Restructuring my Training Plan

Comments on https://lichess.org/@/rqtte/blog/restructuring-my-training-plan/NcdJJmCN

"invest a lot of time into tactical exercise I would fix that flaw ... but no can do."

• In a real game nobody tells you there is a tactic, or for whom.

"I did not spend enough time analyzing my games"

• You should analyze a lost game for as long as the duration of the game itself.

"I was even more hopeless in the endgame"

• A hour spent on endgames reaps more half points (win instead of draw, draw instead of loss) than any other training.

"Opening study is probably one of the biggest pitfalls in chess improvement"

• It does not help. 'Just forget about the openings and spend all that time on the endings' - Capablanca

"I'm probably just playing way to little"

• It is not necessary to play that much. Fischer did not play in 1969, but came back stronger than ever before.
  It is better to analyze annotated grandmaster games.

"online classical tournaments"

• That is still a faster time control.

I appreciate your opinion, and I'll try to answer your concerns with my thoughts:

@tpr said ^

"invest a lot of time into tactical exercise I would fix that flaw ... but no can do."

• In a real game nobody tells you there is a tactic, or for whom.

Yeah, but the stuff I was missing was sometimes so elementary that I feel like it is more of a focus problem than an actual tactical one. One of the things I'll try to implement in the next few games - eventhough it sounds somewhat elementary - is to consciously do some sort of blunder check. I can genuinly imagine this being more effective in combating the shortsightedness than investing most of my time in tactics.

"I did not spend enough time analyzing my games"

• You should analyze a lost game for as long as the duration of the game itself.

Yup, unfortunatly that's where reality clashes with idealism. I will simply not have the time to spend 4 hours to analyze one game , 2 hours have to suffice (of course there is the option of using two sessions to analyze a game, but it's not something I would want to do regularly). I feel like using a whole session on a game is a huge improvement, compared to the situation beforehand. Of course, if future me realizes that it's still not enough I can always change that.

"I was even more hopeless in the endgame"

• A hour spent on endgames reaps more half points (win instead of draw, draw instead of loss) than any other training.

I actually did have an endgame portion in my old plan, but I feel like I didn't profit too much by doing that. I'd rather focus on one aspect at a time (so yes the plan is to work on my endgames when I wrap up Helstein's positional book but one thing after another).

"Opening study is probably one of the biggest pitfalls in chess improvement"

• It does not help. 'Just forget about the openings and spend all that time on the endings' - Capablanca

I mostly agree but I think it's not unreasonable to focus on specific holes I have when I notice them. In this specific tournament I was not rarely just straight up losing out of the opening, because I had too little clue what I was doing. I feel like spending a small amount of time on having a bit of a clue is not too big of a waste of time. Of course, it is somewhat of a pitfall, so I'll have to watch out for that, no doubts about it. That's why I specifically only want to focus on holes and not general maintance.

"I'm probably just playing way to little"

• It is not necessary to play that much. Fischer did not play in 1969, but came back stronger than ever before.
• It is better to analyze annotated grandmaster games.

That's the question. I'm planning on spending around 25-30% of my time playing, so around 3-4 hours per week, so about a classical game per week (which doesn't necessarily mean I'm playing every week, I might just switch between phases of studying a lot and playing a lot depending on the tournament situation in my area). That means I'm playing around 40-50 classical games per year. That feels like a reasonable amount to me, but of course I can't be sure about that.

"online classical tournaments"

• That is still a faster time control.

Well, I mainly played the Dojo classical, 90+30 online. I feel like the time control is quite close to OTB classical. Still didn't quite do it for me tho, so I'll be keeping my eyes open for classical OTB stuff in my area more often.

Feel free to further comment on my thoughts, I'll gladly exchange opinions with a higher rated player :)

"blunder check"

• Always necessary.

"I will simply do not have the time to spend 4 hours to analyze one game"

• Analyze lost games only to save time. Fischer analyzed a lost game the whole night, during a tournament.

"I actually did have an endgame portion in my old plan, but I feel like I didn't profit too much by doing that."

• The reward is not immediate, but it rewards more in the long term.

"I had too little clue what I was doing."

• You have to think. If you depend on knowledge to have a clue what you are doing in the opening, then how will you have a clue about what you are doing after the opening?

@tpr said ^

"blunder check"

• Always necessary.

Agreed, planning on doing it consciously. I have learned it the hard way lol

"I will simply do not have the time to spend 4 hours to analyze one game"

• Analyze lost games only to save time. Fischer analyzed a lost game the whole night, during a tournament.

I understand not analyzing games you've won, especially if you did so handily, but what about games you've drew? That feels analysis-worthy to me, especially at my level where a thing like a dead draw simply does not exist. For tournaments where I win a lot of stuff quite handily I might just do that, but in this case, where I have 8 losses to analyze (and a draw that's analysis-worthy in my opinion) I'd have to spend around 16 sessions (not all games lasted 4 hours) analyzing. I don't feel like that's a sustainable approach if I still want to get to do the other stuff.

"I actually did have an endgame portion in my old plan, but I feel like I didn't profit too much by doing that."

• The reward is not immediate, but it rewards more in the long term....

Fairs, but I still think I would get more out of my time by focusing on one topic at once instead of dividing my attention between two different topics. And if it's just as effective, then it's just a question of taste. In the end I'll have done both, I'm not hiding from the endgame.

"I had too little clue what I was doing."

• You have to think. If you depend on knowledge to have a clue what you are doing in the opening, then how will you have a clue about what you are doing after the opening?

The plan is not to memorize lines mindlessly but to get an understanding of the opening to some extend. That knowledge also helps with the middlegame. I'm always trying to understand the reasoning behind my moves, rather then barfing out some top engine lines. I will probably be showing some of the games next week, but when I talk about my opening being flawed it was more of a fundamental missjudgment or me not knowing/understanding an important idea rather then me forgetting a move.

Again, feel free to comment on my thoughts :)