I just wandered if anyone has felt they have improved since using this site?
My game has improved a small amount- I still seem to struggle against stronger players as black when it is one of those quiet d4(torre,london etc-those that always get played in club games) systems when hardly any tactical chances come and gradually my position worsens until the defence is breeched."I dont know where I went wrong kind of game" . How do you find this kind of improvement?

This is the big question I started getting in my head back when I first bought Chessmaster 10 a little over a year ago. I would play a game, then analyze it with the engine, and each move had the numerical assessment. Some moves it barely changed and some moves it changed quite a bit. Oftentimes I saw no reason at all for why a particular position was so much better or worse than the previous one, especially when no pieces were exchanged, no pieces were left hanging, etc. Just how does a position get 1/10th of a pawn better?

It became my goal to figure this out. I didn't feel, and still don't feel, that I can become a good player with just tactics. They certainly help, and a position that is tactically incorrect is going to lose rather quickly, but as you are pointing out, there is clearly something much more subtle that separates the really good players from the ones that just move their pieces in a seemingly logical fashion.

I have read quite a few books already, and gone through quite a few of the instructional DVDs from ChessBase (via Fritz or ChessBase software). To be honest, there is a lot of material out there that promises to teach you this sort of thing, and then falls horribly flat. Without exception they give a brief introduction to the material then begin showing Grandmaster games, move by move, and telling you what is good or bad about the position. Unfortunately they never talk about the thought process one might go through to actually analyze the board in its previous position, develop a positional plan, and then select candidate moves that will help you implement that plan, and then how you choose the best one to start.

So, there is a lot of poorly done chess instructional material out there. I truly feel your plight and I don't have a good answer for you. A book I am just a couple of chapters into right now is by Jeremy Silman. It is called The Amateur's Mind. Every really good player I have managed to meet (defined as someone who can effortlessly beat me without me understanding how they did it) comments that is one of the best books out there. I have a ChessBase database that has all the positions in the book so I can read the book in front of the computer and cycle through the moves in the book as they are discussed (I can't mentally hold a complex position in my head more than 4 or 5 moves deep, so this really helps).

Anyway, what seems to be nice about this book is the way it approaches all the scenarios. He will take the same position and will play it out against 2 or 3 of his students, having them think out loud while they decide what to play. A typical scenario will have a 1200, 1500-1700, and a 1900 rated student each approach the same problems, he publishes their thoughts and what he thinks of their thoughts, and what he thinks of the position itself. It talks about not only what squares are key, but why they are considered key. It also talks a lot about how you need to be not only formulating your own positional plans, but how you need to be spending time not just trying to predict how your opponent will react to your moves, but what his strategic plans are (or should be) and how you can try to mold your position to restrict his ability to acheive those plans.

This all really gets at the core of why I have been so critical of this site ever since its inception. The concept of what they seemed to be trying to accomplish was very promising, but instead of interacting with the membership base in any meaningful way they seem more content to throw a set of new puzzles up 'sometime near the beginning of each month' and I can't for the life of me tell the difference between a beginners puzzle versus intermediate or advanced because I do all the sets each month and I get about the same score on each.

So, have I improved since coming here? Most definitely, but how much can be attributed to the stuff here is impossible to say. I do many more tactical puzzles each week than I can get here and I have all the other reading I do as well. Certainly what I paid for this year's membership was not money wasted, but it is very unlikely the additional costs they are putting into place will be worth the renewal. I can get puzzles just about anywhere (several web sites, or a one time cost for software from Convekta that has tactical puzzles). The significant price increase needs to be joined with a significant increase in service that differentiates them from everywhere else, and there is no sign of that ever happening.

Oh, and having said all that, the one thing that is very good here as a nearly weekly event is the "How Good Is Your Chess?" section. If you aren't doing those already, you should take a look at them. It gives you a score at the end, but the score isn't really what matters. It is something that differentiates this site from the others.

Hi Don,

Thought Your comments very good. It seems our aims are similar, as I use different puzzle books (e.g : 300 Positions- L Alburt; Batsford chess puzzles; J Hodgsons travelors chess puzzles etc). But The Amatuers Mind has probabaly helped me the most.
I wonder what the most any adult player who has played for several years can improve once they take up a training plan. Is there a ceiling that however we try natural ability or lack of comes into play.
I suggest maybe a 1600-1700 player may find 1850-1950 would be the most one could improve. I hope someone can prove this is wrong

I agree with what Don said.
I've seen a few adult players improve from ~1700 to over 2000. The best example is IM John Shaw who's had a few GMnorms. He started studying chess seriously when leaving Uni...
Over the years I've had a few grading prizes, but since Sep I've won quite a few tournaments/grading prizes & got to the top in the Scottish grand prix for my section. That never happened before. I think when you do well consistently, it shows that you're improving. But I don't feel that I'm any better, it seems more like good luck so far.
I'm enjoying this site because it makes me study more regularly. 15 puzzles a day! If I could get into the habit of doing that every day, then the money would be well worth it, just for that!
Happy New Year to students and tutors alike, siegrun