost guarantee them having the same player on the same board every week, at club level you may well be unable to predict who you're going to be playing.

At minor level, the players typically stay away from main-line openings (which is yet another reason they're weak). Knowing the tabiyas of systems like the Colle, Stonewall, Dutch, Dragon, King's Indian Attack, and maybe a handful of others, should suffice to play such opponents.

Understanding tabiyas is a major component of strength. For a d-pawn player like myself, that means a deep understanding of the pawn structures, ideas and plans in the Nimzo- and Queen's Indian defences, the KID, the QGD and QGA, the Grunfeld, the Benoni, and the Benko. There have been books like King and Ponzetto's "Mastering the Spanish," Bellin and Ponzetto's "Mastering the King's Indian Defence," and McDonald's "Mastering the French," which just go into the tabiya aspect of these openings, while not mentioning fluctuating cutting-edge theory that is relevant at FM level and higher.

[ThomasThorpe]

Yes. As said earlier, I'm 124, so still playing in minors (or U140's). I spent a while looking at the main lines of an opening (not spoiling it in case I play you ) and then i looked at the options I thought I minor player could play. It has helped my opening preperation at the lower level. Take for example a sicilian. I've seen this played before at minor level:
e4 c5
Nf3 d6
Nc3 Nc6
d3

Ok, it's not the best example, but it proves that openings just 4 moves in at minor level can go out of theory, and throw you. I played a match 2 nights ago with my new-ish opening, and my opponent played the weirdest of responses, even weirder than what I'd planned for. It completely threw me. I'm not of the strength yet that I can see how to counter it, so I went along with my usual development and thoughts of the opening. This wasn't the best choice, as I got into a worse position. Ok, so I did a great swindle, but the point is, is that at minor level, try stuying weird variations, so you know how to counter or respond to the move in advance, so you don't waste time.

[Ola Winfridsson]

Basically I agree with you entirely. It's a very tough job to work out why certain mistakes were made and for that an experienced coach is much better than a computer for the reasons you've stated.

However it should be possible with lots of time and work to get to grip with your own weaknesses. It doesn't take too much objectivity to realise that every time a player faces a certain opening he gets bad positions. Or perhaps against players of a similiar level a player gets bad results in rook and pawn endings. These things shouldn't be too difficult to identify (if you annotate every game you play with a little care) and then you can play through master games in that opening/ending or buy a book on the subject. A coach is a fast track through this work.

Of course, some issues are fairly easy to both identify and remedy (such as poor endgame play), but once you reach a certain level it's gets more subtle. We don't always have lots of time, and I also think that there's a big psychological element to this. Even though we might identify a particular opening as problematic, we might still not realize the underlying reason why we find it so, or rather it might take several years. And also, as amateurs we tend not to have lots of time to do all this work!

I know many people (myself included) who stick or have stuck to a particular opening or variation for years for a variety of reasons. Sometimes we're lazy or maybe I should say afraid of taking a few hard knocks by changing our repertoire or we might think it's insufficient knowledge of the opening/variation - rather than say insufficient understanding of those types of positions, the fact that they lead to a type of position that is unsuitable for us or doesn't play to our strengths or quite simply that the whole complex is dubious (I use this in a relative sense here, I'm not talking about playing the The Fred/Duras Gambit) - to mention just a couple.

[ThomasThorpe]

Endgames are certainly more important than openings at all levels except titled players. Sometimes you can prepare for the endgame in the opening by thinking of pawn structure and development. Of course some opening traps catch you out, but after you've been hit by it once, you probably won't do it again.
Knowing basic opening principles, rook endgames and some tactics is a good way to start, and is the way I started out.
One good way to learn is to play lots. It's my main way of improving. Of course, many people don't have time due to work, and that can be problematic. As a secondary school pupil, starting his GCSE's, I have noticed a decrease in my time studying chess, but time playing hasn't really changed that much. That's how I feel I'm improving without studying as much as I probably should do to keep improving at a very fast rate.

As you get more experienced and you get paired with harder players, then an understanding of openings is key. Know a little about lots of openings, not lots about little... I've always been told this, and it has helped. Of course I've concentrated on my opening repertoire more than openings I don't play against very often. But knowing the basic ideas behind them is a good way to go.

[Arshad Ali]

Yes. As said earlier, I'm 124, so still playing in minors (or U140's). I spent a while looking at the main lines of an opening (not spoiling it in case I play you ) and then i looked at the options I thought I minor player could play. It has helped my opening preperation at the lower level. Take for example a sicilian. I've seen this played before at minor level:
e4 c5
Nf3 d6
Nc3 Nc6
d3

Ok, it's not the best example, but it proves that openings just 4 moves in at minor level can go out of theory, and throw you.

Theory is a fluctuating consensus on what the strongest moves are. It's not set in stone. But moves like 4.d3 are unlikely to cause a re-evaluation among strong players. It is not testing. What is white playing for? Some kind of KIA setup? A player of 1900 strength -- roughly 150 ECF -- already knows that white aims for both e4 and d4 in e-pawn openings, and aims to retard black in achieving e5 and d5 (if that's what black is aiming for). Anything that goes against this has to have some other strong idea behind it. A move like 4.d3 will allow black to equalise easily -- unless it has something else going for it. Main lines are main lines because they're considered the most testing. An offbeat opening might paralyse a weak opponent but a strongish player (150 and above) should be able to think it through and come up with strategic and tactical responses. Whenever strong players are playing weak ones, the game goes out of book fast (invariably because the weak player neither knows book to begin with nor understands the opening profoundly); strong players consistently punish the weak players for deviating from theory. Weak players end up in garbage positions within the first 15 moves; the rest of the game is just mopping up by the stronger player using his technique, positional judgment, and calculation in a position that is already superior (if not won).