Some calculations
I have been able to reformulate my method of how to study openings in a way that it matches the exact way that I study tactics. This means that I can calculate how much work must be done to acquire a decent basis.
- A problem costs me 3 minutes at average
- To absorb a problem I need 20 repetitions at average
- There are 350 problems based on frequently occuring mates
- There are 350 problems based on frequently occurring tactics
- For my special weakness of knight moves, I use another set of 300 problems
- Each opening has 70 essential variations at average
- A variation equals a problem in how I approach it and requires the same time to absorb (60 minutes)
- I have 4 new openings
3x20=60 minutes to absorb a problem or variation.
350+350+300+4x70=1280 problems or variations to absorb.
This totals to 1280 hours.
With a study time of 3 hours per day, we are talking about 427 days.
What do I expect after those 427 days?
- a decent level of mating skill
- a decent level of tactics
- a decent level of knight management
- a decent level of opening play
- a decent amount of winning endgames that I will probably screw up
- a dip in rating at first because that is the price for 4 new openings
I started May 1st with my new method. So far I studied 270 hours or 90 days. The nine day tournament I played lately provided me a lot of feedback to adjust my plans. And it convinced me that my plans work.
At the end of the year I will be about half way. This means that the summer tournament next year will be the final test. I will consider a rating improvement of at least 100 points to be a success.
I'm curious: are you using spaced repetition to prevent memory loss?
ReplyDeleteIt's usually "two steps forward, and one step back" with regards to retaining knowledge unless the memory is refreshed regularly.
I recall an interesting anecdote from the Introduction to GM John Nunn's Secrets of Practical Chess [New Enlarged Edition].
"An assiduous program of self-training is bound to have a positive effect. In 1977, Jon Tisdall explained to me his plan for becoming a grandmaster. He had estimated how many hours of study were required to advance by one rating point. Multiplying this by the difference between his current rating and the grandmaster level gave the total number of hours of study required. I laughed and pointed out that with each advance, the number of hours required to gain the next point would probably increase, and so he might never make it. However, his plan proved justified, because in 1995 he did indeed gain the grandmaster title."
It will be interesting to see if your training plan works as anticipated. A wee bit longer than Dr. Lasker's suggested 200-hour programme, but considerably less than Anders Ericsson's average of 10,000 hours.
I wish you total success!
BTW, could you provide more information on your recent tournament and how it confirmed your training hypothesis?.