I mentioned this idea earlier as well but I'd love to see an Ultimate Sensei season based on Jesse's plus minus equals system of improvement, there could even be four different "schools" or "houses", and the four Senseis get to draft players across different rating groups, and all players in each "house" all work together to make each other stronger players
I really enjoyed this episode! Since YT still allows us to leave comments, I'd like to throw in my unsolicited two cents: When deciding what to include in the training program, there's no doubt that you guys will disagree at various points. I'd highly recommend airing on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion for a topic, since more material will always be more helpful for the players who want it (like me). You could also implement some measurement to indicate a particular lesson's importance, depending on how many senseis want its inclusion. Also, since people improve at very different rates you may want to include a rating goal range w/ expected floor/ceiling instead of just a hard number. I think that this could keep the development process smooth for you guys, and account for how different people respond to the same training plan. Anyways, this definitely looks like the dojo's biggest project so far, so good luck! I'm looking forward to seeing how this turns out.
Interesting ideas! I feel like one way this could be useful, even if you aren't following it strictly, is letting you know if there are areas where you're obviously behind for your grade, eg if you're 1800, you're ripping through the 2000+ level tactics book but you don't know the 1400 level endgames.
You guys are doing an amazing job, motivating people. And that was a great idea by Kostya - analysing games with experienced players. I would like to be part of it, mostly as a listener:) Thank you for all you do for chess community
I’m in the process of restructuring my training routine and yesterday I was tempted to post a comment on some other dojotalks basically asking for a video like this. I think the best thing you guys could do is have some things you must do to progress, and have some things more like extra credit / electives that allow some freedom to specialize in certain areas I think another thing is if you can look at the huge list of things one needs to do and filter down to specific categories. There might be a huge interwoven tree of prerequisites blending opening knowledge, visualization, specific tactics, games memorized, etc…. I think it would benefit the student and teacher to be able to say “let’s just look at the opening progressions right now,” etc. Also i hope you guys include things like calling for some exercise too.
I really found this interesting. I think Jesse's argument about structure resonates so much, as a beginner I feel like structure makes it feel legitimate, even if I might be doing fruitful things, if I have no structure I might not know where to go, self-motivation is important, in that I have do that hard stuff for myself but I also understand David's pov. I find it demotivating when I've been doing something over and over and keep feeling like it's tough with little reward to keep the motivation going to grind it out to just get it done. Motivation isn't just that idea of wanting to get better it's also about like believing you will get better too, if I keep failing the feeling of "oh I will never get it, I keep failing again and again" gets stronger, your self belief in your ability to improve gets shaken. I am not sure how to reward in a way that pushes the person a long. keeps them feeling like they can keep it up despite a lot of failures. Chess is difficult in that it can feel like you are just blind.
I love these talks. Having some notes / something visual that compliments what's being said would be helpful, even if just a dot-point list. Could something be added as you go along or afterwards editied into the video?
I appreciate this discussion because it helps me think through the way I plan to learn (I’m an old beginner, on my own and on a very tight budget☺️). Thanks!
A fascinating discussion about developing a structured approach to chess improvement, which is becoming increasingly more important in an age where there are so many diverse resources. Nowadays we improvers risk becoming overwhelmed by too much information. Without expert guidance, the aspiring student is likely end up studying the wrong materials in the wrong order and be several dollars poorer (according to my friend). We are motivated, we invest time, but do not see improvement because we try to drive the Porsche before learning how to handle the family saloon. I like the look of the new website and look forward to the emergence of structured learning plans for different abilities and age groups. I also enjoyed listening on Spotify, which meant I could listen while doing washing up!
There are many MOOCs out there from which you can probably borrow the technical part (ensuring some videos are seen, checking the knowledge of students, etc.). Great project !!!
A way to get over the issue of resistance to something like learning endgames is framing. You will have people who do not like to study endgames because it's boring or whatever. But if you reframe the study of endgames as calculation training, that may help some people. Take K+P endings and say, "my objective is to improve my calculation accuracy and visualization." I am going to study X number of positions and I am going to work with them and use them to increase the depth and number of pieces that I can accurately calculate. I'll get out some printed blank boards and I will draw out the final positions of the lines I am calculating and then I will write the lines out. Only then will I move pieces or consult a book. But for that kind of work to be possible, you have to already be comfortable with being very wrong. Some people have a hard time "failing" exercises. And no matter how often they hear someone say that trying and getting an answer wrong first increases long term memory, they want to be "taught" first. Which really means they want to be spoon-fed first.
This was a great discussion and look forward to seeing this grow into a program offered through the dojo. Would offer up the idea to possibly separate plans for the adult improver category as I imagine the learning styles, abilities and goals of an adult in their 20-30’s would be different than one in their 40’s/50’s. Not saying names but I know one who has only been playing for about three years and started in the middle of their 50’s who would offer himself as a case study if needed 🤔😉
I agree with David here, although like Jesse mentioned, the idea of a general system makes lots of sense at the lower rating levels. Edit: that's a genius metaphor Jesse, almost makes me switch sides of the argument haha but I feel like balance is more important in some areas of life as opposed to others
The Step Method is quite a succesfull universal training program. Teached in alle clubs in The Netherlands. I think the Yusupov books are also a universal training method. Although I don't know if that's proven to be succesfull.
It is a good video the first part was a bit general open discussion. Thanks to Kostya who directed the discussion towards more motivated adults.. but i like and get the messages i.e.: go over our games, develop not only byceps and dedicate certain hours a day, read some chess books.. very appreciate all sensei's effort to motivate and educate us. Thank you. Good video.
Love you guys, but... this will be a little bit of a rant. Why do titled players think anyone who really wants to be good at chess can reach 2000-2200? The reality is that players rated 1800-1999 are within the top 2 percent of competitive chess players. If you seek to get to 2000 you are trying to squeeze yourself into a small group of players, players who are *all* trying to squeeze into that narrow band. It is an even smaller group if you are trying to get into the 2200 area. The higher you get the harder it is to get higher. Exponentially. It may be good to re-define what is a “good” player. To Bobby Fischer, anyone less than IM strength would be a “weakie.” In the entire population of competitive chess players, a rating of even 1600 is well above average. So, what is the rating of a “good” chess player? “Good” looking at the overall competitive chess population is probably about 1500. I think players become competent somewhere around that level. I am an old fart and have been playing off and on for years ... my strength is currently around 1700 USCF and I am 62 years old. My rating dreams are in the past. My goal now is to maximize my enjoyment of the game.
@@ChessDojo This is why I salute efforts like Kostya shooting for GM. I hope he makes it, but making it is like fighting through a crowd all trying to stand on the tip of a needle. You made it, Jesse, and that is a jewel of an achievement.
I have two goals, one of which is the same as yours: to enjoy it (which by the way has become really easy for me). The other is to keep my brain doing hard things now and then. Everyone defines "good" in a different way, so it's always relative. I'm happy to give people advice towards improving (bc a lot of ppl seek it), but I'm also happy to share the joy of chess with people who are not trying to improve. By the way, my opinion that most people can get to 2000-2200 is based on experience. I don't ask anyone do it, and I mention it takes more work to get there than most people will do. Really I think the reason you hear titled players express this opinion is that untitled players are often asking us about it, and it seems most of us agree on the answer. :-)
@@ChessDojo I disagree, its all about the quality of packaging of information. It was very rare in the 1800s for a person to have a high school education never mind a degree. Chess has been largely closed to the public in terms of real advancement past a certain point We are now only entering an age where chess ideas are packaged in a more consumer friendly way. It might be very reasonable to aspire to reach 2000 - 2200.
11:11 David hits the nail on the head! Many people want instant improvement but chess isn't like that....Maybe students should be graded on how many hours they're putting into chess? Somebody putting in 10 hours per week will obviously have less time than someone who spends 50 hours a week 'learning'
agree with Jesse you guys give a way to improve but youve got to be prepared to put the work in im nearly 58 only 1650 fide but love the game and also the training just as much
Regardless of what training plan you choose 3+0 isn't helping your chess and this seems to be the time format most players prefer including my friends who actively study. I am somewhat happy about this phenomenon though because I can infer most of my future classical opponents are mostly playing non-increment blitz between tournaments.
I think it's so interesting how the meta-learning arguments that you hear in the language learning community are the exact same ones being had in the chess learning community. How to you manage motivation? How do you deal with the fact that students are very bad at determining what is best for them when study after study has shown that even when faced with hard evidence that method X is objectively better at producing results in learning over method Y we still prefer method Y? It's an emotional reaction to choosing your method of learning. And motivation is an emotion and setting up your life so that your goals are dependent upon an emotional state is shaky. IMO there are two types of meta-learning skills that need to be employed here. The first is the ability to manage negative emotions such as boredom and general anxiety to specific techniques or methodologies in relation to our goals. And this will not always be transferable between domains because each negative reaction will be caused by something different. Do not change the methodology, focus on changing your emotional reaction to it. The second meta-learning skill is setting up systems that are context dependent and not internal state dependent. Everyone has routines of things they need to do but have no desire to do. Unless you are clinically depressed, even if you are faced with the death of a parent, you will probably still shower, brush your teeth, etc. This proves that we can set things up in our lives so that we do things we know to be good for us even when we do not want to. This is not to say I have figured these things out. These are hard problems to wrestle with but learners and coaches need to be aware that they exist and they are solvable.
And I'm not sure I've ever really disagreed with Kostya. Edit: exactly Kostya, 1000 days of chess improvement means one day of improvement and 999 days of celebrating publicly that one day of improvement
Hello! I have an interesting question: do you, or rather, would you recommend chess dvds? If so, which ones would you recommend for general or even specific areas of chess improvement? Thank you in advance! :)
If a universal approach does not work, then how come the Dutch steps programme seems to work? I think it depends on how rich the programme is, rather than just " bullet points written in wordpad and flung out". The programme has to evolve until a maximal amount of the group benefit universally.
I have been following you guys for a little while now and have used your tips to come up with a training plan that has taken me up from 500-897 30-minute rapid rating in about a month after having played for 2 months. (I'm new, Oct., 2021 is when I started playing and am 27 yo.) It starts with an early morning workout of Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess for an hour and I make index flashcard puzzles for every answer I get wrong or I feel like I should've seen. Then, if I'm going to play that day, I only play if I have a free 2 hour time slot. (This gives me the peace of mind that I will have no distractions for 1-2 30 Minute Rapid games.) After each game, I go through the game writing down my ideas in a notebook of all my games since I've started, focusing on key moments in the game where I either had many options or maybe I blundered a piece etc., and figure out why and what I could have done better. Every game, I write down key takeaways on a notepad, then go back with the computer and see if my new ideas were better than what I played, or if what I played was in top 3 computer choices. If it was, I don't really care, but if I play a move the computer doesn't suggest in the top 5, I go down the variation and write down what I can understand from the computers ideas. Then, I do the Daily puzzle as well as the 3 free puzzles on chess com (mate in 3 rated 1300-1500) along with my index puzzles. I set myself an hour and focus on the daily puzzle and free puzzles. I give myself as much time as I feel to try calculate the full variation and then go for it. If I was wrong, it becomes a flashcard. Then, later in the evening, if I have time, I watch mastering middlegames from opening positions that I play. Queens Gambit, French , etc. Especially if I lost out of the opening or middle game from that position earlier in the day. Or the Endgames course from chessable if I lost in the endgame (free). Or I go through The Complete Book of Chess Strategy by IM Jeremy Silman just to learn new ideas as it's an encyclopedia type book. And if extra time, I play some more for fun. :) Sounds like alot? It kind of is. lol But it's been working. So far in February, I am 39-26-4. Not great, but more wins than losses, I'll take it.
@@L33TTechReviewer I don’t do the notebook stuff anymore, but still do puzzles and don’t move until i found the solution, and still practice endgames. I think the biggest improvement in my game came from playing blitz like if it were rapid and the puzzles. You lose alot at the beginning, but as long as your winning when time runs out you’re doing it right. It forced me to calculate faster, and learn how slow down and calculate no matter how obvious a move may seem. We could play anytime, PokeManiacCastro.
Also now my game reviews aren’t with computer (as much) anymore, idk how to explain it but you start to know what move in the game is what caused you to really lose because that’s when the game starts feeling really hard. Lol so I only focus on that one major mistake and where I could have went wrong.
That was really interesting. One question about the "Polgar mates". Is that Susan or Judit Polgar, and what is the title of the book/course/whatever the material is?
You guys are discussing a common theme that educators are constantly debating. Is there one way to teach ANYTHING, really? The answer is clearly NO. Check back on years of educational literature and you will see what I mean. And, if you do happen to hit upon something that you all agree upon, you will only have created ONE way to approach the problem. It will be effective and enjoyable for some and not for others. That's just the nature of education. If you want to embrace something as broad as chess, I suggest that you prescribe multiple potential paths to any particular level. Satisfying any of a multitude of sets of objectives should be enough to get you to a particular belt level. I suggest that you think less of rating levels and come up with a belt level scheme which seems appropriate to your Dojo theme. You could then do some objective analysis to see if you have correlation between ratings and your belt levels. So my suggestion to you is, don't try creating a UNIVERSAL system at all. It's a foolhardy goal. You can however, create a really great educational resource with your collective knowledge, I'm sure.
A structured approach is essential. What I like to do with my students is go through one classical game (Paul Morphy, Capablanca, etc), motivating them to guess the moves, using the coordinates. Than I ask them to play a game, only 6 moves, and they have to show me the game. They will not be able, so I ask them to do the same but now writing down the moves. After this we analyse the games together. Then I tell them how many mistakes can happen in such short games, so I motivate them to write down all games they played, so we can learn from the mistakes.
@@nudelsuppe2090 I think it is important to know how much material you need to checkmate. I had a student who is playing since decades who believed that king and rook vs rook is a draw. He didn’t know how to checkmate with rook and king.
David approach is something like the students do what they want. I like more the structured approach by Jesse. Sometimes a student thinks he doesn’t like something simply because he didn’t have the motivation to learn basic endgames. A good idea is to make students play endgames against each other. When I give tennis lessons I often make a game out of an exercise - suddenly the students are highly motivated to do the same thing, like trying to hit a target with the ball.
