PDA

View Full Version : How hard are you prepared to work on your chess if you are serious about improving?



MichaelBaron
17-08-2007, 08:40 PM
Due to "limited funding available", few people are able to afford more than 1 hour of chess tuition a week. The question is, how much homework would you be prepared to do on your own?

I feel that if someone is serious about improving, it would be great if he/she could dedicate at least 7-10 hours a week to studying chess.:hmm: would you agree?:rolleyes: Another question is: Is there any point in taking chess lessons if you do not intend to do any homework/study chess/play on your own to suppliment the lessons.

Desmond
17-08-2007, 08:57 PM
If I were serious about improving my chess (I'm not), then I would probably think 20 hours per week reasonable.

CameronD
17-08-2007, 10:00 PM
Applications need to be fully understood and bludgeoned into our heads many times to be able to apply in a real time-controlled game. Limited to lessons, the improvement would be limited compared to complimentary work at home.

The amount of time spent per week more depends on the goals of the player (what standard they want to improve to and how quickly.) eg. 20 hours a week or 5 hours a week for 4 weeks.

My aim is to be an average player at the moment (about 70% of the way there) after about a year, after just playing a handful of rated games and no prior experience or theritical knowledge.

I find for 1 hour of DVD training, I need to spend another 5-8 hours of training and revising to be able to moderately understand the concepts and apply to my games moderately comfortly. For example, (powerplay I by chessbase) a 4hour middlegame DVD took me about 6 weeks to complete a chapter at a time with 25 hours of revision and reinforcement in total (. I probably take 4-6 DVD study per year within my schedule.

Southpaw Jim
17-08-2007, 10:05 PM
If they really are serious about improving, then I don't think 7-10hrs is unreasonable, depending on the individual - how many other commitments do they have? Do they:

- work fulltime?
- have kids?
- play a sport?
- have other regular hobbies, be it music, arts & craft, etc?

I have all of these in my life. I expect I could devote 5-10 hrs a week, since I commute and have lunchtime to myself - however, I couldn't feasibly extend that by much beyond 10 hrs.

Frustrated with the commitment by some clients, Michael? :P

MichaelBaron
19-08-2007, 05:29 PM
Frustrated with the commitment by some clients, Michael? :P
:(

DanielBell
20-08-2007, 12:51 AM
I wanna put more time in but it's hard with work & uni, I play alot online that's about all the practice I get. I'll occasionally gets ome time and step through a couple of the annotated games in my books here but it's not often.

Santa
21-12-2011, 04:37 PM
Due to "limited funding available", few people are able to afford more than 1 hour of chess tuition a week. The question is, how much homework would you be prepared to do on your own?

I feel that if someone is serious about improving, it would be great if he/she could dedicate at least 7-10 hours a week to studying chess.:hmm: would you agree?:rolleyes: Another question is: Is there any point in taking chess lessons if you do not intend to do any homework/study chess/play on your own to suppliment the lessons.

If I were to go to a chess coach prepared to work with more senior players, remembering most coaches don't seem to think there in anyone but children requiring coaching, what should I expect in the for hour?

Now, if you are a coach who's changed your view before reading this question, what was your previous practice?

MichaelBaron
14-01-2012, 12:30 AM
I believe it is totally unrealistic to improve someone's game dramatically in an hour or even 40 hours over 40 weeks without the student putting in some efforts. In my opinion, the best approach towards coaching club-level players is: during the 1 hour lesson. The coach and the student focus on a particular pattern (e.g. ''good and bad pieces'' or ''where to and where not to exchange bishops for knights'' etc.) after this the student is given some training exercises to go through at home. The next training session should start with a brief discussion of the student's homework. At least some of the lessons should involve discussion of the students' tournament games. Based on these discussions, the student's weaknesses should be identified and addressed. For example: A certain student of mine kept exchanging pieces in positions where he had an isolated pawn. We discussed this matter and went through some basic principles of play with/against isolated pawns. Student's homework for that week involved going through and analyzing some positions where he had to play with an isolated pawn.

To sum up, the 1-hour session should be not only about sharing some Chess knowledge with the student but also PROVIDING HIM WITH GUIADANCE ON HOW TO WORK ON HIS CHESS ON HIS OWN to suppliment what he learns during the class!

Adamski
14-01-2012, 04:06 PM
I believe it is totally unrealistic to improve someone's game dramatically in an hour or even 40 hours over 40 weeks without the student putting in some efforts. In my opinion, the best approach towards coaching club-level players is: during the 1 hour lesson. The coach and the student focus on a particular pattern (e.g. ''good and bad pieces'' or ''where to and where not to exchange bishops for knights'' etc.) after this the student is given some training exercises to go through at home. The next training session should start with a brief discussion of the student's homework. At least some of the lessons should involve discussion of the students' tournament games. Based on these discussions, the student's weaknesses should be identified and addressed. For example: A certain student of mine kept exchanging pieces in positions where he had an isolated pawn. We discussed this matter and went through some basic principles of play with/against isolated pawns. Student's homework for that week involved going through and analyzing some positions where he had to play with an isolated pawn.

To sum up, the 1-hour session should be not only about sharing some Chess knowledge with the student but also PROVIDING HIM WITH GUIADANCE ON HOW TO WORK ON HIS CHESS ON HIS OWN to suppliment what he learns during the class!
Agree with you Michael. My problem, like many, is finding the time for the study on my own. I succeed only sometimes!

Tony Dowden
15-01-2012, 04:43 PM
I believe it is totally unrealistic to improve someone's game dramatically in an hour or even 40 hours over 40 weeks without the student putting in some efforts. In my opinion, the best approach towards coaching club-level players is: during the 1 hour lesson. The coach and the student focus on a particular pattern (e.g. ''good and bad pieces'' or ''where to and where not to exchange bishops for knights'' etc.) after this the student is given some training exercises to go through at home. The next training session should start with a brief discussion of the student's homework. At least some of the lessons should involve discussion of the students' tournament games. Based on these discussions, the student's weaknesses should be identified and addressed. For example: A certain student of mine kept exchanging pieces in positions where he had an isolated pawn. We discussed this matter and went through some basic principles of play with/against isolated pawns. Student's homework for that week involved going through and analyzing some positions where he had to play with an isolated pawn.

To sum up, the 1-hour session should be not only about sharing some Chess knowledge with the student but also PROVIDING HIM WITH GUIADANCE ON HOW TO WORK ON HIS CHESS ON HIS OWN to suppliment what he learns during the class!

I generally agree. As a professional educator can I say that current research shows that by far the best kind of learning involves active effort by the learner. In the case of chess this probably involves a mix of discussion/tuition with an expert and some (appropriate) homework.

Sometimes adults can improve their chess on their own but they will usually only do this well if they are accomplished learners. In my case I decided to put some effort into my chess in my late 30's. My main focus was study on the middlegame. I lifted my rating from 2000 to 2200. (I've since hit 50 and drifted back to 2100 - but that is another matter!)