How To Structure Your Training | Dojo Talks

GM Jesse Kraai, IM David Pruess, and IM Kostya Kavutskiy talk details about how to structure your chess training in today's episode of Dojo Talks, the ChessDojo Podcast.

Want to support the channel?

Shopping through our link is a great way to support the Dojo. We earn a small affiliate % but at no cost to you.

#chess #chesstraining

CHAPTERS
0:00 How to Structure Your Chess Training
1:35 How Should the Average Person Schedule Their Chess Training?
18:04 How Many Hours to Spend Per Chess Topic
36:35 How to Choose Your Focus
40:03 Allocating Hours for Chess Training
51:40 New Things Coming to the Training Program
52:49 Closing Thoughts

[michaelf]

So in conclusion, you mostly all agree that you should play as many OTB games as possible, analyze those games as thoroughly as you have time for, and then spend the remainder of your time focusing on one topic that you think is a bit of a weakness in your game based on your game analysis. Jesse wants it to be algorithm-based depending on which category has the least points. David thinks it should be mostly tactics and calculation focused. And Kostya thinks it should be calculation-focused or a book that highly motivated you.

[Thanos-snap-feminism]

On the minimum, one should be training, practicing, and studying more than they're playing. This goes for any sport or activity that one seeks to improve in.

[Chess-Talker]

The study in the morning-idea is absolutely, totally different for every person. I do not want to be even near a chessboard in the morning.

[wolson]

I glad you have made this video! I have asked these questions! Very good video!

I am glad you addressed the amount of time to analyze a game. I was finding that analysis lasted far longer than the game itself! But not yet 1 to 20 for me. I was seeing 1 to 5 on occasion. I was making me wonder how I could possibly spend half of my time playing: I came to the conclusion that I can't!

[DarkSideChess]

My biggest weakness is my boardvision. I have been over-emphasizing training that. I think that's an underrated approach - maybe similar to the heatmap thing. But focus on what your biggest weakness is and just hammer it.

[StickFigureAlchemist]

I'm a little confused about Jesse's proposed points system. Let's say all three sensei's had agreed on what the default ratios of time have to be spent on each part of the game depending on cohort. Then points could be roughly estimated in a way where say tactics may take five times as many hours to get the same amount of points as openings for instance. However, It is clear from the discussion that there is no such agreement and even individually for each sensei the specifics are blurry. In this case talking about Jesse's algorithm seems to be cart but there doesn't appear to be any horse. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding would be curious on more clarification

[rizka]

How big a share of your time should you spend on improving your bullet rating? Is 60 % enough or should it be more like 80 %?

[anoukadel]

Thanks for this podcast. I like Kostya's idea better: working on a book or in my case a course for a while and then moving on to the next one. The idea of ​​an algorithm, or in other words, distributing the available time proportionally, is too confusing for me.

[TFPMadcow]

Below a certain level, one classical game per week is not enough. I think that is a limit of the program. Rapid chess should play a role.

[jaylenlenear]

another point I disagree even if you do intend on playing the same guys as Kostya mentioned in the focus section I still think U2000 maybe even U2100 should not study any specific opening as for one that is to result center and U2000 improving overall play will yield better results (I'm living proof. 1800-2000 I played many different openings but it had a theme which was for me to be aggressive so they're were quite a bit of gambits I experimented with and even if I left the opening in not the best conditions I was so much more FUNDAMENTALLY sound everywhere else [I didn't play the middlegame or endgame like a expert/master level] compared to the guys I played that I would often win anyway) and another reason that's bad advice is if you analyze your losses deeply enough you will naturally pick up the opening study from there. (I did try to find a couple model games of openings I felt I wanted to stick with but no thematic games or anything suggested. so far i've only agreed with Jesse 100% tho these same criticisms could be applied to him for not disagreeing with them

[jaylenlenear]

ive never heard a master say study shouldn't be comprehensive U1600 and 1600-2000 should begin opening study (im only 10 minutes in the video as I make this comment). no offense but I couldn't disagree more and I know there are GMs that agree with me because ive gone off their coaching philosophy and I think a huge part of my chess growth was comprehensive study (cover multiple subjects it just needs to be structured, not focusing on one which I tried before with self study) and almost blatantly ignoring openings. Im now doing 2000-2200 study and still barely care about openings as white I still play gambits I started playing at 1800 and as black i just do borderline systematic symmetry in fact im considering 1.a3 just so I can always play my black repertoire lol (at least for rapid time controls, I don't play blitz or action at all)