| |
Main
Date: 16 Nov 2004 05:50:14
From: Brandon
Subject: Dr. Lasker: 200 Hours to become a Chess Master?
|
200 hours to become a Chess master?
I thought you might enjoy the following passage from [Dr. Emanuel]
"Lasker's Manual of Chess" (1947), especially the breakdown of how 200
hours might be employed to achieve a status at or close to the
master's level. (Dr. Lasker was World Chess Champion for 26 or 27
years, I believe):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0486206408/qid=1093937704/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3316417-2526561?v=glance&s=books
From the chapter titled "Final Reflections on Education in Chess"
(page 336 in the edition cited above):
"Education in Chess goes on in a most haphazard fashion. Most Chess
players slowly climb to a certain rather low level and stay there. Of
players to whom a master can give odds of a Queen there are millions;
If we reckon the number of Rook players as a hundred and fifty
thousand, of Knight players as fifty thousand, of Pawn and two-move
players as forty thousand, of Pawn and move players as nine thousand,
and the number of those to whom no master can allow odds as one
thousand, we are possibly not very far wrong. Now, let us consider the
efforts made to attain this result: a literature of many thousand
volumes, hundreds, maybe thousands, of Chess columns in widely read
newspapers and magazines, lectures, tournaments, tournament books,
courses of instruction, matches in the clubs and between clubs and
cities and countries, by correspondence, by telegraph and telephone,
thousands of coffee-houses, where spectators, amid lively gossip, look
on, make notes, analyze -- truly an imposing expenditure...."
"Let us assume that a master who follows a good method, say, the
method of this book, strives to educate a young man ignorant of Chess
to the level of one who, if conceded any odds, would surely come out
the winner. How much time would the teacher need for this achievement?
I think that I am correct in making the following calculation:
[200 hours total]:
Rules of Play and Exercises: 5 hrs.
Elementary Endings: 5 hrs.
Some Openings: 10 hrs.
Combination: 20 hrs.
Position Play: 40 hrs.
Play and Analysis: 120 hrs.
"Even if the young man has no talent at all, by following the above
course he would advance to the class specified. Compare with this
possibility, the reality. In fact, there are a quarter of a million
Chess amateurs who devote to Chess at least two hundred hours every
year and of these only a thousand, after a lifetime of study, attain
the end. Without losing myself in calculations, I believe I am safe in
voicing the opinion that our efforts in Chess attain only a hundredth
of one per cent. of their rightful result...."
[end of passage]
Please note, the accuracy of this passage is limited by my [strictly
limited] typing skills. Though I have proof-read it, I may have missed
an error or two (or three or four...). I really encourage you to get a
copy of Dr. Lasker's "Lasker's Manual of Chess". I regard it as an
essential book in any serious Chessplayer's library:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0486206408/qid=1093937704/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3316417-2526561?v=glance&s=books
Of special interest is the fact that, of the 200 hours of
study/instruction, only 5 hours are spent on openings! I think
Capablanca was of similar mind: that for non-professional players, no
more than about 5% of their Chess study-time should be spent on
openings. (There is a strong tendency to over-emphasize
openings-study, in my view.)
Your thoughts on this subject are most welcome.
Incidentally, this is a very good message board devoted to the games
and Chess career of Dr. Emanuel Lasker. Participation is entirely
free:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=19149
Brett
http://www.100bestwebsites.org/
"The 100 best sites on the Web, all in one place!"
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Dec 2004 11:26:44
From: Piepton
Subject: Re: Dr. Lasker: 200 Hours to become a Chess Master?
|
I think you might be gravely overestimating the strength of a master
level player. It is true that an expert is likely to defeat a master
at any time but I would be surprised if a master could win every game
against a class A, B or even some C players giving pawn odds and the
move. Certainly a decent teacher could take a fairly intelligent
person and bring them to this level with 6 months of study,
approximately 1 hour a day for 200 days.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Dec 2004 16:18:30
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Dr. Lasker: 200 Hours to become a Chess Master?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Piepton" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I think you might be gravely overestimating the strength of a master
> level player. It is true that an expert is likely to defeat a master
> at any time but I would be surprised if a master could win every game
> against a class A, B or even some C players giving pawn odds and the
> move. Certainly a decent teacher could take a fairly intelligent
> person and bring them to this level with 6 months of study,
> approximately 1 hour a day for 200 days.
>
I think a master would easily win every game against a c-player even
giving pawn-and-move odds.
Pawns are worthless to C- and B- players. I /won/ as a C-player, my
share of pawn-down endings, including one against an A-player. (Probably
my best game -- a budapest gambit gone awry, where I completely
outclassed my opponent in the endgame). If you fritz through a typical
B-player game, you'll see dozens of moments when the players fail to
notice that they've dropped a pawn -- both players continue oblivious!
I don't have enough experience against A-players to comment, but if
somebody can have gaping holes in their game and still be an a-player
(as my opponent in that game had) then I have a hard time believing that
a master would struggle.
There are so many points left hanging around in things like rook endings
that even if the class player managed to simplify, I suspect they'd lose
a lot of points.
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2004 21:33:20
From: gnohmon
Subject: Re: Dr. Lasker: 200 Hours to become a Chess Master?
|
> Then again, maybe he was just doing a little keting?
This person was a part-time chess player and was head and shoulders
above the rest of the world at his time, for a preiod of nearly 3
decades.
He only played chess when he needed money, preferred instead to do
other things (at which he was less successful than he was at chess,
alas for him and hurray for us), so "keting" is quite
understandable.
Perhaps he exxagerated. Perhaps it should really take 300 hours if your
teacher is less capable than Lasker. So, would 300 hours of instruction
by Fischer or Kasparov be enough to turn your random Joe Schmoe into a
national master? Maybe 600 hours of instruction by Sammy Reshevsky?
Perhaps 600000000000000 hours of personal instruction by "fs"?
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2004 21:20:40
From: gnohmon
Subject: Re: Dr. Lasker: 200 Hours to become a Chess Master?
|
Emanuel Lasker was so far above the level of the
ordinary chessmaster that he may well have
underestimated the amount of learning that ordinarily
goes into achieving that level.
However, it may well be that with Lasker's understanding
of chess, the game was so somple that if a newbie were
to be inculcated with the correct paradigms from the start,
that player could quickly be a master.
In my own experience, it is not the opening knowledge that
makes a GM, it is not the abilitry to move fast at blitz that
makes a GM. many GMs are less tactically clever than I,
but they think of the game a different way, the paradigm thing.
You should be very careful criticizing the thoughts of someone
like Lasker. If they seem wrong to you, probably the defect is
in you.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Dec 2004 05:44:34
From: fs
Subject: Re: Dr. Lasker: 200 Hours to become a Chess Master?
|
"gnohmon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Emanuel Lasker was so far above the level of the
> ordinary chessmaster that he may well have
> underestimated the amount of learning that ordinarily
> goes into achieving that level.
>
> However, it may well be that with Lasker's understanding
> of chess, the game was so somple that if a newbie were
> to be inculcated with the correct paradigms from the start,
> that player could quickly be a master.
>
> In my own experience, it is not the opening knowledge that
> makes a GM, it is not the abilitry to move fast at blitz that
> makes a GM. many GMs are less tactically clever than I,
> but they think of the game a different way, the paradigm thing.
>
> You should be very careful criticizing the thoughts of someone
> like Lasker. If they seem wrong to you, probably the defect is
> in you.
>
Then again, maybe he was just doing a little keting?
"Let us assume that a master who follows a good method, say, the *method of
this book*, strives to educate a young man ignorant of Chess to the level
of one who, if conceded any odds, would surely come out the winner. How
much time would the teacher need for this achievement? I think that I am
correct in making the following calculation: [200 hours total] ... Even if
the young man has no talent at all, by following the above course he would
advance to the class specified." -- Lasker's Manual of Chess (emphasis
mine)
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2004 05:25:07
From: jacksteel
Subject: Re: Dr. Lasker: 200 Hours to become a Chess Master?
|
When Lasker said this the general standard was lower, today there is much
more chess understanding and knowledge. Also, he doesn't say master
strength, he says the strength to which a master cant give odds. I reckon
USCF2000 might match the level he means.
I know several people who have made unusual progress. Murray Chandler (now
a GM) went from rank beginner to about
USCF 2200 in 2 years (without a coach). 2 friends of mine mine made
similar progress. This is 3 people out of thousands though.
Lasker said even if the student had no talent whatsover.
Nonsense. Some people learn chess much faster than others.
For example, Chandler had very good ability to concentrate compared to the
average.
I don't think Lasker had much experience in teaching. In 5 hours you can
cover a lot, but how much will be retained?
Lasker does make an important point though, a systematic approach could
allow much faster progression than a haphazard one.
My estimate for a highly motivated rank beginner to reach expert level,
who has good concentration, memory and chess talent and with top coaching
is
2 years.
including 100+ tournament games (all studied)
and 500-1000 hours of study, including 200+ hours
of coaching
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2004 23:30:07
From: Falsehat
Subject: Re: Dr. Lasker: 200 Hours to become a Chess Master?
|
Note the Dover publication of Lasker's manual of chess in an abbreviated
version
The 1947 edition is the one to get although I fondly remember learning a lot
from the Dover book.
I just bought the hard cover 1947 edition in good condition for $7US plus
$7US for postage to Canada.
www.abebooks.com is the place to search as it searches all used book stores
around the world and lists their prices and
the books condition.
I have had so much success with them I only buy used books.
The price range for this book was from $3 for Dover to $50+ for the 1947
edition.
Jim
"Brandon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 200 hours to become a Chess master?
>
> I thought you might enjoy the following passage from [Dr. Emanuel]
> "Lasker's Manual of Chess" (1947), especially the breakdown of how 200
> hours might be employed to achieve a status at or close to the
> master's level. (Dr. Lasker was World Chess Champion for 26 or 27
> years, I believe):
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0486206408/qid=1093937704/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3316417-2526561?v=glance&s=books
>
> From the chapter titled "Final Reflections on Education in Chess"
> (page 336 in the edition cited above):
>
> "Education in Chess goes on in a most haphazard fashion. Most Chess
> players slowly climb to a certain rather low level and stay there. Of
> players to whom a master can give odds of a Queen there are millions;
> If we reckon the number of Rook players as a hundred and fifty
> thousand, of Knight players as fifty thousand, of Pawn and two-move
> players as forty thousand, of Pawn and move players as nine thousand,
> and the number of those to whom no master can allow odds as one
> thousand, we are possibly not very far wrong. Now, let us consider the
> efforts made to attain this result: a literature of many thousand
> volumes, hundreds, maybe thousands, of Chess columns in widely read
> newspapers and magazines, lectures, tournaments, tournament books,
> courses of instruction, matches in the clubs and between clubs and
> cities and countries, by correspondence, by telegraph and telephone,
> thousands of coffee-houses, where spectators, amid lively gossip, look
> on, make notes, analyze -- truly an imposing expenditure...."
>
> "Let us assume that a master who follows a good method, say, the
> method of this book, strives to educate a young man ignorant of Chess
> to the level of one who, if conceded any odds, would surely come out
> the winner. How much time would the teacher need for this achievement?
> I think that I am correct in making the following calculation:
>
> [200 hours total]:
>
> Rules of Play and Exercises: 5 hrs.
> Elementary Endings: 5 hrs.
> Some Openings: 10 hrs.
> Combination: 20 hrs.
> Position Play: 40 hrs.
> Play and Analysis: 120 hrs.
>
> "Even if the young man has no talent at all, by following the above
> course he would advance to the class specified. Compare with this
> possibility, the reality. In fact, there are a quarter of a million
> Chess amateurs who devote to Chess at least two hundred hours every
> year and of these only a thousand, after a lifetime of study, attain
> the end. Without losing myself in calculations, I believe I am safe in
> voicing the opinion that our efforts in Chess attain only a hundredth
> of one per cent. of their rightful result...."
>
> [end of passage]
>
> Please note, the accuracy of this passage is limited by my [strictly
> limited] typing skills. Though I have proof-read it, I may have missed
> an error or two (or three or four...). I really encourage you to get a
> copy of Dr. Lasker's "Lasker's Manual of Chess". I regard it as an
> essential book in any serious Chessplayer's library:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0486206408/qid=1093937704/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3316417-2526561?v=glance&s=books
>
> Of special interest is the fact that, of the 200 hours of
> study/instruction, only 5 hours are spent on openings! I think
> Capablanca was of similar mind: that for non-professional players, no
> more than about 5% of their Chess study-time should be spent on
> openings. (There is a strong tendency to over-emphasize
> openings-study, in my view.)
>
> Your thoughts on this subject are most welcome.
>
> Incidentally, this is a very good message board devoted to the games
> and Chess career of Dr. Emanuel Lasker. Participation is entirely
> free:
>
> http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=19149
>
> Brett
> http://www.100bestwebsites.org/
> "The 100 best sites on the Web, all in one place!"
|
| | |
Date: 24 Nov 2004 15:27:47
From: mafergut
Subject: Re: Dr. Lasker: 200 Hours to become a Chess Master?
|
>> I thought you might enjoy the following passage from [Dr. Emanuel]
>> "Lasker's Manual of Chess" (1947), especially the breakdown of how 200
>> hours might be employed to achieve a status at or close to the
>> master's level. (Dr. Lasker was World Chess Champion for 26 or 27
>> years, I believe):
>>
>> "Let us assume that a master who follows a good method, say, the
>> method of this book, strives to educate a young man ignorant of Chess
>> to the level of one who, if conceded any odds, would surely come out
>> the winner. How much time would the teacher need for this achievement?
>> I think that I am correct in making the following calculation:
>>
>> [200 hours total]:
>>
>> Rules of Play and Exercises: 5 hrs.
>> Elementary Endings: 5 hrs.
>> Some Openings: 10 hrs.
>> Combination: 20 hrs.
>> Position Play: 40 hrs.
>> Play and Analysis: 120 hrs.
Hi, I also read Lasker's Manual some years ago and that part of the book is
what most impressed me. I think Lasker, an otherwise amazing chess player,
was terribly wrong here. To state that someone that doesn't even know how to
move the chess pieces can get in 200 hours of study to a level where a
Master cannot give him any odds is outright absurd.
If we assign 2 hours of study a day that is 200 days. Even the best chess
teacher in the world cannot convert a chess illiterate into an almost
master-strenght player in less than a year. We only have to take a look at
some of the numbers. 20 hours to study combinations! and 5 hours to
elementary endings!!!! What knowledge can one attain in 5 hours of endings
study? Well, opposition, and basic pawn and king vs king endigs, not more. I
should think that even after 5 hours of ending study the guy will fail to
promote his pawn in a won kp vs k ending, and if not, even he would
stalemate his opponent with the queen trying to checkmate.
If Lasker really thought that chess was so simple that 200 hours were enough
to know all that is worth to be known, either he was an incredible genius
and thought all people equally brilliant, or he was joking, because the
third possibility (that he was simply a brilliant fool) I don't want to
consider it.
In the meantime we, human chess players in the world, will keep studying
many, many hours and not achieving even expert strength. Because chess is
not tic-tac-toe.
Regards,
mafergut
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2004 15:48:26
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Dr. Lasker: 200 Hours to become a Chess Master?
|
Hello, ma,
Maybe a master in 1900 did not know very much about chess.
Sure He is refering to a different "master" concept than the idea we
have today.
AT
En/na mafergut ha escrit:
> Hi, I also read Lasker's Manual some years ago and that part of the book is
> what most impressed me. I think Lasker, an otherwise amazing chess player,
> was terribly wrong here. To state that someone that doesn't even know how to
> move the chess pieces can get in 200 hours of study to a level where a
> Master cannot give him any odds is outright absurd.
>
> If we assign 2 hours of study a day that is 200 days. Even the best chess
> teacher in the world cannot convert a chess illiterate into an almost
> master-strenght player in less than a year. We only have to take a look at
> some of the numbers. 20 hours to study combinations! and 5 hours to
> elementary endings!!!! What knowledge can one attain in 5 hours of endings
> study? Well, opposition, and basic pawn and king vs king endigs, not more. I
> should think that even after 5 hours of ending study the guy will fail to
> promote his pawn in a won kp vs k ending, and if not, even he would
> stalemate his opponent with the queen trying to checkmate.
>
> If Lasker really thought that chess was so simple that 200 hours were enough
> to know all that is worth to be known, either he was an incredible genius
> and thought all people equally brilliant, or he was joking, because the
> third possibility (that he was simply a brilliant fool) I don't want to
> consider it.
>
> In the meantime we, human chess players in the world, will keep studying
> many, many hours and not achieving even expert strength. Because chess is
> not tic-tac-toe.
>
> Regards,
> mafergut
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Dec 2004 05:32:43
From: jacksteel
Subject: Re: Dr. Lasker: 200 Hours to become a Chess Master?
|
A master in 1900 might be equal to (say) about uscf 2000 today. Of course
there is much more chess knowledge now.
Murray Chandler reached about uscf 2200 from novice in 2 years. I know 2
others who improved that fast, but these are rare people.
I think a motivated talented person could reach that level in 2 years with
top coaching, regular tournament play and
say 1000+ hours of study.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2004 21:43:44
From: Brandon
Subject: Re: Dr. Lasker: 200 Hours to become a Chess Master?
|
Hello Falsehat:
Thank you for your recommendation: I have also had good luck with
Abebooks.com
I wonder if you have ever tried http://www.alibris.com/ ? I have
found them to be very good also.
Brett
http://www.100bestwebsites.org/
"The 100 best sites on the Web, all in one place!"
"Falsehat" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Note the Dover publication of Lasker's manual of chess in an abbreviated
> version
>
> The 1947 edition is the one to get although I fondly remember learning a lot
> from the Dover book.
>
> I just bought the hard cover 1947 edition in good condition for $7US plus
> $7US for postage to Canada.
> www.abebooks.com is the place to search as it searches all used book stores
> around the world and lists their prices and
> the books condition.
>
> I have had so much success with them I only buy used books.
> The price range for this book was from $3 for Dover to $50+ for the 1947
> edition.
>
> Jim
>
>
> "Brandon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 200 hours to become a Chess master?
> >
> > I thought you might enjoy the following passage from [Dr. Emanuel]
> > "Lasker's Manual of Chess" (1947), especially the breakdown of how 200
> > hours might be employed to achieve a status at or close to the
> > master's level. (Dr. Lasker was World Chess Champion for 26 or 27
> > years, I believe):
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0486206408/qid=1093937704/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3316417-2526561?v=glance&s=books
> >
> > From the chapter titled "Final Reflections on Education in Chess"
> > (page 336 in the edition cited above):
> >
> > "Education in Chess goes on in a most haphazard fashion. Most Chess
> > players slowly climb to a certain rather low level and stay there. Of
> > players to whom a master can give odds of a Queen there are millions;
> > If we reckon the number of Rook players as a hundred and fifty
> > thousand, of Knight players as fifty thousand, of Pawn and two-move
> > players as forty thousand, of Pawn and move players as nine thousand,
> > and the number of those to whom no master can allow odds as one
> > thousand, we are possibly not very far wrong. Now, let us consider the
> > efforts made to attain this result: a literature of many thousand
> > volumes, hundreds, maybe thousands, of Chess columns in widely read
> > newspapers and magazines, lectures, tournaments, tournament books,
> > courses of instruction, matches in the clubs and between clubs and
> > cities and countries, by correspondence, by telegraph and telephone,
> > thousands of coffee-houses, where spectators, amid lively gossip, look
> > on, make notes, analyze -- truly an imposing expenditure...."
> >
> > "Let us assume that a master who follows a good method, say, the
> > method of this book, strives to educate a young man ignorant of Chess
> > to the level of one who, if conceded any odds, would surely come out
> > the winner. How much time would the teacher need for this achievement?
> > I think that I am correct in making the following calculation:
> >
> > [200 hours total]:
> >
> > Rules of Play and Exercises: 5 hrs.
> > Elementary Endings: 5 hrs.
> > Some Openings: 10 hrs.
> > Combination: 20 hrs.
> > Position Play: 40 hrs.
> > Play and Analysis: 120 hrs.
> >
> > "Even if the young man has no talent at all, by following the above
> > course he would advance to the class specified. Compare with this
> > possibility, the reality. In fact, there are a quarter of a million
> > Chess amateurs who devote to Chess at least two hundred hours every
> > year and of these only a thousand, after a lifetime of study, attain
> > the end. Without losing myself in calculations, I believe I am safe in
> > voicing the opinion that our efforts in Chess attain only a hundredth
> > of one per cent. of their rightful result...."
> >
> > [end of passage]
> >
> > Please note, the accuracy of this passage is limited by my [strictly
> > limited] typing skills. Though I have proof-read it, I may have missed
> > an error or two (or three or four...). I really encourage you to get a
> > copy of Dr. Lasker's "Lasker's Manual of Chess". I regard it as an
> > essential book in any serious Chessplayer's library:
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0486206408/qid=1093937704/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3316417-2526561?v=glance&s=books
> >
> > Of special interest is the fact that, of the 200 hours of
> > study/instruction, only 5 hours are spent on openings! I think
> > Capablanca was of similar mind: that for non-professional players, no
> > more than about 5% of their Chess study-time should be spent on
> > openings. (There is a strong tendency to over-emphasize
> > openings-study, in my view.)
> >
> > Your thoughts on this subject are most welcome.
> >
> > Incidentally, this is a very good message board devoted to the games
> > and Chess career of Dr. Emanuel Lasker. Participation is entirely
> > free:
> >
> > http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=19149
> >
> > Brett
> > http://www.100bestwebsites.org/
> > "The 100 best sites on the Web, all in one place!"
|
|
