I ended up using the Woodpecker method on a book called 1,000 Checkmate combinations by Victor henken. Went through all 1000 puzzles, then went back through each chapter about three times in a year, my chess was about 1500 to 1600, to now 1900 to 2000
I used this method at University back in 1985 for the preparation of my several exams that I passed with full marks (all of them but four) and I became a Medical Doctor thanks to that study method: I used to pick the most comprehensive book on each subject, I read and highlight words the first time, then read and repeat loudly and make some notes on the book the second time, then read and repeat in a shorter time, then as soon as I saw the pages of the book I immediately remember the content of the page without reading. After reading and repeat six times in a shorter and shorter time, I could pass exams with full marks. And I'm sure that many other students did the same thing that I had done. You can apply the same method to anything you want or you need to study. In order for the method to be useful, it is required that the book is really fully comprehensive, covering at leat 80% of all the patterns that may happen in real life; OTHERWISE you would waste your time to memorize a number of patterns that you may hardly find in practical situations. I'm not a chess master, so I hope that these books (Woodpecker 1 and 2) are highly comprehensive in that sense.
I bought the Chessable Woodpecker(1) course a few years ago, hoping to find out about it & if it could help me improve at chess. I gave up on it after a few days for several reasons. Stumbling on this video now, reminds me of this & I am now definitely going back to my Chessable courses & try this again & try to stick at it & complete it! Thank you.
@user-bx7rw1pt4p it's not that easy. The man in the video was probably already a titled player before learning with this method, and you need a bit more than just puzzles to be a grandmaster. Like having a good coach for example
Makes perfect sense for a 2400 going for the GM, because you already have a very solid grasp on tactics and the ability to calculate. But a player at my level (1000-1100 OTB) does need to solve unique positions to develop a foundation of calculation skills before developing intuition.
1400 ELO floor for FIDE, but national federations (and online) don't have a floor like that. Overall, I think the woodpecker method is likely to help at all levels, not just 2400. The method is a slightly less rigid version of 7-circles that de La Maza used to get to 2000 from about 1600 right down to the number of problems ~1000, the ordering of them (simple to hard), and the faster repetition cycle. Common sense says that people have different relative strengths in skills so maybe even at 2400, what's holding that IM back may or may not be tactical pattern recognition. One improvement here is the quality of problems (real grandmaster games) is better (can't confirm, I only read the articles de La Maza wrote 20 years ago, not the book). Another is I read there are a couple no-op/defensive problems here and they're not all tactical in nature (not sure that's an improvement, but these have real ideas behind it). It's difficult to say what the best method is, but all these methods, including the more standard (for language learning) spaced repetition cycle in Chessable seem to work all well. It's also not clear to me if the same repetition cycle that would be optimal for say tactical puzzles should be the same for endgames or openings. Maybe this is the ideal one for tactics only? Maybe only when making a big ELO push before a set of tournaments? Maybe only for people who commonly commit a certain type of error OTB? Who knows, really! Other things to consider (my opinions only): * 1000 ELO is pretty strong compared to the average person. While calculation may not have a deep foundation, yet, I bet you're already aware of most of the tactical motifs and likely even have names for them. I think tactics can be trained even at a lower level (probably very close to beginner) with or without calculation fundamentals, though likely a good foundation would result in quicker improvement all other things being equal (basically you have a better scaffold to help with recognition). * Problem set difficulty can be varied when training the method is held constant. So if the problems later in the book are too difficult you could use the method on a different set. I don't own the book but I believe they recommend omitting later problems and doing the cycles on the abbreviated set if too difficult. * Calculation is not being trained here outside the first cycle (and maybe a certain percentage of the second cycle depending on skill). Pattern recognition is. Calculation is the other half of tactics IMO and there are other books focused on that. Not sure even intuition is being trained (though separating intuition and pattern recognition is probably a PhD dissertation). I don't have this book and don't use this method. But consider that if it doesn't speak to you, there are a wealth of other approaches to learning tactics (and books as well as a great many other resources online). We live in great time to learn chess. :)
This is just spaced repetition and it could be much better as spaced repetition theory tells us that we learn by repeating the same knowledge in different spaces of time, essentially you must repeat the same knowledge in intervals of time that become each time longer, meaning that if you learned one thing today you should review it tomorrow, two days after tomorrow, 4 days after tomorrow, etc (essentially you want to recall the first day, the second, the third, the fourth, the seventh the fourteenth, the 30th, 3 months later, 6 months later, and a 1 later to stablish the knowledge in your memory) this process can be make easier with a program such as anki (which id totally free and has no premium features) that has already an algorithm to let you recall a flashcard that you have created in the past, in this case you can just use a link or paste the image qnd the answers on the creation of the flaschard.
I am familiar with spaced repetition theory, but I would suggest this. First, do the course as designed. Then, review the puzzles in the traditional spaced repetition model of ever increasing periods of time. What I am suggesting is leveraging two types of memory to enhance the process. The course as designed is using short term memory with pattern recognition (pattern recognition being unrelated to long term memory storage. So we do the course, we learn the puzzles, we develop fast pattern recognition. THEN, we continue to review the puzzles in the traditional space recognition format so that we maintain those puzzles and the patterns they represent long term.
A doubling or tripling of spacing cycles in repetition may not be optimal depending on what is being learned and the intent of the material. I find it interesting that general studies show that increased spacing is an optimal learning structure for most memorization tasks (chess in general, language acquisition, etc.). However this is the second time, perhaps independently, that someone has advocated strongly for a reverse spacing specifically for chess tactics and specifically in order to gain rating with multiple anecdotal "proof" of such a process to both. My gut tells me that for some cohort this may be a more optimal way to get a breakthrough in an aspect of tactical skill (likely in pattern recognition / trigger a starting point for deeper calculation) for a time window where rating points can be gained quickly through the plugging in of some hole in that persons skill set (maybe blunder check at lower level and good time management at high levels?).
Michael De La Maza invented the 7 circles method back in early 2000. Ok, he never reached high level while you guys got to absolute excellence (GM!!), but imho it would be fair to state that this woodpicker method is a revisited version of the original one.
Micheal De La Mazas Rapid Chess Improvement: 400 points in 400 days, was the first to use this method. Woodpecker is a fancier name and modified version of that. Just for the records.
My problem is that I don't understand the solutions to the puzzles a lot of the time :P I'll think I understand it, then my answer will be wrong and I won't know why. I'd like to learn on my own because I have a lot going on, I run anxious, and I kind of need a solo hobby, but sometimes it's hard without someone to ask questions haha.
I think I would avoid this method just because when someone accuses me that "chess isn't intelligence, it's just pattern recognition" then I wouldn''t be able to deny it haha
Chess is composite, yes you need good pattern recognition but also factors such as creativity, your mental fitness, experience and just nuances in your decisions will determine skill. You can recognise a smothered mate when you see one coming, but it's not black and white to reach that position. Online elo isn't really a true measurement of skill, I was stuck around 2000-2200 online for a year but in that time I improved otb skill so much that I could confidently crush any1 otb who said "I'm 2000 online"
I ended up using the Woodpecker method on a book called 1,000 Checkmate combinations by Victor henken. Went through all 1000 puzzles, then went back through each chapter about three times in a year, my chess was about 1500 to 1600, to now 1900 to 2000
My favourite puzzle book, amazing stuff
I used this method at University back in 1985 for the preparation of my several exams that I passed with full marks (all of them but four) and I became a Medical Doctor thanks to that study method: I used to pick the most comprehensive book on each subject, I read and highlight words the first time, then read and repeat loudly and make some notes on the book the second time, then read and repeat in a shorter time, then as soon as I saw the pages of the book I immediately remember the content of the page without reading. After reading and repeat six times in a shorter and shorter time, I could pass exams with full marks.
And I'm sure that many other students did the same thing that I had done. You can apply the same method to anything you want or you need to study.
In order for the method to be useful, it is required that the book is really fully comprehensive, covering at leat 80% of all the patterns that may happen in real life; OTHERWISE you would waste your time to memorize a number of patterns that you may hardly find in practical situations. I'm not a chess master, so I hope that these books (Woodpecker 1 and 2) are highly comprehensive in that sense.
I bought the Chessable Woodpecker(1) course a few years ago, hoping to find out about it & if it could help me improve at chess. I gave up on it after a few days for several reasons. Stumbling on this video now, reminds me of this & I am now definitely going back to my Chessable courses & try this again & try to stick at it & complete it! Thank you.
if you hadn't given up 2 years ago, now you would be GM!
@user-bx7rw1pt4p it's not that easy. The man in the video was probably already a titled player before learning with this method, and you need a bit more than just puzzles to be a grandmaster. Like having a good coach for example
Maybe, maybe not
Makes perfect sense for a 2400 going for the GM, because you already have a very solid grasp on tactics and the ability to calculate. But a player at my level (1000-1100 OTB) does need to solve unique positions to develop a foundation of calculation skills before developing intuition.
i would tend to agree. even at your level it would help you a lot to notice basic patterns and tactics more accurately and faster.
didn't they change the ratings so that 1400 Elo is the lowest possible?
1400 ELO floor for FIDE, but national federations (and online) don't have a floor like that.
Overall, I think the woodpecker method is likely to help at all levels, not just 2400. The method is a slightly less rigid version of 7-circles that de La Maza used to get to 2000 from about 1600 right down to the number of problems ~1000, the ordering of them (simple to hard), and the faster repetition cycle. Common sense says that people have different relative strengths in skills so maybe even at 2400, what's holding that IM back may or may not be tactical pattern recognition.
One improvement here is the quality of problems (real grandmaster games) is better (can't confirm, I only read the articles de La Maza wrote 20 years ago, not the book). Another is I read there are a couple no-op/defensive problems here and they're not all tactical in nature (not sure that's an improvement, but these have real ideas behind it).
It's difficult to say what the best method is, but all these methods, including the more standard (for language learning) spaced repetition cycle in Chessable seem to work all well. It's also not clear to me if the same repetition cycle that would be optimal for say tactical puzzles should be the same for endgames or openings. Maybe this is the ideal one for tactics only? Maybe only when making a big ELO push before a set of tournaments? Maybe only for people who commonly commit a certain type of error OTB? Who knows, really!
Other things to consider (my opinions only):
* 1000 ELO is pretty strong compared to the average person. While calculation may not have a deep foundation, yet, I bet you're already aware of most of the tactical motifs and likely even have names for them. I think tactics can be trained even at a lower level (probably very close to beginner) with or without calculation fundamentals, though likely a good foundation would result in quicker improvement all other things being equal (basically you have a better scaffold to help with recognition).
* Problem set difficulty can be varied when training the method is held constant. So if the problems later in the book are too difficult you could use the method on a different set. I don't own the book but I believe they recommend omitting later problems and doing the cycles on the abbreviated set if too difficult.
* Calculation is not being trained here outside the first cycle (and maybe a certain percentage of the second cycle depending on skill). Pattern recognition is. Calculation is the other half of tactics IMO and there are other books focused on that. Not sure even intuition is being trained (though separating intuition and pattern recognition is probably a PhD dissertation).
I don't have this book and don't use this method. But consider that if it doesn't speak to you, there are a wealth of other approaches to learning tactics (and books as well as a great many other resources online). We live in great time to learn chess. :)
Somebody tell Levy
I feel like your instinct to immediately refute the advice of a GM without even trying it will hold you back more.
I will try, Thank you sir.
I am memorizing Reinfeld's 1,001 Winning Checkmates using this method. It works!
Basically spaced repetition for tactics.
This is just spaced repetition and it could be much better as spaced repetition theory tells us that we learn by repeating the same knowledge in different spaces of time, essentially you must repeat the same knowledge in intervals of time that become each time longer, meaning that if you learned one thing today you should review it tomorrow, two days after tomorrow, 4 days after tomorrow, etc (essentially you want to recall the first day, the second, the third, the fourth, the seventh the fourteenth, the 30th, 3 months later, 6 months later, and a 1 later to stablish the knowledge in your memory) this process can be make easier with a program such as anki (which id totally free and has no premium features) that has already an algorithm to let you recall a flashcard that you have created in the past, in this case you can just use a link or paste the image qnd the answers on the creation of the flaschard.
I am familiar with spaced repetition theory, but I would suggest this.
First, do the course as designed.
Then, review the puzzles in the traditional spaced repetition model of ever increasing periods of time.
What I am suggesting is leveraging two types of memory to enhance the process.
The course as designed is using short term memory with pattern recognition (pattern recognition being unrelated to long term memory storage.
So we do the course, we learn the puzzles, we develop fast pattern recognition.
THEN, we continue to review the puzzles in the traditional space recognition format so that we maintain those puzzles and the patterns they represent long term.
A doubling or tripling of spacing cycles in repetition may not be optimal depending on what is being learned and the intent of the material.
I find it interesting that general studies show that increased spacing is an optimal learning structure for most memorization tasks (chess in general, language acquisition, etc.). However this is the second time, perhaps independently, that someone has advocated strongly for a reverse spacing specifically for chess tactics and specifically in order to gain rating with multiple anecdotal "proof" of such a process to both.
My gut tells me that for some cohort this may be a more optimal way to get a breakthrough in an aspect of tactical skill (likely in pattern recognition / trigger a starting point for deeper calculation) for a time window where rating points can be gained quickly through the plugging in of some hole in that persons skill set (maybe blunder check at lower level and good time management at high levels?).
Thank you will try this
Levy should try this method if it works so well for becoming a gm
Really like the posters in the background too.
Thank you so much!
Michael De La Maza invented the 7 circles method back in early 2000. Ok, he never reached high level while you guys got to absolute excellence (GM!!), but imho it would be fair to state that this woodpicker method is a revisited version of the original one.
Micheal De La Mazas Rapid Chess Improvement: 400 points in 400 days, was the first to use this method.
Woodpecker is a fancier name and modified version of that.
Just for the records.
So could I stick 1000 puzzles into Anki and let the algorithm present them to me at the "optimal" moment?
My problem is that I don't understand the solutions to the puzzles a lot of the time :P I'll think I understand it, then my answer will be wrong and I won't know why. I'd like to learn on my own because I have a lot going on, I run anxious, and I kind of need a solo hobby, but sometimes it's hard without someone to ask questions haha.
Tikka means woodpecker btw
00:47
Tik tok generation😢 how do you even have patience to play chess if you can't bear to watch a 40 sec intro??
@@georgeantonelis2863 fr
@@georgeantonelis2863 I immediately clicked the timestamp too T_T I don't even have tiktok, just impatient LOL
I tried it I became GM
Me too, now I became stockfish
this year they ruin the app
this looks like ai so bad.
It's just awful to watch and listen to.
@@DanielHansen_Toulouse absolutely
mate
@@DanielHansen_Toulouse he looks like he doesn't want to be there lol
@@valerioharvey7289 feels like hes forced to make it
I think I would avoid this method just because when someone accuses me that "chess isn't intelligence, it's just pattern recognition" then I wouldn''t be able to deny it haha
One of the most highly important variables in IQ is pattern recognition though, but I would still not say that chess ability is not correlated to IQ
Yeah we can tell you’re below 1300 elo
yeah because chess is about pattern recognition, and why are you so ashamed to do that? Fields like math also relies on pattern recognition a lot
Chess is composite, yes you need good pattern recognition but also factors such as creativity, your mental fitness, experience and just nuances in your decisions will determine skill. You can recognise a smothered mate when you see one coming, but it's not black and white to reach that position. Online elo isn't really a true measurement of skill, I was stuck around 2000-2200 online for a year but in that time I improved otb skill so much that I could confidently crush any1 otb who said "I'm 2000 online"