It has been a month since I laid out my plan to really begin my chess improvement. As I expected, one of the most challenging things in this endeavor has been finding time to complete each task.

My first goal, tactics training, has been my easiest one so far. I have been able to maintain at least 30 minutes a day, pretty much every day, of tactics training with the Chess.com Tactics Trainer. I’m noticing some common errors in my recognition/calculation of the solutions, that are helping my thought processes, and have seen my ratings fluctuate between 1400 and almost 2000, depending on the day.  Based on the puzzles so far, I have noticed a need to increase the ranges of puzzles as I get better. I find myself missing many of the lower rated puzzles and need to make sure I’m not missing fundamental patterns in my practice.

Analysis with Solitaire Chess and my own games has been less productive. I have managed to complete three Solitaire Chess columns and start another one. However, I have only been able to analyze one of my games at this point. My hope is to catch up on both, even if I don’t get one completed of each type every week and can only average one a week.

Games have also been in shorter supply than I originally intended. Had to skip a week of club play and have only been able to complete two games a week for the most part. I’ll either need to decrease my goal or play faster chess to get in three games I guess.

Finally, I have been able to read close to a chapter a week but haven’t focused on it as much as I originally wanted. Hopefully I’ll be able to get into more fully through the year.

I plan on continuing and feel that I’m actually getting benefit from my efforts. Seeing weaknesses in my tactical vision and pattern recognition is certainly helpful and I hope I’ll begin to see continued improvements there. Any suggestions or recommendations are always welcome.

I have seen the the above quote, or variations of it, a number of times in different places. I don’t know who originally said it, only that it struck a chord with me. In my experience, I have found that I fit the amateur moniker in many of my endeavors, especially chess. Even when I feel that I’m good at something, I rarely take that extra effort to truly master it.

So, while this isn’t really a set of New Years Resolutions, I have made some decisions, a game plan as it is, for chess throughout the next year.  At least, this is a start and a personal plan to get better; to practice until I can’t get it wrong. If you are interested, read on:

First off, I have a lot of things I need to work on to get better at chess. To make it easier to digest and to make it more realistic, I’ll break it down to some fundamental areas and specific routes I’m going to take to improve.  As always, time is limited and I will try to make the best use of the time I have. Also, I expect the plan to change throughout the year, as I get a chance to work through it and see what what can be done in the time I have.

Puzzles and Problems

Each day, I am going to dedicate a minimum of 30 minutes to various chess puzzles and problems. I will alternate this between standard tactics puzzles, endgame problems and “find the best move” type of puzzles. To help in this part of my study I will utilize a number of resources I currently have:

• Problem/Puzzle books and computer based versions of these books when I can get/create them
• Endgame Books
• Chess.com’s Tactics Trainer
• Chess Tactics Server

Master Games

I will analyze at least one Master level game a week. It will take a while for the quality of my analysis to increase but I hope this will improve my game play, both by going over the games and by trying to determine the hows and whys of the play.

My initial plan is to use as many of the Chess Life Solitaire Chess columns by Bruce Pandolfini as I can get my hands on. I also plan on getting game collections that are well annotated to continue with, after I have exhausted the columns. I have purchased a couple of older tournament collections to help out:

• Zurich International Chess Tournament, 1953 annotated by David Bronstein
• New York 1924 annotated by Alexander Alekhine

I hope to add to that collection with additional well annotated collections, tournaments and player specific, as time goes by.

General Chess Reading

Each week I will read at least one chapter from a general, non-puzzle/non-problem chess book. Depending on the subject matter and my comprehension of it, I may go over the same chapter each week, until I truly understand it. At this point I don’t have a specific book planned and I may swap which books I read chapters from each week.

I hope that with my other study I will be able to pinpoint areas that need the most work and tailor my reading to those subjects.

Play and Analyze Games

I have been playing a number of online correspondence games consecutively and I plan on continuing that, though I still need to set a maximum number of active games at once.  Along with the correspondence  games, I will play at least three live games a week, with as many of those as possible OTB.

In addition to analyzing master level games, I will analyze at least one of my games each week. Since I won’t have the benefit of master level analysis, I will utilize a chess engine (or engines) to assist with checking my analysis.

Goals

The primary goal of this study is to get better at chess. My measurable goal by the end of the year is to be at least 1600 USCF rated, if I can get in enough rated games. If I am unable to get enough games in then I hope to be performing at least at that level in my games (based on the ratings of my opponents).

It should be a fun undertaking.  Along the way, I plan on sharing at least some of my personal game analysis. If you have any suggestions or critiques, feel free to let me know.

It is the one question you will hear consistently, between new opponents, not only at tournaments but even in casual play. I have had many discussions about that question and whether or not it is even a meaningful one to ask and there are differences in opinion about it.

I have been thinking about the rating question and have mulled over writing a brief article on it. I have finally decided to put some of my thoughts down, along with some of the discussion I have had with others, to go over just that question. If you are interested then read on below.

First, I want to give you my view on the ratings question. I ask it of almost everyone that seems to play more than just off-hand games. Why do I do it? My primary rationale is to get a feel of my opponent’s general playing strength. You should always go into a game with the goal to play your best and knowing your opponent’s rating really doesn’t help you do that. In fact, it may even hinder it. Yet, I still feel that knowing how well matched you are with your opponent, or how strong you feel you are versus that rating, can also ease your mind.

I have spoken with a few people that think that knowing someone’s rating doesn’t really mean anything, especially if you are just playing casual games. I can empathize with that and even agree with many of the points that come up in the discussion. Ratings, especially in this area, may be a poor indicator of a player’s strength over-the-board. Three things that have come up in my discussions are rating inflation, deflation and/or stagnation.

In our area, the pool of rated players is pretty small. People have the tendency to play the same players in local tournaments consistently, giving little chance for ratings to stabilize. The lack of ratings diversity in the area also work to keep ratings in the same ranges, for many.

I don’t really want to give an exhaustive look at ratings, just wanted to present some of my thoughts and solicit some opinions. Ultimately, I think having a rating and knowing how your opponents have performed in the past is useful. Even if my rating is abysmally low. Again, even with or without this knowledge, we should always strive to play our best games, even if they are just casual.