Answers.Body: <p>Playing against machines will definitely help you get better at playing against machines.  If that's the goal, go for it.</p>
  
  <p>If you want to get better at Chess, you need to play several slow serious games against human opponents (both slightly above and below your skill level) on a regular basis.</p>
  
  <p>The metaphor here is picking up a "learn some language in 6 months" interactive audio/software course that you do solo vs. being thrown into a village where that  is all that people speak and your ability to survive and grow  is acquired organically by making mistakes, getting critiqued with regular feedback loops as well as the social osmosis that is typical of increasing competency in any learning fraternity.</p>
  
  <p>Even the mighty <em>self-taught</em> Fischer visited the clubs and competed against the world's finest to get from <strong>good</strong> to <strong>better</strong>.</p>
  
  <p>There's also an aspect of gamesmanship, learning how to use the clock under pressure, deceptive stratagems and sub-optimum "play the man" ideas like gambits that you will NEVER pick up when practicing against a machine.  Gaining <strong>experience</strong> and <strong>intuition</strong> in a very short window of time is best achieved with a human feedback loop to help you constantly identify your weaknesses and recommend avenues of play (openings, endings, middlegame strategy) that you are clearly missing.</p>
  
  <p>With that being said, seeking out human opponents at any time control is fairly easy these days via your laptop/tablet/mobile device. For instance sites like Chess.com,  Playchess and the ICC provide mobile-friendly apps that you can certainly use to get some chess in at all times of the day against human opposition.</p>
  
  <p>For your kind of ambition though,  start hitting your local clubs and find (and in some cases, <strong>pay</strong>) a strong mentor to review each and every slow game you play as often as possible.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-03T17:03:27.317Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-05-04T20:00:53.090Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2017-05-04T20:00:53.090Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: shivsky
Answers.Body: <p>The IM (International Master) Jeremy Silman, at the age of 14, "studied master games until he was slaphappy and drooling." (He also mentions eating a lot of ice cream.)</p>
  
  <p>Luckily, there's an easier way for beginners.</p>
  
  <p><strong>Read Silman's books:</strong></p>
  
  <p><em>Re-assess your chess: 3rd edition</em></p>
  
  <p><em>The Amateur's mind</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Complete Endgame Course</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Re-assess your chess (workbook)</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Chess Fundamentals</em> (By Capablanca - recommended but advanced reading - meant to be read ONLY after finishing the above four)</p>
  
  <p>Reading the four Silman books for an hour a day (do the included exercises) and playing ONE 60/5 game on Sunday will net at least 36 hours a week and satisfy the necessary practice to play ratio.</p>
  
  <p>Your practice to play ratio must be 20:1. You cannot play well if you don't practice. I don't mean go and play 20 30-minute games for one tournament game; no. I mean devote 400 hours of reading and strategy, positional, and tactical exercises for 20 hours of games.</p>
  
  <p>Surely enough, you will win. The 2000's+ didn't get there on sheer luck. The 1500's and below only stay there because they don't put in the necessary work or are focusing on the wrong information.</p>
  
  <p>It should take you ten weeks to finish the four Silman books and unofficially land you (at least) at the 1800 level. </p>
  
  <p>By the way, <strong>playing four 15/5 games is not the same as playing one 60/5 game.</strong> You have at most enough time to consider and ponder seriously upon one move in the former; four or five in the latter. I no longer play 15/5's, even though they are very fun! They just don't get me any better.</p>
  
  <p><em>I am not selling anything and/or do not receive commissions for selling Silman's books.</em></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-06T01:54:28.013Z
Answers.Text: Yuk. Where to start:
  
  Your play to study ratio as a player less than an Expert/1st Category player should be 50/50 at best. 20:1 is way off. You are not playing enough and not "practicing" at that ratio (i.e., gain experience, the thing you seek). You need to "see positions under fire", investigate them post mortem, and find the deficiencies in your play. it's one thing to read hours on Rook Endgames and an entirely different beast to actually have to play one out and win or try and hold a disadvantageous position.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Priyome
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-06T01:54:34.380Z
Answers.Text: Playing a single 60/5 game per week is way too scant playing time. If you are setting aside an hour a day for chess, then split it up into two segments - half study, the other half play. G15/5 games are fine for gaining experience and seeing positions, but of course, blitz is better for that.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Priyome
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-06T03:24:57.070Z
Answers.Text: @Priyome I completely agree that knowing the path is different from walking it. However, you do realize that practice involves **playing** hundreds of positions such as King, Rook, and Pawn vs. King (each randomly placed) against a computer or from a book, I hope. That is essentially the same as playing a game except now you're specializing the area of the game you want to improve in.
  
  Also, 15/5 games do not give you enough time to consider a position. I do agree that you see a lot more positions (simply because you are playing more, but the quality of those positions *will* be less.)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-06T14:01:22.943Z
Answers.Text: Ever ask yourself why you never get some of those endings? It's because you did not play a game where you understood the opportunity to transition into such an endgame. You can - and should - practice all facets of the game, but don't ignore game action for the sake of it. 15/5 games give you enough time to develop your intuition in chess. It's clearly a give and take, but the transitions from opening to middlegame and middlegame to endgames are the most important moments in chess, something only games allow you to practice upon. Yes, 50/50 is a good ratio.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Priyome
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-06T16:21:29.310Z
Answers.Text: @Priyome You're putting words in my mouth. I did not say I "never get some of those endings". In fact, although Jeremy Silman has only gotten KBN vs. K once in a tournament, I still find it useful to practice, only to appreciate the powers of the knight and bishop. (It's like a puzzle, like a knight's tour.) Lastly, who said anything about developing intuition? We're more concerned about playing well (read the post).
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-07T19:27:27.897Z
Answers.Text: Rhetoric question. Sorry you missed that. And, I mentioned intuition (sorry you feel that your opinion is exclusive to all others) and the development of intuition in chess is fundamental to playing well. Everyone knows that, intuitively.I guess I also don't understand the King, Rook and Pawn vs. King random endings being practiced against a computer. That is a trivial win. Maybe you meant K+R+P vs. K+ R?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Priyome
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-07T23:07:33.887Z
Answers.Text: @Priyome: You're missing the point of the argument. We're not arguing that intuition is good or bad for development. **We're also not arguing that 15/5 is good (or bad).** We're arguing that one needs to practice 20 times as many times as they play. You have failed to bring up any rebuttals for it.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-09T20:18:29.860Z
Answers.Text: Wait, we were arguing? Dang. I thought it was just a discussion. But, since you bring it up:
  What empirical evidence do you have that says the 20:1 ratio is optimal? My guess is none. What evidence do I have contrary to that? As well, none, other than my experiences and advice from my chess teacher. Which is why it's not an argument, but a matter of opinion.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Priyome
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-10T03:50:00.847Z
Answers.Text: @Priyome Mark Dvoretsky clearly advises that practical training should take the form of solving appropriate exercises. (Dvoretsky was known as the best trainer; he trained Kasparov) Lastly, I leave you with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVZj6ddptiw
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-11T03:11:38.463Z
Answers.Text: Talk about failed rebuttals. I've read 7 books by Dvoretsky - 1-5 school of future champions, Endgame Manual, and Secretes of Chess tactics. NOWHERE does he even hint at a 20:1 ratio. Matter of fact, he strongly suggests playing training games as a feedback mechanism to expose your deficiencies and direct your studies in that manner. you simply MUST PLAY enough to KNOW WHAT TO STUDY. That is painfully obvious. Show me some meaningful proof or a relevant rebuttal that does not include a "Professional BasketBall Player"/Tony Robbins wannabee preaching to me, and maybe you'll get somewhere.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Priyome
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-11T04:13:19.437Z
Answers.Text: @Priyome: Read again. Ironically, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBrFAFWerZQ
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-15T23:32:10.133Z
Answers.Text: @Priyome: To drive the point home, I thought of you when reading this article: https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-number-one-reason-players-lose-chess-games-is
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-16T21:13:30.267Z
Answers.Text: Great. Another ad from you from someone selling something. And, what point exactly are you driving home? That moving too quickly results in bad chess? Wow! Really? I'm STUNNED! FYI: I've been playing postal chess for over a decade and I'm well aware the advantages of playing postal chess confer to your OTB play. Get back to me when you have an original thought on the matter. Still waiting on your evidence.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Priyome
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-03T17:04:36.483Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-05-03T17:09:39.000Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2017-05-03T17:09:39.000Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jossie Calderon
Body: <p>I want to amass as much Chess experience as I can, by playing several games against my phone/laptop AI.<br>
  &nbsp; 
  &nbsp;<br>
  I'm not a good player, and would estimate my ELO is &lt;1500.<br>
  &nbsp; 
  &nbsp;<br>
  I am wondering if I would level up fastest by playing against an AI closer to my level, or by playing against my AI at the highest level.<br>
  &nbsp; 
  &nbsp;<br>
  I've known the rules of chess for several years and been playing casually — I want to start playing seriously.<br>
  &nbsp; 
  &nbsp;<br>
  What I most desire, is experience — and the intuition that comes with.  </p>
  
Tags: <engines><learning><training>
Title: Fastest Way to Amass Experience
ThreadText: # Fastest Way to Amass Experience
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2017-05-03)
  
  I want to amass as much Chess experience as I can, by playing several games against my phone/laptop AI.  
   
     
  I'm not a good player, and would estimate my ELO is <1500.  
   
     
  I am wondering if I would level up fastest by playing against an AI closer to my level, or by playing against my AI at the highest level.  
   
     
  I've known the rules of chess for several years and been playing casually — I want to start playing seriously.  
   
     
  What I most desire, is experience — and the intuition that comes with.
  
  **Tags:** engines, learning, training
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2017-05-03. Score: 5
  
  Playing against machines will definitely help you get better at playing against machines. If that's the goal, go for it.
  
  If you want to get better at Chess, you need to play several slow serious games against human opponents (both slightly above and below your skill level) on a regular basis.
  
  The metaphor here is picking up a "learn some language in 6 months" interactive audio/software course that you do solo vs. being thrown into a village where that is all that people speak and your ability to survive and grow is acquired organically by making mistakes, getting critiqued with regular feedback loops as well as the social osmosis that is typical of increasing competency in any learning fraternity.
  
  Even the mighty *self-taught* Fischer visited the clubs and competed against the world's finest to get from **good** to **better**.
  
  There's also an aspect of gamesmanship, learning how to use the clock under pressure, deceptive stratagems and sub-optimum "play the man" ideas like gambits that you will NEVER pick up when practicing against a machine. Gaining **experience** and **intuition** in a very short window of time is best achieved with a human feedback loop to help you constantly identify your weaknesses and recommend avenues of play (openings, endings, middlegame strategy) that you are clearly missing.
  
  With that being said, seeking out human opponents at any time control is fairly easy these days via your laptop/tablet/mobile device. For instance sites like Chess.com, Playchess and the ICC provide mobile-friendly apps that you can certainly use to get some chess in at all times of the day against human opposition.
  
  For your kind of ambition though, start hitting your local clubs and find (and in some cases, **pay**) a strong mentor to review each and every slow game you play as often as possible.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2017-05-03. Score: 3
  
  The IM (International Master) Jeremy Silman, at the age of 14, "studied master games until he was slaphappy and drooling." (He also mentions eating a lot of ice cream.)
  
  Luckily, there's an easier way for beginners.
  
  **Read Silman's books:**
  
  *Re-assess your chess: 3rd edition*
  
  *The Amateur's mind*
  
  *Complete Endgame Course*
  
  *Re-assess your chess (workbook)*
  
  *Chess Fundamentals* (By Capablanca - recommended but advanced reading - meant to be read ONLY after finishing the above four)
  
  Reading the four Silman books for an hour a day (do the included exercises) and playing ONE 60/5 game on Sunday will net at least 36 hours a week and satisfy the necessary practice to play ratio.
  
  Your practice to play ratio must be 20:1. You cannot play well if you don't practice. I don't mean go and play 20 30-minute games for one tournament game; no. I mean devote 400 hours of reading and strategy, positional, and tactical exercises for 20 hours of games.
  
  Surely enough, you will win. The 2000's+ didn't get there on sheer luck. The 1500's and below only stay there because they don't put in the necessary work or are focusing on the wrong information.
  
  It should take you ten weeks to finish the four Silman books and unofficially land you (at least) at the 1800 level.
  
  By the way, **playing four 15/5 games is not the same as playing one 60/5 game.** You have at most enough time to consider and ponder seriously upon one move in the former; four or five in the latter. I no longer play 15/5's, even though they are very fun! They just don't get me any better.
  
  *I am not selling anything and/or do not receive commissions for selling Silman's books.*
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: Yuk. Where to start:  Your play to study ratio as a player less than an Expert/1st Category player should be 50/50 at best. 20:1 is way off. You are not playing enough and not "practicing" at that ratio (i.e., gain experience, the thing you seek). You need to "see positions under fire", investigate them post mortem, and find the deficiencies in your play. it's one thing to read hours on Rook Endgames and an entirely different beast to actually have to play one out and win or try and hold a disadvantageous position.  
  > **username_3**: Playing a single 60/5 game per week is way too scant playing time. If you are setting aside an hour a day for chess, then split it up into two segments - half study, the other half play. G15/5 games are fine for gaining experience and seeing positions, but of course, blitz is better for that.  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 I completely agree that knowing the path is different from walking it. However, you do realize that practice involves **playing** hundreds of positions such as King, Rook, and Pawn vs. King (each randomly placed) against a computer or from a book, I hope. That is essentially the same as playing a game except now you're specializing the area of the game you want to improve in.  Also, 15/5 games do not give you enough time to consider a position. I do agree that you see a lot more positions (simply because you are playing more, but the quality of those positions *will* be less.)  
  > **username_3**: Ever ask yourself why you never get some of those endings? It's because you did not play a game where you understood the opportunity to transition into such an endgame. You can - and should - practice all facets of the game, but don't ignore game action for the sake of it. 15/5 games give you enough time to develop your intuition in chess. It's clearly a give and take, but the transitions from opening to middlegame and middlegame to endgames are the most important moments in chess, something only games allow you to practice upon. Yes, 50/50 is a good ratio.  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 You're putting words in my mouth. I did not say I "never get some of those endings". In fact, although Jeremy Silman has only gotten KBN vs. K once in a tournament, I still find it useful to practice, only to appreciate the powers of the knight and bishop. (It's like a puzzle, like a knight's tour.) Lastly, who said anything about developing intuition? We're more concerned about playing well (read the post).  
  > **username_3**: Rhetoric question. Sorry you missed that. And, I mentioned intuition (sorry you feel that your opinion is exclusive to all others) and the development of intuition in chess is fundamental to playing well. Everyone knows that, intuitively.I guess I also don't understand the King, Rook and Pawn vs. King random endings being practiced against a computer. That is a trivial win. Maybe you meant K+R+P vs. K+ R?  
  > **username_2**: @username_3: You're missing the point of the argument. We're not arguing that intuition is good or bad for development. **We're also not arguing that 15/5 is good (or bad).** We're arguing that one needs to practice 20 times as many times as they play. You have failed to bring up any rebuttals for it.  
  > **username_3**: Wait, we were arguing? Dang. I thought it was just a discussion. But, since you bring it up: What empirical evidence do you have that says the 20:1 ratio is optimal? My guess is none. What evidence do I have contrary to that? As well, none, other than my experiences and advice from my chess teacher. Which is why it's not an argument, but a matter of opinion.  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 Mark Dvoretsky clearly advises that practical training should take the form of solving appropriate exercises. (Dvoretsky was known as the best trainer; he trained Kasparov) Lastly, I leave you with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVZj6ddptiw  
  > **username_3**: Talk about failed rebuttals. I've read 7 books by Dvoretsky - 1-5 school of future champions, Endgame Manual, and Secretes of Chess tactics. NOWHERE does he even hint at a 20:1 ratio. Matter of fact, he strongly suggests playing training games as a feedback mechanism to expose your deficiencies and direct your studies in that manner. you simply MUST PLAY enough to KNOW WHAT TO STUDY. That is painfully obvious. Show me some meaningful proof or a relevant rebuttal that does not include a "Professional BasketBall Player"/Tony Robbins wannabee preaching to me, and maybe you'll get somewhere.  
  > **username_2**: @username_3: Read again. Ironically, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBrFAFWerZQ  
  > **username_2**: @username_3: To drive the point home, I thought of you when reading this article: https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-number-one-reason-players-lose-chess-games-is  
  > **username_3**: Great. Another ad from you from someone selling something. And, what point exactly are you driving home? That moving too quickly results in bad chess? Wow! Really? I'm STUNNED! FYI: I've been playing postal chess for over a decade and I'm well aware the advantages of playing postal chess confer to your OTB play. Get back to me when you have an original thought on the matter. Still waiting on your evidence.  
  
  ---
  
  