How To Become A Chess Master

by Ignacio Marin



Part I: Introduction

I think there are a few rules to be followed in order to improve in chess. They are very simple, common sense rules, but the trick is to know how to weight them to save as much time as possible. I assume that you want to be a master AND have a real life. Otherwise, I don't think you need any help.

In order of importance:

  1. Know yourself
  2. Concentrate on your weaknesses
  3. Think in a long term program of training
  4. Tactics IS chess
  5. Look around and especially UP for ideas

I'll try to develop these "rules" in these articles. Now, let's get tough, that is get real.

The most important aspect of chess training is to decide exactly what do you want and how do you plan to get it. Chess means very different things for different people, and I am talking about serious chessplayers here, that is people involved in chess tournaments. For some, chess is just a hobby. For others, chess is kind of a vice: it's bad for you and you know it, but..., etc. I play chess for two reasons: chess is an art and chess is a discipline. First, I find beauty in chess. Not often, but from time to time even in my own games. Second, I can demonstrate myself by playing chess that my brain is functioning more or less properly!. It is not easy to find any activity that shows our mental limitations as clearly as chess. With this ideas, what I want to get out of chess is 1) Pleasure, particularly aesthetic pleasure and 2) A good fight, able to stress my brain. For doing so, I had to improve to a high level of chess ability. Otherwise, chess games are simply uninteresting.

Now, what do YOU want to get out of chess?. It is worth the time and effort required to become a chess master?. Because, even if you are a genius, it will take you years.

Let's assume that, for whatever reasons, you are still reading and you really want to be a chess master. Ok. Let's assume now that you don't know how AND you accept suggestions (this is unusual among chessplayers). Well, then start the fight against yourself!. But, alas!, there are plenty of problems. First, you don't have too much time to waste, so you want to be a master as quickly as possible. Second, you think you have talent, but the results do not show that. And you are getting sick of losing with people that (you think) are obviously less talented and/or intelligent than you are. Welcome to REAL chess.

Does it have a solution?. The answer is yes (MAYBE yes). Are you ready to dedicate to it five years or so?. Then, please go to part II.

 


Part II: Know Yourself

Before going on, something that I think it would be good is to define first what a master is. In the States, a master rating is about 2200 USCF ELO. This is equivalent according to my own estimations to about 2120 - 2150 FIDE ELO. I think that it is fair to take about 80 ELO point out of the FIDE list to compare, especially in the higher categories because it is difficult to establish a good comparison under 2300 FIDE ELO. In general, I will use the FIDE standard for everybody to know what I am talking about, because a "master" is something very different in other countries. In Spain for example, the catalan federation awards a master title to players with a strenght of about 2300 FIDE ELO, that is more or less FIDE master strenght. Players between about 2000 and 2300 FIDE ELO are named "preferentes" that is a category more or less equivalent to expert.

In this series of articles, I am talking about how to get about 2200 FIDE ELO. This is the level of an international recognized player. My feeling is that EVERYBODY (or at least everybody with a normal intelligence) can get to this level with enough time and training. It is just a matter of how fast you improve, because if you don't improve fast enough the experience will be so painful that you probably will not want to play chess at all after a while.

In my previous article, I referred to a few rules on how to become a master. I will talk here about the first golden rule: "Know yourself". By now, you probably think I am talking about philosophy, I know.

However, I think that my own progress in chess has been dramatic since I first answered with some accuracy this question: What kind of player am I?. If you answer "a tactical one" or "a bad one" then we are not talking about the same. Answer these questions:

  1. When am I losing the games? (Or: when do I make mistakes so I get lost?) Possible answers:
    • Moves 1 - 10. I don't know how to move the knights
    • 10 - 15: I forgot that variation recommended by Sznapik in 1967
    • 15 - 25: I don't like it when there is so much tactics
    • 25 - 40: chess clocks should be forbidden
    • >40: I never make mistakes, thought it gets worse with less pieces.
  2. What kind of mistakes happen more frequently in my games?
    • Tactical oversights: I don't see tricks that everybody but a nerd should notice from far away
    • I don't know where my pieces should be two moves ahead
    • Most of the time, I keep staring at the ceiling and I don't notice where the pieces are anymore. I need some kind of concentration pills or something.
      • Do I feel confident with the initiative?
        • Yeah, I am a tiger
        • I hope he offers a draw
        • I should be leaving chess, it gets on my nerves.
      • Do I feel confident defending?
        • That's for wimps. If I defend I always loose.
        • Give me a pawn less and no moves and I will be happy
        • I should be leaving chess, it gets on my nerves.
      • Do I feel confident when the pawn center is fluid?
        • Yes, of course. The more moves we have, the funnier it gets.
        • I feel much better in a French or a King's Indian, thank you very much and keep that English stuff away.
        • I never look at the center, I am Bent Larsen.
      • How much time do I REALLY have for studying and playing chess?
        • Chess is my life
        • No time
        • I can read in the bathroom. Well, at least when nobody is around...

I hope now you are getting the feeling of what I mean. But even if the answers are half-jokes, the questions are serious. Let's develop a few rules:

  • Annotate your own games as carefully as possible. Discover when and why you are losing and if there are systematic types of mistakes or you systematically make mistakes under particular circumstances (opening, transition opening-middle game, tactical situations, lack of time, endgames...). A critical question to plan where to concentrate the time you have for chess study.
  • Is your main strenght with the inititative or do you prefer to counterattack?. Do you mind to have a pawn less for an unclear attack?. Do you like to have an extra pawn even if you have to defend?. Critical to choose openings.
  • Open or closed positions?. Also critical for chosing openings.
  • Do you have time for a serious chess study or do you need quick fixes?. Critical for concentrating in different phases of the game. Critical also for developing an opening repertoire. If you have plenty of time, the rule is learn from Kasparov and concentrate in very difficult openings. Make your opening play a strong weapon. If you don't have time, the rule is look for safe and slightly dull openings and be ready to create a progressive opening repertoire: start with simple openings, where you can learn basic tactics and strategy, and move progressively to more complicated ones. Remember that your tactical and strategical strenghts are very important: they allow you to solve more difficult problems at the chessboard, during the game. The stronger you are, the more complicated the openings you can play with success. It doesn't matter how well you prepare an opening, if it is too complicated for your strenght, you will loose.


Send mail to info@chesspro.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 1996-2001 ChessWeb, Inc. All rights reserved.