As chess has been cursed with ‘win with’ books for decades, it’s no surprise that there are now plenty of adverts around for miracle chess courses. The claim is that they produce amazing results in a short period of time, usually being available for a limited time only and at a special, knocked down price.
They don’t work of course, it’s all just marketing. Yet the quick fix still has enough appeal to get people to part with their money.
Of course players, even older ones, can improve their chess. But it takes time and effort, as with mastering something like the violin. Is there a ballpark figure of how much work is involved? Well there’s been a lot of debate about the 10,000 hours of deliberate practice, as described by Anders Ericsson, and actually that’s not a bad ball park figure. Certainly it’s good to get away from the idea that people can improve substantially at something with just a modest time investment.
With this in mind I’ve created a strategy course on my Tiger Chess site which comprises 160 weekly lessons. The lessons and assignments and ‘digestion’ of the material will probably take one or two hours each, so that’s still not too many hours. But together with concurrent tactics practice (3 hours per week), endgames (another 3 hours per week), 50 tournament games per year (let’s say 4 hours each) and building a solid set of openings (perhaps 2 hours per week), the 160 weeks will contain at least a couple of thousand hours of productive work.
This kind of commitment is usually rewarded, though of course there are many variables. Exceptional talent makes the learning process much easier, as does studying the right material. But what won’t do it is a couple of snatched hours at the weekend.
Since my teenage years I’ve probably spent around 15-20 hours per week on chess and now have tens of thousands of hours under my belt. If I’d been blessed with a bit more talent I might have become REALLY good!