Customer Reviews

Rapid Chess Improvement (Everyman Chess)

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(13)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(16)

 

 

I read this book in a single night. If it was fiction, that would make it really good. As chess instruction material, it is certainly an interesting (and entertaining) read. However, I say this mostly because it reads very much like an infomercial for a piece of excercise equipment; especially the Success Stories ("I've been using my Whiz-Bang Chess Plan for only 3 days, and I just beat Kasparov in a blindfold game!! IT WORKS!!!").

Seriously, though, I will say this. I think he's probably got it 90% right. I suspect that if I did what he suggests, I would move from a mid-to-weak B-player (my last official USCF rating was 1640-something, several years ago) to at least solid A.

Clearly, tactics are king for anyone whose rating begins with a '1'. Furthermore, it must be true that for most of us mortals, lots of hard work is required to improve at chess (or anything else, for that matter). Neither of these ideas, however, is new -- despite the author's claim -- nor exactly Rocket Surgery (sic).

As another reviewer suggests, the author is a bit harsh on some well-respected authors with significantly higher credentials (even though he gives lip-service to the contrary), and I think he downplays some basic positional and endgame theory that all good players need to have (back to the infomercial: read the fine print in all excercise ads and it will say something about having a "healthy diet" in addition to using whatever goofy apparatus they are selling...read: don't eat so much and you will lose weight! Duh!).

However, his basic thesis is pretty much right on: positional knowledge doesn't help if you can't make tactics -- eventually, you have to win material to win the game. And don't even think about studying openings: yes, it is irresistable (I know!), but that +/= advantage you get doesn't ever do squat for your results if you just drop a pawn 3 moves later. However, going one step further, if you don't know how to play basic K+P vs. K endagmes, winning that pawn doesn't do you any good either...the author glosses over this point.

The main value of the book is that he has formalized a method of study -- this is a recipe you can follow, not just advice. He even does a decent job of (in a very small nutshell) giving guidance for an average player to analyse her own games in a pratical fashion (using Crafty).

The bad part is: it is a gargantuan effort! True, this is for "rapid improvement", but only those with no life will be able to actually do it. The author points out (correctly, albeit a bit harshly) that if you aren't willing to work, you won't improve ("no pain, no gain"; there's that infomercial again!). Frankly, this is the same reason that I do not have six-pack abs or speak Chinese, like I would like to. I have kids instead. But, hey, life's full of choices, right?

Still, the text is sound advice, kind of fun to read, definitely not your average chess book, and gives the average player hope that should one choose to invest the necessary time, significant improvement really is possible; even well into your adult years. So, I give it 3 stars because I enjoyed reding it and it made me feel good about myself (even though I'm still a crappy B-player). However, given that you can download the essay that the book is based on (a good 75% of the book, and 100% of the meat) for free, 3 stars may be a bit generous at the end of the day.

I have numerous chess books devoted to openings, middlegames, and endgames. After reading these books, my game hasn't progressed to the point where I want it to be.

I've begun to implement De La Maza's training methods, and I think he is onto something, especially with the simplistic chess vision drills. I'm a talented, but very inconsistent 1400 player, and have been outplaying and defeating 1900 rated opponents on the US Chess Live site since doing these drills.

Tactics and pattern recognition are crucial to chess mastery. Following his program will drill standard combinations into your brain, so you won't be sitting at the board wondering "What do I do now?" Even better, you won't hang the queen on move 10, or drop a piece on move 12 like you normally would do.
While his program is good, I think he is a bit unfair to authors such as Silman--who also writes very good books. There is no conflict between studying tactics AND learning the rules of good play that other authors teach.
I'd advise someone who can't follow through with the complete program to emphasize tactics, but reward yourself by studying other books as well. Silman's books are great. Bronstein's 1953 chess tournament book is fun to study as well. Best of all--Jeno Ban's Tactics of Endgames. That will help your tactical ability and engame technique at the same time.
Overall, a helpful text.

I think that maybe a feud is starting between Jeremy Silman (JS) and Michael de la Maza (MM). MM is critical of traditional study methods (including JS's) and JS has written a scathing review of this book.

It is hard to argue with success. If MM can move from D to A in a year and then onto Expert in another year, then he clearly is onto something. On the other hand, JS is so much higher on the rating scale that he says that most masters don't have a clue.

I very much like MM's observations about the failures of traditional study methods. In recent years I have taken a very knowledge intensive approach to studying chess, but I have made no improvement to my rating. He argues that I have been studying the wrong things, and I think that he might be right. His book seems eye opening, or it is at least "food for thought."

MM notices that class ranked players make gross tactical oversights, not just in blitz games but in tournament games as well. My observation at tournaments pretty much agrees with this. He believes that studying tactics will allow players to eliminate these errors and rise to at least the class A level. This is borne out by my own chess experience where I made it to class A mostly on tactics.

I very much like the 42 tactical problems, although for a book of this price I would expect maybe 300 problems and less verbiage. Parts of the book are repetitious.

MM's study plan is a bit rigid and not practical for most people:

1. According to his own numbers he spent about 3.5 hours per day on chess. Most of us don't have that kind of time, so I think that a more practical study would 10 to 60 minutes of daily tactical study depending upon how much time we can devote to the game. I have found that ten minutes of tactics per day keeps my game sharp, but I would like to double or triple this and see if it helps my rating. (As a side note, a friend of mine who studied tactics 1.5 hours a day has made huge improvements.)

2. His suggests doing a thousand chess problems in order, seven times over. I think that it might be better for some players to repeat the easier problems before moving onto harder problems that would be too difficult for them to solve.

3. He suggests the exact times that people should spend on each problem, exactly how many to do each day, how exactly to think and how many seconds to spend on each phase of their thinking in tournament games. All this seems too fixed, and I would rather not have to fit my study or thinking into an exact mold.

Although MM continues to stress studying tactics to make it to the Expert level, reading between the lines shows that he spent time studying his tournament games with Fritz, (which is a practice that I strongly recommend.) Common sense and practical experience would indicate that players need more than just knowledge of tactics to improve past the rating of 1800.

As far as the JS versus MM feud is concerned: To make it to Class B, Class A, Expert, whatever, requires a combination knowledge and skill. That knowledge and skill at least doubles with each increase in rating class. Jeremy Silman's books are full of many great ideas worth studying. Michael de la Maza is correct, however, when he states that studying tactics will produce more rapid improvement among class players. This is no secret, however, as many chess coaches have stressed the same thing. Although this book is good for motivation and some advice, you might instead just want to buy a book like "Sharpen Your Tactics" and study it as much as you can. Or better yet, buy both. A little motivation can't hurt.

I wrote a review over a year ago where I criticized some of the advice. The worst section of the book is the one where he tells you how to think. It is too rigid. The runner up is the chess visualization exercises. I also said that I expected more chess content for the price.

If you followed his program to the letter, you would be spending at least a couple of hours every day on chess, which is more than what most people can spare.

Nevertheless this is very good book for inspiration. It is hard to argue with the success of the author who went up several hundred rating points.

My own success studying tactics is has helped me to have a more favorable opinion of the book. After reading the book I was inspired to study tactics for 20 minutes per day for 12 months. My rating rose more than 100 points during this time. That doesn't sound like a huge rise, but it is significant since I had been stuck around 1800 for years. I am also very pleased at my improved chess vision.

One of my friends read the book and was inspired to study tactics 1.5 hours per day for about a year. Since then his tactics study has been more spotty, but this particular player has gone from about 1100 to about 1700. This included winning the under 1200 section at the National Open.

Although the book provides little actual chess content, it will make you rethink your approach to studying chess. It is also very well written in a style that is informative and entertaining to read. I strongly recommend it.

I always find it interesting to read the reviews of books on Amaazon.com. Since different people have different opinions, it is sometimes hard to figure out if a book is worth buying. I think the point of this book (and the drills in it)was missed by a couple of reviewers.

The book asserts that the study of tactics, not memorizing openings, not learning middlegame theory, not endgame study, is the way to improve for adult class players. This is the main claim the author makes. Traditional methods of chess study did not work for him. He figured out what would work for him, and he is simply sharing his method with the reader. A rather time-comsuming, seemingly mind-numbing method, to be sure, but the author never says it will be easy. Let's face it: if you want to be good at something, you have to put some time and effort into it. This is how this particular person did it. He is a non-master writing for other non-masters, telling us how he improved at chess.

Basically, the guy spent five months of his life studying tactics. It did wonders for his game and for others he shared it with, so why not write a book? I give it four stars because it is written well, and it does exactally what the author wants it to: tell us how he improved at chess. I do not agree with everything he says, but I won't let that bias my review.

Should you buy it? Well, this is certainly a good, methodical way to study tactics. And there is no doubt your game will improve if you follow it. Spend this kind of time and effort doing anything, and you will get better at it.

I think most of the reviewers absolutely missed the point of De La Maza's book. It's not that he's saying what has been said before, study tactics. It's the method of study.

See, not only do you study 1,000 problems. But you study the same problems 7 times over. The repitition is the key, more than anything else. See, what you're trying to do is drill the patterns into your subconscious. If you study it once, yes you'll get better. If you study the same problems twice, you'll get even better. But, if you study it seven times over. It gets to the point where on the seventh time you're instantly recognizing the pattern. THAT IS WHERE YOU ROCK! You are not just learning tactics, you're drilling them into your head, where you instantly recognize them. You'll see the patterns on the board instantly, while other players may not see them at all, or would only see them after intense study.

There are tactical motifs that are essential in chess, doing these 1,000 exercises seven times over will drill these into a deeper level of your consciousness than almost any of your competitors.

That I believe is the true worth of De La Maza's program.

However, I will agree with most of what has been written. You can find the meat of his program online. And for most of us we don't have the time to devote hours every day. But, most of us could take 1/2 an hour pretty easily.

I've been putting an hour into tactics a day, and my rating went from a low 1300 to high 1400. So, it's working for me. We'll see where I am in a few months.

This book was very interesting to read. I have been playing, coaching, studying, and talking chess for around 12 years. I ultimately reached a rating plateau of around 1850 USCF. The author of this book was able to go from around 1300 USCF to around 2000 USCF in just a few short years. This is almost unheard of as an adult.

What I found particularly interesting (and true) in my own experiences, is that many people (including myself) focus on the wrong things to study. When we ask for help from master players or coaches, their advice is based upon partial, slanted, or backward thinking. Most masters don't remember what it was like to be rated 1300, 1400, or 1700. It was just too long ago.

What I have learned in my quest is that tactics are the most important thing to study. Next would follow some fairly basic endgame knowledge such as rook & King & pawn vs. Rook & king, etc. A motivated, reasonably intelligent person could easily achieve a rating level of around 1650 - 1850 with a good solid backing on these skills.

Most amateur players spend countless hours learning openings by memory, and wading their way through books on chess strategy.(I know because I have done the same thing!)

What does all of this have to do with this book? Everything! These are some of the key points made by the author. The core of the book is based around a very aggressive, specific study method that develops chess vision, tactical ability, and improves pattern recognition.

After studying countless other books, and using the methods that so many others attempt to make work - I am convinced that Michaels "Seven Circles" method is working smarter, not harder!

Even if you do not agree with all of this conclusions, you will find this book to very interesting and fast to read.

One of the other reviewers was very critical of the amount of time one would need to devote to complete the "seven circles" program. If he actually read the entire book, he would notice that the author recommends a modified program for folks like us with wives, children, jobs, etc. We cannot spend limitless time studying chess (oh, I wish!). The modified program (which I am currently pursuing) is based upon a smaller number of tactical problems over fewer weeks.

I have been on this modified program for a couple of weeks and I have already seen my rating (internet) go up around 100 points.

They always say that the proof is in the pudding. All I know is that the author who started out as a 1300 rated adult player, won the World Open U2000 section (and $10,000) just a few short years later using his training method. He ultimately achieved a rating of over 2000 USCF.

That's pretty inpressive for anyone. It's extrememly impressive for an adult player!

The training program outlined in "Rapid Chess Improvement" is simply unrealistic for the average player. The author is asking you to almost literally spend every moment of your life for the next 5 months doing nothing but tactics problems (which are not included in the book by the way, you have to get those from other sources yourself). If you can't keep up that schedule, the author berates you in a rather angry, accusatory tone that it's your fault for not managing your time better. Unfortunately, the vast majority of us have jobs/school and families to tend to and simply cannot afford to study chess to the exclusion of everything else.

Also, the book has very little content, basically just outlining a brutal training schedule while giving no actual instruction. The main section is a direct word-for-word copy of his article "400 Points in 400 Days", which can be downloaded for free from the internet. The balance is useless filler mostly made up of slams of respected authors and their books (surprising considering de La Maza's lack of credentials), and gushing emails from players who have read the "400 Points..." article. If you're interested, just download the web article and you won't miss anything.

The overall quality is rather low, betraying it's web article origins. It is written in a sloppy style that is better suited for a message board or newsgroup posting than a book. Even the graphics are lifted directly from the article and may look fine on a web page, but are too pixelated for a book.

All and all, the original article is worth a look (the exercises and training program may work for some in a greatly modified format), but the book is a waste of money. There simply isn't enough material there to justify the price.

This book lays out a program for developing tactical strength in the chess player's repertoire. The program uses "vision drills" and problem solving. The program requires intense dedication and may not work if attempted with less intensity. De la Maza has testimonials from players that have used the method to improve their tactical play and this is demonstrated by the Fritz scores they generate in their tournaments. Prior reviewers have criticized the reliance on ratings by the author, but the Fritz scores demonstrate the soundness of the approach.

To most effectively execute his training regimen, de la Maza suggests the purchase of the CT Art, so there is an extra cost associated with this effort. If you can afford the cost and the time, there seems to be considerable value to doing theses drills.

This book confirmed for me what most of us probably know but don't act on-that is, for chess players below Expert strength, studying tactics is the best way to improve your game. After completing only the first 600 or so problems he recommends in the first circle (you'll learn about the 7 Circles in his book) I won the B section of a regional chess tournament a few weeks ago. Next month, I'm playing in the A section. I'm convinced I would have missed a few key tactical ideas in games that I won had I not been studying tactics as de la Maza recommends. Here's the thing though, it takes hard work, dedication and discipline to follow the program that de la Maza recommends. Most of us are lazy and we want things easy. Many chess players will find it much easier to make excuses than to put forth the effort it takes to follow de la Maza's program. For the record, I am college educated working professional and I have a wife and daughter and I have made the time and effort to follow a modified version of de la Maza's program. It might be late at night, early in the morning, or at a lunch break but I'm doing it. So put away your excuses, if I can do it so can you. It's no different than finding the time to take a graduate course or coach little league. Even though I may not get through the program quite as fast as de la Maza recommends I believe my game will be much stronger than if I had coninued to play mindless blitz games on ICC and make excuses. Albert Einstein said "Insanity is continuing to do the same things and expecting different results." Let me ask class players this question "How long have you been doing what you are doing and you are still at the same level of chess strength?" Try de la Maza's suggestions. I believe they will work for me and I believe they will work for you too.