Wednesday, August 15, 2007


I notice that I must express myself a bit more clear.
I have done the 7 circles with TCT (1500 problems) and with George Renko's ICT I (1300 problems). I have heard that the difficulty of ICT I is comparable with CT-art. These circles have given me a good improvement, average to what most knights obtained from it. So no refutation of the circles here.

But then I formulated the hypothesis that in order to get better at complex tactical combinations I had to learn to solve lots of simple combinations a tempo first. So I started to do the 7 circles with 10,000 problems from CTS, which are very low level. What I say now is that this experiment has refuted the hypothesis. I have not become better in complex tactical positions.

Well that is not quite true. I have become better in positions where there are a lot of parallel tactical elements which are shallow. But with the problem I do now there is a long sequential series of 9 basic tactical elements, and there the benefit from CTS is close to zero.

Now I'm experimenting how such long lines should be mastered.

1 comment:

  1. i was actually JUST reaching my mouse to write you here, in a serious way, on this marvelous post, when i saw the words DK and then i just 'knew'.

    ... so back to chess. love your blog. all wonderfull.

    the goldstandard here in chess improvement musings. thank you.

    too darn many hours here at RHP, but what else does one do when we find two excellent continuations, and all create real advantages, but within each continuations, somehow, somewhere find a single line that is almost equality, burried in the deepest recesses or innards of its potentiality,

    then we must not only play the board, but our opponent, and choose the line which gives them maximal chance for error or drift... as baby Laskers, who try not only to win, but to 'disturb' our opponent the most, as it has often been said of him...

    throwing tiny problem after tiny problem, until he or she breaks. this is chess.

    warmest, dk