Takchess Chess Improvement

A Novice chessplayer works to get better at chess using an improvement program based upon the methods of Michael de la Maza and the teachings of Dan Heisman

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Correct Methodology?

I've been thinking lately about what is the optimal approach to these tactical problems for long term retention. There certainly are a number of options. There are Extremes ie: 1) De Maza Method doing each problem in a large complete set before returning to do them again. 2) breaking them into smaller sets and repeating them in a much smaller time period. Why wouldn't doing a single problem 7 times at one sitting before moving to the next problem work? What extent does review of problems one finds more difficult play? What extent does a deeper understanding a position play as opposed to rote memorization? What does the role of effort attempting to solve a tactic play in improvement?

Anyway, I continue to follow the advice from my Sharpen your tactics book. Keep Moving!

posted by takchess @ 5:53 AM  

6 Comments:

  • At 8:58 AM, Blogger CelticDeath said…

    When I worked through 1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations for my circles program, I broke the problem set into chapters and did 7 circles each on those chapters. This seemed to work fine, but I did run into problems after I did the last mini-circle set of 7 on the last theme group. This is because after I got done, I decided (and I'm glad I did) to do macro circles over the entire book. I found that I hadn't retained as well the earlier problems in the beginning of the program. They had faded from memory. I was able to overcome this, though, in the end.

     

  • At 3:41 PM, Blogger Blue Devil Knight said…

    Ahh, the perennial questions about methodology....

    When I felt like I wasn't retaining very well after doing 500-problem mini-circles (my mini-circle number is not set, but I go until I get 80% correct in the minicircle), so I changed it to 200 minicircles.

    If you think about it, what is sacred about the (number of) problems in CT-Art level 2? Nobody has preselected that number of problems, at that difficulty level, to be optimal for your learning. Maybe you should do sub-circles of 100 problems each to 80%, to the end of L20, and then mini-circles of all of L20 until you hit 80%.

    Or something...

     

  • At 3:44 PM, Blogger Blue Devil Knight said…

    Umm, I said 200 minicircles, I meant 200 problems per minicircle...

    I have not yet joined J'adoube's circles of death training camp.

    :)

     

  • At 12:13 AM, Blogger King of the Spill said…

    I have been asking myself the same question. I suppose it's a trade-off between measurable incremental progress and longer term progress. Also, I think doing longer circles avoids some shallow memorization without any calculation phenomenon.

    I have retention problems, too, so periodic review is part of my book mini-circles "after" program.

    Even if my TCT "long" circle turns out better in the end, I did enjoy the feeling of progress I got with my earlier mini-circles. Mini-circles seem better when I am busy, too.

     

  • At 3:47 AM, Blogger takchess said…

    Ah food for thought for a further post. I need to mull it over some more. What amazes me is I can do a problem get it wrong,see the solution and a minute later get it wrong again. I am now doing a subset of all the problems I got wrong earlier. I appreciate your thoughts!

     

  • At 10:15 AM, Blogger Blue Devil Knight said…

    The most important factor for me is that I am still enjoying the training enough to stay motivated. If I'm not motivated, and I stop doing the circles, then I'm guaranteed to not learn the material :)

    Takchess seems like one of the more motivated Knights....

     

Post a Comment

<< Home