Great blog!
@tpr I think playing variations can help to improve. Especially King on the Hill (or 3 checks). Crazy House can also contribute to calculating of attack.
Playing padel helps improve to volley and smash in tennis (you volley and smash a lot in padel), and improving you tennis also helps you play padel better. So I don't understand why the same shouldn't happen with chess variations. When you reach a point where you can't improve, you have to try new training methods or things that are interconnected. That's my experience.
I absolutely do NOT agree with two points. Not studying openings and not reviewing won games.
1. Why not? At least commit 5% time to openings, build a repertoire, and never touch them again. Of course, as you reach higher levels, you must study openings more, else your opponent will take initiative by force. Then, it doesn't matter how good your middle game and endgames are.
2. Won games are as instructive as lost games most of the time. This rule is obviously too general.
"King on the Hill (or 3 checks). Crazy House"
* Playing King of the Hill, 3-Check, Crazyhouse make you beter at King of the Hill, 3-Check, Crazyhouse, not chess.
"Playing padel helps"
* I am not aware of tennis players who practice padel instead of tennis.
"When you reach a point where you can't improve"
* You have to analyze your lost games.
"commit 5% time to openings"
* The 5% will easily become 10%, 20%, 50%, 100%. All for little reward. Opening study can only postpone the moment you have to think for yourself. If you want to progress rapidly, then do not study opening theory, but endings instead. For rapd progress you have to do what gives most reward.
"it doesn't matter how good your middle game and endgames are"
* It is the other way around: if your middle game or endgame are bad, then it doe not matter how good your opening is.
"Won games are as instructive as lost games"
* They are not. A lost game is more instructive as it contains a decisive mistake, while a won game only contains inconsequential mistakes. The temptation is there to analyze won games to relive the joy of winning and admire your own brilliant play. Do not! A win is a lesson you taught your opponent, a loss is a lesson your opponent taught you.
When you mentioned 2000 fide right? Cause 2000 on lichess in nowhere close to beating Lasker with piece odds, I would find 2000 on lichess around 1550 to 1600 fide if they play regularly online.
Side note: I found the blog interesting and helpful:).
"you mentioned 2000 fide right"
* When I say loosely translates, then I leave it a bit vague: FIDE or lichess, classical or rapid...
Lasker was a funny guy.
One day he entered a coffeehouse to play an unknown player.
Unknown player, removing his knight: I always give odds to players I do not know.
Lasker: OK
Unknown player won the game.
Lasker: it is because you had a knight less: your pieces could maneuver more easily.
That extra knight always stood in my way. Let us play a game where I have a knight less.
Lasker won.
They played a few more games with knight odds. The player without the knight always won.
Lasker: you see, now it is proven: the player without a knight always wins.
So does this mean that you can't learn anything from won games?
Suppose you won a lost game. [Luck puzzle piece]... that must have been very instructive!
Suppose you won a game but know you messed up the opening... learn what to do better next time!
Suppose you missed an easy plan to win the game... well, something worth reviewing!
No won game is perfect under 2000, and most of the time, they are worth reviewing. And I do not see what is wrong with 'admiring a win'. It's good to give yourself some praise once in a while.
You are not entirely wrong- lost games are more instructive. But I easily believe that this should not justify the stereotype that 'won games don't help'. Especially in OTB, where every game is something to review.
"you can't learn anything from won games?"
* Something, maybe, but less than from a lost game.
"I do not see what is wrong with 'admiring a win'. It's good to give yourself some praise once in a while."
* The time spent on self admiration is better spent on self criticism. If you are thus magnificent, then you do not need to improve any further.
The natural tendency is to analyze won games at length as it is fun, and quickly shove aside losses (stupid blunder, time trouble, annoying opening...) as it is unpleasant and confronting to analyze them. Look at the game analysis forum here: nearly all won games. People like to boast about their wins. The psychiatrist Dr. Reuben Fine called it a form of exhibitionism.
if we didnt study openings we would get crushed against strong players
"Blitz games are not worthy of analysis, so useless for progress"
In my opinion, blitz games are *less* worthy of analysis compared to rapid and standard games, as the quality of the moves are inferior. However, going through blitz games can be beneficial, for example, for pin-pointing errors resulting by playing on instinct or shallow calculation. Learning from these mistakes can improve play in time trouble, in other time controls.