Author: Albert Silver
Date: 09:17:51 07/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
>I think that the main problem is that we do not know if they could not get
>similiar progress without the special training that they got.
>
>The question is if a player with stable rating of near 2200 in the last 3 years
>can earn 200 elo in 2 years.
>
>If they want to test the system they need to use it not for somebody that they
>believe has a great potential but for 2200 players that failed to improve in the
>last 3 years and are not considered to be players with a great potential
>relative to other players.
>
>Uri
Your point is well-taken, and there are other factors too. For example, the
training program is quite rigorous, and this requires discipline and commitment.
It's biggest strengths in my opinion are that they provide a very
well-structured self-study program that any player can follow without
necessarily having access to such high-quality coaching as they have in Russia.
There are many players that are committed and disciplined but have no proper
direction, and the phrase my snooker teacher used to repeat comes to mind: "The
phrase 'practice makes perfect' is wrong because it is incomplete. *Proper*
practice makes perfect." In other words, it's not just about the time you spend,
but how efficiently you use it, and this study-plan provides just that.
As to the limits of success, it is hard to say of course. Remember that she
works at a children's chess school, so the chance she has many students who have
stagnated at 2200 for 3 years or more is small, since her students are young to
begin with. Many of the students are also not even 2200 yet for the 2-year
program. The question of stagnation for 3 years or more is complicated because
it depends on so many factors.
For example, has the player been studying as much as when they reached the 2200
level? In some cases, I'm sure it's true, and I know some players who spent a
decade or more very actively pursuing the 2200 goal. Would using this study
program elevate them to IM level? It's very hard to say, but the ones I have in
mind make me say it is extremely unlikely. They might still progress though. It
took me about 4 years from the day I started chess (not that this was a goal
when I first picked the game up) to the day I was playing at 2200. I haven't
studied or played regularly for years now, so my rating has slowly but surely
declined from the 2200+ level to ~2100. Maybe I'll enact a slightly less intense
version of the program (which prescribes 4 hours a day) and see what comes of
it. If I do, I'll keep a journal.
Albert
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.