How to Get Good at Chess, Fast

> "One big mistake is to rely heavily on computers for chess analysis. Computer analysis should be done only after you analyze the game on your own."

This isn't correct information anymore, in my opinion. Chess engines have improved tenfold over the last four years (when the author says he stopped playing). The increase in the strength of chess engines has subsequently caused an increase in the "humanity" of chess engines, meaning that, instead of playing bizarre moves that are strong yet incomprehensible to humans, they play principled, sound moves that are strong tactically and strategically.

The main thing that you will miss as a sub-2000 player (or ever, really) is tactics, which is exactly where computers excel. A computer will be able to tell you tactics you missed and will allow you to experiment to see how different moves would have improved your game.

I agree that you should analyze games with your opponent after the game (and also with stronger players), but keep in mind that, if you're both sub-2000, you'll both miss obvious tactics even as you review the game, which doesn't really improve your chess thought.

One last thing: the 400 points in 400 days training comes from the book Rapid Chess Improvement, which I do not recommend for the beginning player (the knight exercise is good, though). In it, Michael De La Maza wastes time blasting Jeremy Silman and the strategic approach to chess games. Some people like the book for the mild drama it started, but the tl;dr is "tactics, tactics, tactics," which pretty much everyone will tell you.

The Graded Go Problems for Beginners (http://www.amazon.com/Graded-Problems-Beginners-Beginner-Ele...) has four volumes of increasingly difficult tactical problems. For the strategic side of things, I enjoyed Janice Kim's Learn To Play Go series, which has five or more volumes (http://www.amazon.com/Learn-Play-Go-Masters-Ultimate/dp/1453...)

And, of course, with Go you have a nice progression from learning to play on the 9x9 board for tactics, the 13x13 board to begin learning strategy, and the 19x19 board to play the real game. And thanks to the handicapping system, you can play much stronger players with both of you playing your hardest and both with a chance to win.

Excellent points all around.

> I agree that you should analyze games with your opponent after the game (and also with stronger players), but keep in mind that, if you're both sub-2000, you'll both miss obvious tactics even as you review the game, which doesn't really improve your chess thought.

This is very true, although there might be an additional benefit to that. If you miss something during a game, you can always write it off as "time pressure / momentary lapse", but if you miss it again during a subsequent analysis, there may be something deeper going on (i.e. you are probably not considering certain types of combinations, etc). Knowing this allows you to ask "why did I miss that twice, even without pressure?", which may lead to good insight into your thinking process and an increase in playing strength. Of course, this may not necessarily mean that it's the best way to spend your time, it's just an additional thought.

Too lazy to move off tumblr, but heard good things about blogofile.

play, play, play, play.

A lot of videos and guides aren't hugely useful until post Still videos are good. There are dozens on youtube "Bat's lectures" are one I follow (He's a 2Dan American) "Youtube user dywrin" also https://www.youtube.com/user/gocommentary gets an honorable mention he's very useful but is no longer making videos.

The biggest piece of advice I can offer is learn joseki's, and not only learn them. But learn to punish when people don't play properly, this will easily push you into single digit kru.