Something I struggle with a lot when studying and playing chess is the lack of a syllabus: do you have any suggestions for a curriculum? What’s the path of least resistance to improving one’s chess? I’m familiar with all the primitives (tactics, opening study, endgame study, looking over annotated games, etc.), but it’s unclear how to prioritize these.
Thanks for the AMA!
[–]GMHikaru[S] 14 points 4 hours ago
Siddarthcs, you have asked the million dollar question! Unless you are roughly Fide Master, I think openings should be at the very bottom and endgames as well. Study the other things!
“Something I struggle with a lot when studying and playing chess is the lack of a syllabus: do you have any suggestions for a curriculum?”
This was attempted by John Grefe back in 1981. He authored Progressing Through Chess (Players Press). The sub-title was The 35 best chess books and how to use them. Of course, being written in 1981, he doesn’t have the last 30+ years of chess publishing to choose from. I don’t think he ever revised it and that would be impossible now.
A syllabus is only a beginning. Since chess can be learned in many ways, there is no one sequence that is perfect for instructional purposes. Students can get the impression that the syllabus is all they need to know. That frustrates them when they get clobbered by other players who seem to know more or different ways to play.
I have a copy of “Progressing Through Chess.” The 35 selected books appear to be a step by step path Grefe would choose to for a student to learn the game. Each book is a new layer to add to what the student has already learned. In 1981, the book revolution was still in its infancy. Many of the books he chose were old classics used by previous generations of players. Sadly, some of the modern books are more costly but do not do as good a job of explaining concepts. As one example, the Renaud and Kahn book, “The Art of Checkmate,” published IIRC in the early 1950’s, is much better than other books in teaching checkmate patterns. In the back of Grefe’s book are supplementary lists with dozens more books. There are some flashes of real insight in a few sections of the book, but overall I found it a little cold, programmatic, and dull to read. But do not just go by my review. Get a copy of the book yourself and see what you think. That would be the best advice of all, do your own thinking and understanding of chess concepts.
