The Six Ways to Train feat. GM Eugene Perelshteyn | Dojo Talks Ep. 6 

Loved being on the show and happy to share more anecdotes! -Eugene

I have to say this is one of the best chess discussions I've ever heard. The topic was a most excellent choice and all three contributed pure substance with zero unnecessary repetition or kidding around. Very concise, lots of substance and insight. Thanks for this.

Great point about the thought process, Kostya. I feel like most blunders and missed tactics are a result of misunderstanding the position and not asking the right tactical questions and such.

1/2 for middle, 3 for endgames and middle games, 4 for all round improvement, 5 etiquette, 6 calculation

a update or sequel of this topic is much needed with elite coaches like Aagard Ramesh Botvinnik added into the mix

What a gem of a discussion. Thanks Eugene for coming on the show, it was fascinating listening to your experience!

My two cents as a strong amateur with knowledge of all the material shown: Dzindzi works for every range of player, mostly for not so high rated players; Dorfman overall for everyone from intermediate on; Dvoretsky just for quite advanced players.

Great stuff. The only channel which talks about teaching philosophy...👏👏👏👏

I'm just working my way through all the ChessDojo videos - this was a prety awesome discussion! Really help my learning planning. Thanks!!

Chess is an evergoing path of discovery. Early in my career, I intuitively chose many of the methods described here like chess culture, schools of thought, individual styles. Included studying choosing individuals to follow and styles that attracted me (before the age of strong computer chess).. And so, I developed a pretty strong sense of positional play contrary to my peers but was also very backwards in my combinational sckill. Since returning to the game recently, I've recognized the importance and effect of computer chess on overall knowledge and theory, and decided to address my combinational deficiencies. Am still on this path but have been amazed that as I progress and attempt to master small chunks of what I need, there is alwys another essential chunk of knowledge I have to master around the next corner. Even something so fundamental and basic as combinations and calculation is always surprising me, there's always a new twist that needs to be identified, studied and learned that extends what is supposed to be a well understood part of chess.

Great video, a pleasure and a privilege to hear Eugene talking about the different methods, very insightful!

We need a Yermolinski show get him in here! I will become a donator the moment i see him with a own show on this yt channel.

I agree with Jesse and Eugene on studying your own games, it requires a special ability that most of us may not have so developed as to be useful to do it just by ourselves, here I believe a stronger player helping is quite an asset

More GM Perelshteyn, please!

It's discouraging that knowledge on chess education seems to have gone backwards since Emanuel Lasker wrote Lasker's Manual of Chess. Lasker was the one who crystallized the idea of non-ideological chess, the first modern player who played only based on what he judged to be the "demands of the position". That means a breadth first search in computer terms where one bottom up finds the motifs of the position and determines whether to seek an immediate resolution via a combination or to search forward positionally for favorable positions and then devise a plan to attain them. It's all explained in Lasker's Manual how to do calculation, and most importantly, Lasker stresses that one must carry lines to where one reaches a position one believes one can evaluate. But this valuation function if personal to each player -- it is the lifetime accumulation of all a player has played and studied. Thus Lasker merges every single method you talk about here, and he already had written it by now close to a century ago. The Soviets welcomed players such as Lasker and Capablanca to play in Russia in the 1930s to learn from them, and Lasker even wrote a forward for the Soviet Chess Primer. I have speculated that the only reason Lasker's Manual wasn't more pushed in the Soviet Union is at the same time Joseph Stalin wrote his own book on philosophy, and one would literally be risking one's life to say anything that could remotely contradict it. Lasker was a self-taught philosopher, and his Manual contains many ruminations -- it is arguably the most philosophical book ever written about chess.

Love these chats! Thanks guys! 👍🏻

No system is best on its own, they are best when they are combined. A teacher can use the carrot or stick method to motivate his students but recognizing who needs a carrot and who needs a stick is an art on its own and so many times it has been done all wrong. Dovretsky was like Bruce Lee, he could turn a good student into the best but he didn't have patience with a beginner.

Gm Jesse please help us by making a video on how to analyze your own games/ Botvinnik method.

When I briefly trained with Dzindzichashvili he was rather dismissive of the "Soviet" school of chess. "All Soviet chess school is just you move pawn or two, develop all pieces, then attack". Then he would show examples by just playing these plain jane king's pawn openings and proceeding to blow away random 2000-2200s online. It was never so easy for me though.

If you put these on itunes you'd have a very popular podcast!

GM levenfish had a method based on Correspondence. I interpreted it as study related material relevant to the current game or games. I dont do it most times but it has helped the times I have.

The Dzindzi method sounds like the flashbulb memory method, meaning making mistakes very emotional so it is recorded vividly. As with the concept of a flashbulb memory.

wonderful channel, guys!

Jesse, you are the best

Great videos, i love also the ending by eugene. Thanks all

Can I just mention something about the criticism of Nakamura blitzing out his moves in classical. Here we are talking about something he did in 2004 at the age of 16. Also I grew up reading articles about an Indian phenom who blitzed out his moves and crushed GMs using very little time. Of course Im talking about Vishy Anand and I never heard any criticism of Anand when I was a kid just amazement.

More videos like that! amazing, the time fly Hello from Brazil

Wonderful chat indeed. The Dzindzi approach I like a lot, but some personalities may not adapt to that style, for me it is simple, I remember Fischer dictum about chess players, "there are nice guys and tough guys, I am a tough guy"...If a true Teacher respects your abilities he may and have to be tough sometimes, or many times, one must understand that it is a setup arranged for your benefit...Of course, teachers in the style of the movie about the drummer are most likely on the psychopatic side, that is another issue altogether. I like to be respected, therefore I like to be sweezed if I deserve it! But of course many people do not like that

Public vow to go over your games or take a course before the next game is very good.

#4 was a teaser, but I'm almost at the point of begging for Jesse to make a video detailing exactly how to look at your own games and what kinds of notes to take! ;)

I would also add to this video, that different styles make you study different things too. If you like to simplify games and go to endgame, working on endgames sounds like a good thing. If you like to play sharply with tactics, probably good to work on tactics and study important opening lines in sharp variations.

Wow really nice talk! Thx a bunch

I love Yermo, he doesn't sugar coat always keeps it 100. Chess is tough and tough coaches are by far the best, coddling tends breeds mediocrity. Tough love all the way. You would think that it is obvious that you have to study your own games to improve, but so many players don't seem to understand how important that is, props to the Pontus lecture again. It is also very important to have rivals, a good rivalry pushes you to be better and to get better. Jesse mentioned Chess culture, but america has a chess culture too, it goes if you forget your board or clock at the table it gets stolen, I found out this the hard way at a World Open many years ago. Eugene never mention Nakamura and etiquette in the same sentence, actually he has improved a lot over when he was younger although that's not saying much. There is a number 7 approach, that is accepting there is no quick fix whatever method you choose and that you will need to put in the work.

The American chess school could be called the Hunger Games school of chess ;)

Interesting discussion! The way Eugene described the Soviet School of Chess goes against the description of Alexander Beliavsky in an interview for the British Chess Magazine. There, Beliavsky shot down the notion of having a "school." He argued that the school really is just a huge player base combined with, in essence, a leaderboard system that incentivizes chess. Nothing standardized as far as teaching goes. Eugene, however, says otherwise.

Great video!

Everyone try the Lawrence Reed chess method 😅Proven to improve your chess set collection.

Will try definitely

i like that Kostya points out counterexamples to Jesse's negative views re/ Dvoretsky. Seems a pretty strong bias there.

How do you think the Soviet Chess Primer compares with the curriculum Yasser created? available here: saintlouischessclub.org/education/chess-curriculum

I read "6 ways to train feet"...

What about the Rob Brunia adn Car Van Wjigerden "The Chess Steps" Method..

1. School of hardknocks 2. Thinking imbalances 3. The Woodpecker Method 4. Self explanatory 5. Master something before moving on communism style. 6. Self explanatory

you can say jessseee kraiiai is clearly opposed to Dvoretsky :)

Is it productive to spend a half hour a day, every day, solving tactical problems?

13:00

3:00

10:00

the chess board at the very start of the video isn't oriented the correct way

Kostya ur second best tho :) or no 3th David is second, sorry Kostya

Work those trainees like dogs, ride them hard like racehorses :)

what amazes me is how even strong experienced players absolutely underestimate what a resource a strong engine is and somehow take it to be passive learning or not explaining anything because its not masticating every syllable of concept to you. You absolutely can use engines actively to punish your ideas and those of your opponent, and to hunt for secondary moves. So long as you are reasonably flexible in what to absorb and what to dismiss as too computery, (which is really a small minority of positions), you can get really far analyzing your games with a strong engine. the exception here though is endgames. There you absolutely need a narrative because the amount of endgames you can just learn algorithmically is small.