Chess is a practical game (duh).

Yet, the actions of most aspiring chess players do not align with this reality.

The player who wins is usually the one who is able to make a continuous string of good decisions over the course of a game.

Not necessarily who possesses the most knowledge.

Flashback To 2016

I remember first hearing this when going through my first chess course, by GM Igor Smirnov when I was 13 years old.

This was quite transformative for me, and I’m glad I understood this early on.

It intuitively made a lot of sense.

If this were not the case, all the veterans at the local chess club would be GMs (which they weren’t).

My experience also backed this up.

I had never opened a chess book until I was already around 1900 FIDE, surpassing many who were much more experienced and knowledgeable than I was.

(This can come with its own issues though, as focusing purely on the practical will inevitably give a chess player gaps in their play.)

Theory vs Practice

For most players, a lack of knowledge is rarely the issue.

However, this can be difficult to admit for many, who have already sunk many hours into acquiring said knowledge.

One of the most common forms of doing so is with opening theory. I recently touched upon this in my video ‘Opening Theory is a Scam’, and I could go on for days about this topic.

As a personal example, I can say that I have read several times about the B+N checkmate, but have failed to convert this the few times I have gotten it in blitz. Unfortunately, even several GM’s have also suffered a similar fate.

Of course they have studied this endgame before, but flawlessly executing when the clock is ticking down is another story.

If I was serious about this, I would have set this position up against an engine with <1 minute on the clock, and repeat until comfortable.

As many would know, we would call this ‘Deliberate Practice’.

Deliberate Practice

Many argue that this is even more important than the well-known ‘10000 hour rule’, and I would actually largely agree.

My biggest spurts of improvement have always come after I did months of intensive position solving - even if it was “only” one hour a day.

By analogy, imagine if a professional athlete decided that they were just going to watch video footage of other athletes, and only do the occasional training session.

You would probably question them, and rightfully so.

Yet, it can be easy to forget that the same logic also applies to chess.

Simple, But Not Easy

Just to remind everyone, that although this process is actually very simple in nature, this is not easy.

It is easy to take in lots of new knowledge, and reap the instant gratification of feeling as though one is making progress.

On the other hand, deliberate practice will often feel frustrating.

Progress is being made, but it is slow, and the results may take months to manifest.

Progress, or the illusion of progress - that is a choice you will have to make.

What Now?

So, with all this information, how exactly should you structure your chess study?

First off, I will say that the highest growth activity will be to solve difficult puzzles from good books (not online tactic trainers).

This could be a book on calculation, tactics, positional play - whatever you feel is lacking most in your own game.

(If I only had one hour a day to spend on chess, I would spend all of it on solving puzzles - at least for the majority of the week.)

Then, make going through strategy books, or game collections a secondary activity.

Also, if time allows, throwing in a couple 30 minute blitz sessions a week (primarily to test one’s openings and intuition) is a great idea.

I will talk more at-length about blitz in the future though, as it is very easy to go astray with it.

But again - solving comes first, and then everything else can come with the leftover time.

Anyhow, I hope this has been useful as always, and that you have a great day.

-Sam