I want to improve, but I'm busy !!!

@Wassailing said in #19:
> @RyanVelez I think a lot of the criticism you're receiving is from people who are missing the point. A lot of people don't start new habits in general - not just chess - because they're worried about the time commitment or bite off more than they can chew.
>
> For a beginner at anything, telling them they should be practicing hours a day - especially when they're an adult with all ready busy lives is a tall ask. Or people will get really excited about starting a new activity then quickly fall off when the novelty of it fades because they can't focus X hours a day to that activity like they thought they could.
>
> But your plan cuts to the chase. You say: "Okay, hours of study/exercise/practice a day is too much, but surely you have 10 minutes to spare, right?" Then after you've established that base of 10 minutes you slowly and incrementally improve from there. Surely you have 10 minutes to walk around the park? Surely you have 10 minutes to practice an instrument? Surely you have 10 minutes to practice chess puzzles or play a short rapid game? Then you grow from there.
>
> Fantastic blog, thank you.
>
> edit: also, if I understand you right, you're not saying that people shouldn't study more than 10 minutes if they so desire (maybe they really get into a study session one day and have a lot of free time) just that the 10 minutes and future increments are a commitment to the MINIMUM amount of study time in order to get people in the habit of doing something. Then if that minimum commitment gets in the way of other obligations, scale back.

You have understood me perfectly.

That is exactly right. For context, I have taught around 10,000 private lessons by my estimates. Girls, boys, men, women, groups of friends, teams, families, siblings: all manner of folk, so to say. Nearly all of these lessons were 1 hour in length, and for the people who succeeded less, or dropped off quickly, I had to "refocus them" every 10 minutes or so.

Likewise, I'd give homework to students. "Play 5 games this week" or "Solve 70 tactics." I found many people would start, but not finished at again around the 10 minute mark. It isn't science, just experience.

I wrote this entry for a friend of mine who goes to my weekly chess club. He told me "I can study for more than 10 minutes" but our conversation began with him saying "I am just so busy." So, I told him "Of course, if you can study for 60 minutes, what about 70 minutes? 80?"

Anyway, you summarized my blog beautifully. I am ok with criticism, too. I don't know everything -- I just take an ultra-pragmatic approach to chess, because we are not all trying to become GMs. If I look back at every goal I ever set for myself for chess, there was only ever one goal I achieved that was worth anything: to be able to go over a game without help.

Thank you for this Blog.

I would say, I use this technice and I improved a lot in the last 1,5 years.

I was a 2k Fide player before Corona hits. At that time and a bit before, I guess, I lost my drive for chess. I played bullet on lichess but that's it.

When I returned to my club 1,5 years ago, I got my drive back but at first I played poorly. I felt the decrease quite a bit. My calculation speed wasn't what it used to be. My opening/midgame/endgame knowledge wasn't there anymore.

I was washed up, you could say.

So I started with chess training again. Consuming videos with more focus. Training tactics. Reviewed endgames. Build up a new opnening repertoire etc.

Just every day a bit.

The first season in the league I played for my club and lost 3 games and got 2 draws but in the end of the season I felt the strenght growing again. This season I drawed the first two league games and won 4 in a row now. I had quite a bit luck, but my games have a much higher niveau now.

I don't know, if I have a cealing that I can not cross. But a the moment I like to train, like to read, like to hear about, like to watch and like to play chess.
If it stays this way, I am not concerned if I get alot or just a little better...

@Fjallgart said in #22:
> Thank you for this Blog.
>
> I would say, I use this technice and I improved a lot in the last 1,5 years.
>
> I was a 2k Fide player before Corona hits. At that time and a bit before, I guess, I lost my drive for chess. I played bullet on lichess but that's it.
>
> When I returned to my club 1,5 years ago, I got my drive back but at first I played poorly. I felt the decrease quite a bit. My calculation speed wasn't what it used to be. My opening/midgame/endgame knowledge wasn't there anymore.
>
> I was washed up, you could say.
>
> So I started with chess training again. Consuming videos with more focus. Training tactics. Reviewed endgames. Build up a new opnening repertoire etc.
>
> Just every day a bit.
>
> The first season in the league I played for my club and lost 3 games and got 2 draws but in the end of the season I felt the strenght growing again. This season I drawed the first two league games and won 4 in a row now. I had quite a bit luck, but my games have a much higher niveau now.
>
> I don't know, if I have a cealing that I can not cross. But a the moment I like to train, like to read, like to hear about, like to watch and like to play chess.
> If it stays this way, I am not concerned if I get alot or just a little better...

It sounds like you understand the real secret to chess: engage it consistently. Even on days where your engagement is negative or feels like you haven't learned anything, simply engaging regularly, and continuing that habit, will pay off over time.

clickbaite blog. Lacks content. No time to study, no improvement.

Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that 10 minutes of focused working is the maximum beginners can do, or that significant improvements can be made with just 10 min per day...

Solving a tactic at 120% your level (this is considered to be the right level to make progress, i.e. scoring about 75%) will take about 5 min per tactic (most serious books suggest 10-30 min actually). So, doing the homework described will take almost 6 hours.

Similar to the homework of 'play 5 games this week'. Unless you play mindless 3 min Blitz that surely will not improve any beginner according to most chess coaches out there, you also will spend 3-6 hours on this task, especially if you want to learn from your games by also spending time reviewing / annotating.

@Pixion said in #25:
> Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that 10 minutes of focused working is the maximum beginners can do, or that significant improvements can be made with just 10 min per day...
>
> Solving a tactic at 120% your level (this is considered to be the right level to make progress, i.e. scoring about 75%) will take about 5 min per tactic (most serious books suggest 10-30 min actually). So, doing the homework described will take almost 6 hours.
>
> Similar to the homework of 'play 5 games this week'. Unless you play mindless 3 min Blitz that surely will not improve any beginner according to most chess coaches out there, you also will spend 3-6 hours on this task, especially if you want to learn from your games by also spending time reviewing / annotating.

You have some interesting takes that I think are worth responding to.

1. I never told people to only study for 10 minutes. I've worked with 1000s of students, and I find the vast majority, when just starting out, struggle to put in more than 10 minutes of quality time. It isn't until they fully incorporate chess into their life that their study time is meaningfully long.

2. I did not say significant improvements would be made in 10 minutes per day, nor did I imply it. I am wondering if you read the whole thing or not? Not being rude, I am wondering.

3. Asking students to play 5 games per week was suggesting playing 1 game per day for 5 days of the week. Usually, given this meant online games, we're talking 10 - 25 minute games tops. There is also a weekly tournament where I live, which would account for 3 of those 5 games. The purpose of such homework is to generate games that are worthwhile to go over. I've never required anyone to play a bunch of blitz games for a private lesson.

4. Your 120% metric is interesting - it isn't one I have heard before. Your follow up of 5 minutes per tactic is also interesting, I have never heard of that before, either. In my opinion, there are several ways to study tactics:

A. Solving lots of easy tactics in a row is good for confidence, warming up, and it is good as a way to blast through a bunch of known patterns to try to find any you don't know.

B. Solving tactics of your level is good practice. It simulates the strength of tactics opponents your level can generate.

C. Solving tactics above your level is more about increasing your concentration. "Solving" is a skill necessary to train so that when you get into a tough situation, you have practice solving tough situations (and hopefully, you don't get super tired, while you're at it).

D. Solving tactics by opening theme is helpful, too, when trying to train for weird stuff that can go wrong in an opening.

E. Solving studies is fun and requires a lot of concentration, even if the positions are often extraordinarily rare, unique, or fictional. But, the mental tasks required are still the same as if you were solving it in a game.

5. "Mindless 3 minute blitz." I definitely agree with you that trying to get people to play 3 minute blitz as a means to improve is silly. However, the higher rated you are, the less "mindless" fast time controls are. If it were mindless, we'd never see blitz games with 90%+ accuracy, and those kinds of games occur all the time.

6. In terms of annotating, you are right - it takes time. But someone starting out, or someone who is super busy, may not have that kind of time. So, is it better for a busy person to build themselves up, in 10 minute increments, to around 30 - 60 minutes of chess study or is it better for me to tell them "Study for 3 - 6 hours per week" when they know they cannot do that right now?

My blog is about motivating people to do better. It sounds to me like you aren't as busy as many others, and for that you should celebrate by studying chess more.

I am grateful for your comment, thank you Pixion.

@RyanVelez said in #26:
> You have some interesting takes that I think are worth responding to.
>
> 1. I never told people to only study for 10 minutes. I've worked with 1000s of students, and I find the vast majority, when just starting out, struggle to put in more than 10 minutes of quality time. It isn't until they fully incorporate chess into their life that their study time is meaningfully long.
>
> 2. I did not say significant improvements would be made in 10 minutes per day, nor did I imply it. I am wondering if you read the whole thing or not? Not being rude, I am wondering.
>
> 3. Asking students to play 5 games per week was suggesting playing 1 game per day for 5 days of the week. Usually, given this meant online games, we're talking 10 - 25 minute games tops. There is also a weekly tournament where I live, which would account for 3 of those 5 games. The purpose of such homework is to generate games that are worthwhile to go over. I've never required anyone to play a bunch of blitz games for a private lesson.
>
> 4. Your 120% metric is interesting - it isn't one I have heard before. Your follow up of 5 minutes per tactic is also interesting, I have never heard of that before, either. In my opinion, there are several ways to study tactics:
>
> A. Solving lots of easy tactics in a row is good for confidence, warming up, and it is good as a way to blast through a bunch of known patterns to try to find any you don't know.
>
> B. Solving tactics of your level is good practice. It simulates the strength of tactics opponents your level can generate.
>
> C. Solving tactics above your level is more about increasing your concentration. "Solving" is a skill necessary to train so that when you get into a tough situation, you have practice solving tough situations (and hopefully, you don't get super tired, while you're at it).
>
> D. Solving tactics by opening theme is helpful, too, when trying to train for weird stuff that can go wrong in an opening.
>
> E. Solving studies is fun and requires a lot of concentration, even if the positions are often extraordinarily rare, unique, or fictional. But, the mental tasks required are still the same as if you were solving it in a game.
>
> 5. "Mindless 3 minute blitz." I definitely agree with you that trying to get people to play 3 minute blitz as a means to improve is silly. However, the higher rated you are, the less "mindless" fast time controls are. If it were mindless, we'd never see blitz games with 90%+ accuracy, and those kinds of games occur all the time.
>
> 6. In terms of annotating, you are right - it takes time. But someone starting out, or someone who is super busy, may not have that kind of time. So, is it better for a busy person to build themselves up, in 10 minute increments, to around 30 - 60 minutes of chess study or is it better for me to tell them "Study for 3 - 6 hours per week" when they know they cannot do that right now?
>
> My blog is about motivating people to do better. It sounds to me like you aren't as busy as many others, and for that you should celebrate by studying chess more.
>
> I am grateful for your comment, thank you Pixion.

Ryan,

Let me be frank. I indeed did not 'close read' your post, so you are right that you did not claim significant improvements by only spending 10 min a day. It is a bit implied though, per the title ('I want to improve') and the guidance to start with 10 min a day and slowly increasing it by 10 min here and there.

I think the key point is that in order to improve in anything, from playing piano to playing chess, you need to practice consistently and regularly and 10 min a day can help set a pace and give chess a place in one's life. I just think it is too short to see improvements.

I do find it interesting that a lot of your students top out at 10 min focused study. The 'busy' in the title, I interpret that as people working lets say 8-9 focused hours in their job everyday or a student spending the same amount of focused time at school/uni and study afterwards. Yes, at the end of the day, one can feel a bit tired, but only being able to spend 10 min of focused time seems a bit low. Btw, watching an engaging detective series on TV, also requires focused time if you do want to understand the plot line.

I did interpret 70 tactics puzzles and 5 games to be spread over 7 days. Per my point, to do this properly will take several hours per week, equating to significantly more study time than 10 min a day. The 120% 'rule' is actually from one of Agaards books on calculation (the 'Excelling' series I believe) and the 5 min time target to spend on a tactic puzzle I have seen throughout many tactic books ranging from Yusupov (15 min per position) to Agaard (30 min per position in his 'Grandmaster preparation' book on calculation. The 75% target solve rate is from GM Studer at NextLevel (his post on how to go about the Chess Steps Method).

Yes, puzzle rush can go way faster but I see that more as a fun confidence builder to do once every day, rather than a solid learning tool (this view is from the ChessDojo folks like GM Kraai).

The same on playing games, per various coaches (including the folks at ChessDojo), long games are needed for improving. They say Blitz will not help improve but 60+30 games for 1200s (1600 Lichess) is the target. (I do find this actually a bit on the long side, so I am not always following this advice).

So, playing games to improve, will also take several hours per week with a quick Blitz game falling in the same category as Puzzle rush, you do that for fun once in a while, not to significantly improve.

In my mind, rather than 10 min a day, perhaps 30 min every other day may be more fruitful as it also takes some time to 'get in the zone' and be effective.

At any rate, I do appreciate your posts!

@Pixion said in #25:
> Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that 10 minutes of focused working is the maximum beginners can do, or that significant improvements can be made with just 10 min per day...

I think it was about increments, so that stamina would at least be tested for possible increase. Did I misunderstand? Although not my concern, I thought I understood the idea for others, and the theory of learning it suggests or uses, be it from experience itself, as coach. Nice reporting such findings.

But I might have misunderstood the "algorithm" suggestion toward augmenting stamina. As a testable increment to consider, give a current self-awareness of own time resources and abilities to maintain same level of sustained attention, or average version of that (some might skip more, but then compensate by going back more often over a longer duration).

It sounds more like an adaptable to your own current state than a distracting recipe to glory. And did not understand it was saying 10 minutes is enough... actually far from it..

@Pixion said in #27:
> Ryan,
>
> Let me be frank. I indeed did not 'close read' your post, so you are right that you did not claim significant improvements by only spending 10 min a day. It is a bit implied though, per the title ...

I disagree that it is implied by the title. I think it is more likely some readers aren't reading thoroughly, and making assumptions.

> I think the key point is that in order to improve in anything, from playing piano to playing chess, you need to practice consistently and regularly and 10 min a day can help set a pace and give chess a place in one's life. I just think it is too short to see improvements.

On this point, I think it really depends on the time someone has. I know people who have 3 kids who don't have 30 minutes of free time. I think it is different per person. You and I are in agreement on "Consistently and regularly." That is always the key, in any endeavor.

> I do find it interesting that a lot of your students top out at 10 min focused study. The 'busy' in the title, I interpret that as people working lets say 8-9 focused hours in their job everyday or a student spending the same amount of focused time at school/uni and study afterwards. Yes, at the end of the day, one can feel a bit tired, but only being able to spend 10 min of focused time seems a bit low. Btw, watching an engaging detective series on TV, also requires focused time if you do want to understand the plot line.

The students of mine who topped out are typically people who don't have long attention spans, have a busy schedule, are parents, or someone who doesn't like chess (ie: a kid being told to do chess but would prefer to play soccer, for example). It certainly isn't everyone.

> I did interpret 70 tactics puzzles and 5 games to be spread over 7 days. Per my point, to do this properly will take several hours per week, equating to significantly more study time than 10 min a day. The 120% 'rule' is actually from one of Agaards books on calculation (the 'Excelling' series I believe) and the 5 min time target to spend on a tactic puzzle I have seen throughout many tactic books ranging from Yusupov (15 min per position) to Agaard (30 min per position in his 'Grandmaster preparation' book on calculation. The 75% target solve rate is from GM Studer at NextLevel (his post on how to go about the Chess Steps Method).

Good to know where those numbers came from, that is helpful. It is clear a busy person could never keep up with those suggestions, which is why I'd say they are discouraging to people starting out or people who have little time.

> Yes, puzzle rush can go way faster but I see that more as a fun confidence builder to do once every day, rather than a solid learning tool (this view is from the ChessDojo folks like GM Kraai).

Yes, puzzle rush and/or doing puzzles on a low level is the same concept, done for the same reason.

> The same on playing games, per various coaches (including the folks at ChessDojo), long games are needed for improving. They say Blitz will not help improve but 60+30 games for 1200s (1600 Lichess) is the target. (I do find this actually a bit on the long side, so I am not always following this advice).

A busy person can never join the ranks of ChessDojo without prioritizing chess to a high degree. Their program is excellent, and people improve every day using it. I think ChessDojo unapologetically requires a higher commitment from their students, which is just fine. But I would argue their audience isn't people who can only spend 30 minutes a day (or less) learning chess - and I think this is a large part of the population that is often overlooked. People fall in love with chess all the time, but cannot commit to it on a serious level, but they STILL want to improve.

> So, playing games to improve, will also take several hours per week with a quick Blitz game falling in the same category as Puzzle rush, you do that for fun once in a while, not to significantly improve.

I will note that lots of people suggest you cannot improve with blitz games. I became a national master almost entirely just by training in blitz games. So, I am not a GM, but I did pretty well for mostly training in blitz. I am probably an exception to this widely held view. The most common OTB time control I played was a mix of G/25 and G/30, because that was what was available. I think a lot of people might claim you cannot seriously improve at that time control, either. But, I'd disagree with them.

I think improvement can occur at any time control.

> In my mind, rather than 10 min a day, perhaps 30 min every other day may be more fruitful as it also takes some time to 'get in the zone' and be effective.

My article allows for this scenario. The guy who asked me the initial question which got me writing said to me "I have more than 10 minutes a day" and he hinted that probably closer to 30 minutes a day would work for him. I told him that was fine, and to build up to 40, 50, 60 etc...

> At any rate, I do appreciate your posts!

Thanks. I appreciate readers, and engagement that is meaningful. Even if me and someone do not perfectly see eye to eye, I am glad to have discussion. I will always ignore trolls, but not critique. I appreciate you.

@dboing said in #28:
> I think it was about increments, so that stamina would at least be tested for possible increase. Did I misunderstand? Although not my concern, I thought I understood the idea for others, and the theory of learning it suggests or uses, be it from experience itself, as coach. Nice reporting such findings.
>
> But I might have misunderstood the "algorithm" suggestion toward augmenting stamina. As a testable increment to consider, give a current self-awareness of own time resources and abilities to maintain same level of sustained attention, or average version of that (some might skip more, but then compensate by going back more often over a longer duration).
>
> It sounds more like an adaptable to your own current state than a distracting recipe to glory. And did not understand it was saying 10 minutes is enough... actually far from it..

Yes, it takes a lot of time to learn chess. A former acquaintance of mine once asked me how to get to the rating of 2000. He wanted to abuse the "provisional rating" to get to 2000. He felt if he could simply achieve that rating, he would be considered a 2000 strength player. I told him that he must study a lot and play a lot (thousands upon thousands of hours) to get there. But he did not want to do that, and he never really started his journey.

Mastering chess (and beyond) takes untold numbers of hours. But for many people they need help taking that first step. If someone studies for 10 minutes 6 times a week, that is 1 hour. If they keep that habit up, they will absolutely begin studying chess more and more because their interest will continue to increase. I see this article as a starting place for busy people and new people. I don't expect anyone to remain at the 10 minute mark for very long.