| |
BGonline.org Forums
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OLM Thurs. May 10th
Posted By: Chase In Response To: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OLM Thurs. May 10th (Chuck Bower)
Date: Friday, 11 May 2007, at 2:30 a.m.
My favorite form of study is in depth match analysis. I remember, years ago, discovering the annotated match between Kit and Jeremy online, then Kit's MatchQiz series, and immediately becoming hooked. Unfortunately, well annotated matches are hard to find. (Any recommendations?) Marty Storer's Praxis was like striking gold for me recently.
Better yet is doing my own annotations. I learn so much more when I'm writing an analysis than I do by reading someone else's. Also, most annotated matches are between world class players, but I sometimes get more out of matches that aren't played so well (e.g. my own ;). Understanding why a play is bad can help as much as understanding why another play is good.
The downside is that annotating matches is very time consuming if you do it right. I try to pretend I'm doing it for publication to help motivate me to be thorough and keep the quality as high as I am capable.
A more efficient way to study, I think, is to isolate a theme or situation and explore it thoroughly. Unfortunately, I haven't had the discipline to do this very often. For years I've intended to collect and categorize positions by type, so specific concepts can be studied. For example, I'd like to have a library of hundreds of positions where it's wrong to make the 5pt, so I study them and come to understand what constitutes and exception. This approach takes a lot of work and dedication, but I'm convinced that it's highly efficient. I'm just too lazy to do it, and I get sidetracked too easily. (About 6 months ago I decided I was going to play 3-point matches every day until I understood them thoroughly. Maybe I'll get back to that some day. [sigh])
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.