The efficiency of the method

 The method I use since May 1st, works. There is no doubt about that. I feel my tactical muscle grow. Which is something I haven't felt since about 2006. When I had a grow spurt of 250 points in a period of two years.

The fact that the method works seems to answer the most important questions from the past 18 years. Like:

• Why did MDLM's method work for him but not for the Knights Errant?
• What did he forget to tell us?
• Why did Stoyko's method work for him but not for the rest of us?
• What did he forget to tell us?
• What do the methods of MDLM and Stoyko have in common?
• Is chess 99% tactics?
• What is the role of pattern recognition in chess improvement?
• Can the trick of Papa Polgar be replicated or transformed for use with adults?

It took me 18 years to find the answers.

Inspired by the above questions I invented my own method. I use the method since May 1st. And as said, it works. But I never claimed that the method is efficient. Since I feel I haven't reached that point yet. But the answers to the questions above might give a clue about how to improve the efficiency.

Why did MDLM's method work for him and what didn't he tell us?

His seven circles had two stages. The first stage was to understand the problems, and the second stage was to memorize them. His emphasis was on speed.

The reason that this didn't work for the Knights Errant was that we totally underestimated what is necessary to understand a problem well. We thought that it was enough to understand the general tactical themes. If you know what a pin is and a double attack or a skewer than that should suffice, we thought. So we minimized the stage of understanding and we totally focused on speed and memorization.

The only way that the method could have worked for him is when he made much more work of the stage of understanding.

Why did Stoyko's method work for him and what didn't he tell us?

Stoyko talks about many aspects of his exercise, and we failed to recognize what is important and what is not. So everybody chose the elements that he liked and failed to grasp the importance of understanding.

The only way that the method could have worked for him is when he made much more work of the element of understanding.

What do the methods of MDLM and Stoyko have in common?

Although both methods are totally different, they work because they can add understanding. The authors were probably well aware of that, but failed to bring that point across to the followers of their respective methods. Because they thought that that would speak for itself.

Is chess 99% tactics?

A discussion about that probably ends in semantics. There are tactics, which is about gaining wood of some sort. There are virtual tactics, the tactics that play a role but are never played. And even endgames are about gaining wood. The rest is just preparation for tactics.

What is the role of pattern recognition in chess improvement?

That is a tricky one. I have long been put on the wrong foot by that. The role of pattern recognition in playing chess is enormous. But since it is a miracle that is worked by system 1, it plays no role in chess improvement. Just educate your system 2 well and pattern recognition is a kind of collateral acquisition. The same is true for visualisation. It is a byproduct of a logical narrative.

So what is the essence of chess improvement?

The fact that two totally different methods like the Seven Circles of Madness and the Stoyko exercises worked, points towards what they have in common: understanding. The fact that it didn't work for their followers, points towards that an extreme precision is needed. Both exercises have a lot of elements that don't work at all. They sound plausible, but are just a distraction. They seem to work as long is your understanding is growing, but when the understanding stops, they are just a waste of time. Those skills are byproducts of understanding. You can't train them separately.

The common tactical themes are well known enough. But they alone don't suffice to solve tactical problems. Since the devil is in the details, and there are a lot of potential details. Take for instance the following problem:

White to move

6R1/1p1r1p1p/4p2k/p6p/2P1PPn1/5KP1/PB6/8 w - - 1 2 

[solution]

This is a problem where it doesn't suffice to know that there are a king hunt, a discovered attack and a clearance involved. Since the tactical elements with no name are equally important. You need to build a precise logical narrative. What do you want to accomplish and how can you accomplish that. Without that, it is just an endless trial and error. Which only can be performed within a reasonable time when you are lucky enough to start accidently with the right moves.

The essence of chess improvement is twofold. It is about understanding, about an ability to build a logical narrative, and it is about frequency of occurrence.

That is why opening study is so popular. The books provide you with a certain understanding, and if you play the openings whenever you can, the lines occur on a frequent basis.

But since it is not your understanding, you are lost when the opponent plays something that you didn't expect. All of a sudden you must think for yourself. And when you don't know how to do that, you are lost. TINSTAAFL.

Yet the method of understanding is perfectly applicable for openings too. I'm studying the Colle lately, and I found something about the Stonewall structure which black adopts in some variations. The structure works when there are pieces that make use of the holes. So when you trade the pieces, the holes remain. Which can be exploited in the endgame. So understanding gives you a strategy for the middlegame: trade the pieces. Just to give an example. Of course the devil is in the details here too. But the essence is, you must make the understanding your own. I always failed to do that in the past, since I was too easy satisfied with some superficial knowledge.

Understanding can be applied to all parts of the game. Be it tactical, positional, opening, middlegame. endgame or strategy. Just keep in mind the importance of frequency of occurrence. Composers may have a much deeper understanding of the mechanics of tactics than the average super grandmaster. But since their knowledge lacks frequency of occurrence, it is useless in tournament play.

Can the trick of Papa Polgar be replicated or transformed for use with adults?

The simple answer after 18 years is yes.

I don't know which method he used, but the fact that he was able to take three girls without an innate talent for it to the pinnacle of chess by mere education was phenomenal. It inspired my quest to search for a method that does the same for adults.

What about the efficiency of my method?

I'm still investigating that one.

There are a few enemies to avoid:

• Speed. Speed is a byproduct of understanding, not a goal in itself. It can be used to measure the degree of your understanding and provide feedback about the holes in it. Use the clock during your games and measure in which areas you lack understanding. Having no clue results in use of time.
• Lack of precision. There is a lot more to understand than we are used to think. Don't be satisfied too soon.
• Solving problems. With all those engines around there is no need to solve problems. You must learn to build a logical narrative. The ability to solve problems is a byproduct of understanding. It can be used to measure the degree of your understanding and provide feedback about the holes in it. But solving itself doesn't increase your understanding. It is a waste of time.

MDLM advocated 7 repetitions. In daily practice I use 20. But that doesn't say anything. He used 3 repetitions for understanding the problems and 4 for skill building. I use 20 repetitions to find every detail of understanding. I don't solve problems. Probably I use the repetitions for memorisation too. After all, what is the use of understanding the Stonewall, when you have forgotten it during a game?

So it is the art of finding the holes in your understanding by measuring how much time you need, Use that feedback to find the right problem set and the right tool for repetition. For tactics you need another repetition tool than for openings.

Furthermore, you need a framework to hang your understanding on. Personally I gear everything around the PoPLoAFun system.