One Month of Puzzles

My training has rarely been consistent. Much of the time, it is not even training. I enjoy playing chess and enjoy studying it, too. Sometimes I set goals. Most of the time I achieve these goals.

Ten years ago, I began to abandon one of the few that I failed to achieve: a USCF rating above 2000. I had peaked at 1982 in 2012. In 2013, I recorded a series of training logs here on Chess Skills. In February 2014 and again in August, I fell below 1900. I rose back above that mark once more in August 2015 when I won a weekend Swiss for the first time (see “Winning an Open”). My most recent first place finish in a weekend Swiss was in 2023 (see “Misevaluation”). In that event, I was playing for the enjoyment of the game. Over the previous months, regular puzzles had been a habit and contributed to my enjoyment of the game during the tournament.

My USCF rating graph

Although my ambitions to cross 2000 USCF have dissipated, improving my knowledge and skills has continued. The goals are small and training related. I seek small achievements, such as getting my online rapid rating above 1800, playing through every game in a single issue of Chess Informant, memorizing a batch of classic games, or reaching the next century mark in puzzles.

I enjoy learning. The process of gaining knowledge or microskills* is often its own reward.

Nearly a month ago, I publicized a rating goal with chessdotcom puzzles. Dean Arond questioned the benefits: “but does it translate to your USCF rating?” The next four days saw my puzzles rating fall 200 points, but then some consistency brought it back up and I crossed 3100 on 9 June. Posting a link to Chess Skills, where I marked the achievement, provoked more skepticism and an informative discussion with Jon Jacobs. He offered a link to a 2008 blog post where his critical comment led to considerable discussion concerning the merits of following the tactics training regimen advocated by Michael de la Maza. There is a lot to process at that link and I appreciate the perspective that Jacobs offers.

The past month, since 18 May, I have attempted a minimum of ten rated puzzles every morning. During the solving, I have addressed a specific weakness that affects my playing performance, as well as my habits while solving tactics. I often see an idea and play it instantly or after superficial calculation. During my puzzle solving the past month, I have focused on accuracy. If I suspect a checkmate is present, I work it out to the end, laboring to find all manner of resistance.

Progress has been up and down. My tactics rating today (3027) is lower than it was on 18 May (3038). Nonetheless, I reached new highest ever ratings half a dozen times or more with a current peak four days ago at 3143. More important than rating level is the increase in my percentage of success. My puzzle accuracy (percentage solved correctly) over the life of the site (more than 15,000 puzzles) increased from 53% to 54%. In the past month, I have exceeded 70% accuracy during 16 sessions.

There have been three sessions where accuracy was below 50% and these were the longest sessions. Often I enjoy the process of solving puzzles, but experienced frustration on those days. Plans to solve daily seemed more of a burden on those days.

More than likely, I will not continue a daily regimen ten or more puzzles on chessdotcom much longer. There are other avenues for tactics, and other forms of productive learning. For instance, a book, 100 Soviet Chess Miniatures (1963) by P. H. Clarke, has been on the side table in my living room since January. I've gone through the first 23 games.

*I use this term for specific skills that are part of my teaching curriculum, such as specific pawn endings that I want my students to master, the Lucena and Philidor rook endings, or the not yet achieved queen vs. rook ending I plan to work on more in the near future. I expect to play against the computer every rook endgame in Jesus de la Villa, 100 Endgames You Must Know, new edition (2015). This practical book study is an example of microskill development.

A Batch of Games

I was lucky to get a draw against an underrated youth player in late summer 2014 in the Spokane Falls Open. Happily, this same event went much better for me the following summer (see "Winning an Open"). Against the youth player, we reached this position after a couple of minutes and then I started to rush matters and handed him a long-term initiative through inaccurate play. In the end, he did not see his winning chances and fought hard for a draw while I sought an elusive win. Eventually, kings were all that remained on the board.

Black to move

This position is a typical position in ECO C11*, the Steinitz variation of the French Defense. My game against the underrated youth was not the first time that I had steered too close to the ditch in this variation.

Weaknesses become strengths when training is guided by deliberate practice (see "Hanging Pieces"). When Chess Informant's Paramount Database arrived, I browsed through some its features. Of immediate interest was a list of the openings that had in excess of 500 published games through the first 123 volumes of Informant. There have been 588 games in C 11!

Naturally, I set out to quickly run through all of them. Some days I have raced through thirty games. Other days, I am too busy with other things to look at any from this set. A few times, I have forgotten which game I left off with and have gone through a batch that I had seen a few days prior.

When I have finished all 588 games and pick up any of my opening monographs on the French Defense, the reference games for the Steinitz variation shall be familiar. This morning I am on Nijboer -- Visser, Hoogeveen 2002, Informant 86/284. It is game 392 in the list of 588.


*ECO Code is a trademark of Chess Informant.

Who is Better?

This position arose in Morozevich -- Bareev, Sarajevo 1999 (Chess Informant 75/264). Does Black already stand better, or did White err in the middle game? Perhaps this game was decided in the ending.

White to move

Morozevich played 14.Bg3 and Bareev went on to win after a long struggle. It was the my sixth study game this morning. I went through the game quickly, then marked it for further study.

Having identified the Steinitz variation as a weak point in my handling of the French Defense, I am laboring to transform weakness into strength. The first step involves absorbing patterns by rapidly playing through a large body of games.

My resource is the Paramount Database. The indexing system that this database brings to the material in all Informants 1-123 is proving useful. A list of the most popular openings contains links to all games in that opening. There are 588 games classified C11. I am working through all of these games, learning patterns. Sometimes I race through a game in two minutes. Sometimes I print a copy of the game for further study on a physical chess board after my first pass through the list.

The games published in Informant contain the development of theory in this opening through the past half century. When I return to study of opening monographs, the reference games will be familiar.

Morozevich -- Bareev is game 292 in the list of 588. Both players are devotees of the French Defense and have had many games published in Informant through the years.

The diagram position was reached at least once since 1999 in Wongwichit -- Song, Australian Open 2005. White played 14.Kb1 and went on to lose in 25 moves.

The Blitz Standard

When teaching elementary checkmates to children, I often suggest they should know the basic techniques so well that they can perform them without thought with mere seconds left on the clock. Sometimes I mention an extreme example. Ryan Ackerman and I spent some time at the Spokane Chess Club one evening taking turns checkmating with queen and king against lone king. Ryan set his Chronos clock so that we each had ten seconds. We were each able to execute the checkmate in six to seven seconds with some consistency, although there was more than one stalemate through the course of the evening. Once, I played the nine or ten moves to checkmate in five seconds.

I do not expect children to perform these checkmates in seconds, but consistent success with reasonably rapid moves is a training standard they should aspire to. The first step is learning the technique and developing self-confidence. I learned these checkmates as a teenager, but still practice them in my fifties. My aim in practice is to move instantly and at the same time to execute the checkmate in the fewest possible moves.

Training Log: September 2013

My training regimen was back on track in September. Nonetheless, I still fell short in some areas. I set four New Year's resolutions at the end of December 2012. I made reasonable progress in September on three.

1. In 2013, I will solve correctly 300 tactics problems each month.

After my hard drive crashed in July, it has taken time to recover and rebuild my data. Part of what was lost was my spreadsheet for tracking the monthly totals with each of of tactics training resources. This blog had accurate data through the end of May, so I started there.

It must have been during times of exhaustion of distraction that I kept opening Chess Quest on my iPad because I know that I looked at one problem at least half a dozen times, but when I looked at it three days ago, I was able to solve the problem that had me stuck in less than one minute. Meanwhile, a new app on my phone and two online resources account for the largest number of problems. The iChess app scorecard says that I have solved 138 problems, but some problems have been solved more than once as I learn how to use the app to always start with a new problem. Most of the 103 problems that I have solved are simple one-move checkmates. Regular readers will remember that I discount such easy problems in Chessimo, only counting those that I have solved six times. None of the 80 problems that I solved in Chessimo in September appear on the speadsheet, although a batch of them may appear in October.

With the Chess.com Tactics Trainer, I sometimes torpedo my rating trying to calculate because I exceed the allotted time. In the morning, when I use this resource, I typically fail the first three problems before the mind starts working. My pass rate is less than 50%. Research concerned with expert performance and deliberate practice reveals that practice at the point of failure is necessary. That low percentage should motivate me to use this resource more extensively. My solving percentage is slightly higher on Chess Tempo, and I am working at improving that. I solve in standard mode where time used does not affect rating, and where I can hone my calculation skills. My percentage in September was close to 60%, a little higher than my overall average. Combining these two online resources, focusing on rating with one and accuracy with the other may be my best bet for strengthening my tactical skill.

2. In 2013, I will study whole games and whole books.

My study of whole games and whole books has come to characterize the time that I spend on chess!

I am closer to finishing Logical Chess: Move by Move, but continue to neglect the study plan with respect to this book that I set out in my resolutions. On the other hand, in late August, I began working systematically through Chess Informant 113. I have completed 59 whole games, plus 44 game fragments.

3. In 2013, I will finish my Pawn Endgame Flash Card project.

Progress studying Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual did not go forward in September.

4. In 2013, I will lose fifteen pounds.

My efforts to walk the entire length of the Spokane River Centennial Trail with each of my dogs continues. Walks in the park, too, are regular and Amy is able to overcome her distractions enough to make four half-mile laps before insisting on the return home. My weight loss is a meagre two pounds from January.

Tracking Failures

As a follow-up to yesterday's "Failing at Tactics," I moved more slowly through today's training session on Chess Tempo. With each failed problem, I wrote an explanation of the cause of my error.

1. With fresh coffee in the cup, although still groggy-eyed due to working until nearly 10:00 pm, I opened the first problem, CT 78563. Immediately, I saw the checkmate threat, and then within a few seconds saw that White had prevented my threats from going anywhere. Then, I thought to remove the queen's defender. Through simple miscalculation, I failed to see that after my capture of the knight and the exchange of queens, I would be hitting two pieces. My 1...Bg4 was the fourth most popular wrong move, and wholly ineffective.

Cause: gross miscalculation

2. After solving one problem correctly, I missed CT 47952. Laurent's urging (see comments to yesterday's post) that one must ask "what can my opponent do?" led me to reject the first move that I examined. I saw the discovered attack against queen after capture of the bishop that only appears to be en prise. As it happens, that would have been the correct move. A knight fork of king and queen refutes the discovery.

Cause: missing fork

3. My fourth problem, CT 57540, was my third failure. This time, however, I failed on the second move rather than the first. I found and executed the correct idea, but executed it badly. After the forcing check by the rook, I parried the checkmate threat with a discovery on the threatening rook. But, I moved my knight to a square where it was vulnerable to capture.

White to move

Instead of gaining a clear and decisive advantage, I put myself in a rook and pawn ending with the advantage of one pawn.

Cause: hasty failure to calculate alternative moves

4. Although I correctly solved CT 57744 and CT 48156, I made moves that were "not the computer's first choice." In 57744, I missed seeing the full mobility of my queen, finding a win of material but not the checkmate. In 48156, my second move was to check with the bishop rather than the queen. Again, I was winning material but not finding checkmate.

Cause: shallow calculation

So far today, 4/7 correct, but errors in five of seven problems. Yesterday, I had a terrible run of 31 problems in which only six were solved correctly, but then finished the day with seven correct. Starting today with 4/7 correct suggests that slowing down between problems might lead to greater success. Instead of frantic solving one problem after another, a few moments to reflect on my thinking processes after each problem might be the prescription for yesterday's malady.

5. In CT 49766, I chased illusions.* When my initial move was rejected as "not the computer's top choice," I attempted to drive the Black queen to a square where it no longer threatened my bishop. That my own queen was en prise failed to lead me to calculate variations.

White to move

It is interesting that the eye instantly catches the check on f7, and almost as instantly rejects it due to the knight on d8. Yet, in this idea is the kernel of the double attack that wins.

Cause: gross miscalculation, inflexibility

6. CT 91892 put me under 50% for the day so far.

White to move

Winning the exchange is easy, but it is important to look for more. I correctly identified White's threats along the a3-f8 diagonal, but failed to use the b-file. Instead, I sought to bring both queen and rook to the d-file.

Cause: shallow calculation

I managed to finish the day's ten problems at 50% because CT 59114 offered the resource that I missed in CT 47952. Perhaps slowly working through problems, writing down the cause of each failure, is a practice more akin to deliberate practice than trying to solve as many problems as possible in the allotted time. More likely, there is good reason to do both sorts of solving sessions.


*There was a break in my Chess Tempo session in which I took care of some morning business. During this break, I worked four problems on the Shredder iPad app. The problems in this app often call for simpler resolution than problems at the level where I'm working on CT. Could an easy problem set lead to failure when moving to harder problems? I am reminded of something that Valeri Beim wrote in Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (see "Beware of Weak Opponents").

Failing at Tactics

Pattern recognition in attack proves insufficient when one's own king is vulnerable. Two weeks ago, I observed my own failure to check the security of my king as the cause of failing a tactics problem. I failed Chess Tempo problem 63593 this morning for the same reason.

White to move

The first move was easy, but I played the wrong second move because I missed 2...Rxb2+ and 3...Qd2+ with checkmate to follow. My own checkmate threat was parried by a more immediate threat against my own king.

On the previous problem (CT 43197), I observed the vulnerability of my own king, but missed a simple defense of the critical d1 square and made an empty threat that I knew offered no advantage by swinging my rook to e1.

White to move

Both problems seem simple in retrospect. Why did I fail? How do I find the patterns in my errors and create exercises to address them?

Flexibility

Anatomy of a Failure

In Elements of Positional Evaluation: How the Pieces Get Their Power (2010), Dan Heisman defines flexibility as one of seven positional concepts. Zwischenzug (an in-between move) often reveals flexibility in action. I failed a tactics problem by overlooking a zwischenzug. First, examining one plan that failed, I rejected it and found another plan. The second plan was correct, but a part of the first plan remained valuable. My wholesale rejection of the failed plan led to inflexibility in my thought process. This inflexibilty, when faced with an unexpected response, was the source of a blunder.

Black to move

Problem 77164 on Chess Tempo

Instantly, the check 1...Rc1+ bears examination. This move leads nowhere and must be rejected. Chasing pawns seems futile as well, but the knight is trapped.

I found the line 1...Re8 2.Nxd4 Rd8 when White wins a piece.

Playing 1...Re8, CT then confronted me with the unexpected 2.Rxd4. I proceeded with the original plan to win the knight and blundered. This game losing blunder (and tactics training failure) took me five seconds. Even 2...Rxd4 3.Nxd4 Rxe5 was superior too my horrid 2...Re6??

The correct move was 2...Rc1+, the first move that I examined, but played one move later. Such bull-headed pursuit of one idea when new unexamined circumstances appear on the board have been the cause of more than one failure in tournament play. The antidote to this failure is to create a problem set of zwischenzug problems on CT and spend several hours of deliberate practice solving them.

Identifying Errors

For deliberate practice to work, the demands have to be serious and sustained. Simply playing lots of chess or soccer or golf isn't enough. ... It requires constant self-critique, a pathological restlessness, a passion to aim consistently just beyond one's capability so that daily disappointment and failure is actually desired, and a never-ending resolve to dust oneself off and try again and again.
David Shenk, The Genius in All of Us, 55 (emphasis added)

Deliberate practice is defined as a quest for failure. Does this translate into a rationale for an obsession with blitz when one is playing badly? Perhaps the critical question should be posed another way.

Three Steps Backward, Two Forward

Training Log

Yesterday's Valley, Today's Climb

There's an old figure of speech concerning progress amid adversity: three steps forward, two steps backward. However, sometimes we fail to make progress. So it was with my marathon training session yesterday. I did not intend to spend more than four hours on Chess Tempo. My failure was grounded in initial success. My standard tactics rating had been hovering near +25 relative to the interim goal I was just under when I wrote "Getting Angry." My objective since crossing that mark was to achieve the next line at +50. I reached +45 after a relatively short session, then crashed. I ended the day at -46. By the end of the day I had correctly solved 125 problems in 273 attempts, an abysmal 46%. I must say that I was not enjoying the training. At least I had some solace in knowing that deliberate practice is not inherently pleasurable, but rather often painful. This morning, I refused to write my weekly training log until I had crossed back to the positive relative to mid-April's interim goal. I correctly solved 47 in 83 attempts for 57%. My rating is now +1. I have spent more than twenty-seven hours working Chess Tempo problems in the past six weeks.

For the week that ended yesterday, I solved 155/336 on Chess Tempo.

I continued working with Shredder's iPad app, but only ten problems.

1657 puzzles: 12987/16570 points 78%
last 10 puzzles: 97/100 97%

I also continued solving problems from the set of 300 that come with Chess-wise Pro, another iPad app. These problems are good quality positions, but only the first move is part of the puzzle. The first 110 offer a verbal clue upon request, but no other assistance. I have not been tracking these week-by-week, but have completed the first 134 since beginning in early March.

For the first time in several weeks, I spent more than one-half hour working problems from Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book II. Thus, two of my three resolutions were met this week.

Yesterday's slide began Thursday night. I played two of three rounds in an unrated thematic tournament at the Spokane Chess Club. Due to scheduling issues that others faced, I was asked to say a few words about the Dutch Defense before we began a tournament in which all games began after 1.d4 f5. It was enjoyable looking through some games to highlight for the club. Then, in the event, I played awful in the first game against Ron, dodging a bullet when he stepped into checkmate in one. Then, I made a simple opening blunder against Nikolay, giving him the initiative with Black. I defended well, and created some counterplay. At the end, he erred in giving me a choice of rooks to capture. The correct capture would have left me one pawn ahead, but I took the wrong one and had a minor piece for a queen. I left for home, while Nikolay went on to tie for second in the event with a draw in the final round. On Friday, I squandered some time playing online blitz in the quest for elusive redemption.

Hanging Pieces

Deliberate practice includes activities that have been specially designed to improve the current level of performance.
K. A. Ericsson, R. Th. Krampe, and C.  Tesch-Römer, "The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance," 368. 

[D]eliberate practice requires that one identify certain sharply defined elements of performance that need to be improved, and then work intently on them.
Geoff Colvin, Talent is Overrated, 68.*

Having spent more than a decade coaching elementary school age beginning chess players, I have observed the pattern that pieces are frequently left undefended. These pieces are ripe for plucking. Those who learn to spot the fruit of error enjoy a bountiful harvest. Observing the strengths and weaknesses of beginning players is one thing, but learning that tactics involving hanging pieces was my own weakness was quite another.

Chess Tempo's "Rated Tactical Motif Performance" lists the tactical motifs identified by users of that site for each problem. For each motif, information is given concerning the number of problems that I have attempted, the number correct, a percentage, and a rating performance. After 637 problem attempts, hanging pieces appeared as as one of my worst percentages, and my lowest performance rating: 37/72 problems, 51.39% correct, performance >200 below current target.

In order to improve through practice, exercises must address those areas where I fail. Failure, thus, becomes not a cause for anger, but data to diagnose. Through the problem search on Chess Tempo, I found those problems that involve hanging pieces, limiting the search to those above a target rating (higher than my current performance). I then set my training to solve only problems from this set. Chess Tempo creates a new rating based only on solving problems in this user created set. The rating offers one index for tracking improvement over the new few days and week. Because I set a minimum rating, the problems were difficult. In my first session with this set, I solved 4/16 for 25%. My performance was 4.8 over the initial target.

That was yesterday. Today, before solving another set, I reviewed my errors. Chess Tempo offers Silver and Gold members access to the source game, which is already in my reference database in ChessBase 11. Yesterday, I opted for a one-month trial of Gold membership ($4). So far, it seems money well-spent.


De la Riva Aguado,Oscar (2515) - Hassan,Abdul (2296) [C14]
Bled ol (Men) Bled (12.1), 07.11.2002

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.f4 a6 8.Nf3 c5 9.dxc5 Nxc5 10.Bd3 Nc6 11.0–0 Bd7 12.Qd2 f5 13.exf6 Qxf6 14.Rae1 0–0 15.Ne5 Nxe5 16.Rxe5 Rac8 17.g3 Be8 18.Rfe1 Bf7 19.Bf1 Nd7 20.R5e3 Nc5 21.Bg2 Rfe8 22.R3e2 Nd7 23.Nd1

White's last move is interesting. In this game, it precedes Black's decisive error.

Black to move

23...Bh5?? 24.Rxe6 Rxe6 25.Rxe6 Rxc2

And now we have the position that appears as Problem 48544 on Chess Tempo.

White to move

26.Bxd5

I played 26.Rxf6, the third most common wrong move. My move actually loses by force, as I have now hung both my rook and my knight.

26...Bf7 27.Re8+ Nf8 28.Bxf7+ 1–0

The Chess Tempo problem carries the combination another two moves.


*Geoff Colvin. Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else. New York: Portfolio, 2008.

K. Anders Ericsson, Ralf Th. Krampe, and Clemens  Tesch-Römer. "The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance." Psychological Review, 100, no. 3 (1993): 363-406.

Dealing with Frustration

In "Getting Angry" I mentioned the effort to transform anger into a productive resource. That post was intended to end on a positive note as I achieved the day's objective that had been set after initial unsuccessful efforts with Chess Tempo tactics training. Instead, the day ended not with the tactics rating goal met, but seventy points below (some twenty-five Elo lower than I had begun the day). Initial frustration gave way to despair as I realized that my skill is far below my self-assessment.

Sunday morning's tactics session began much as Saturday's: I missed five of the first ten problems. As a result my tactics rating went from -52.2 (relative to Saturday's goal) to -52.3.* I went back through the problems that I had missed, including a few from Saturday. Then, I created a new database in ChessBase 11: Chess Tempo Fails. When I fail a problem, I do not immediately move on to the next, but save the position into this database. After missing five of the first ten, my results improved. After thirty problems, I had missed ten total. My rating improved to -23.7.

I felt robbed on my forty-second problem. I found the first two moves easily, and then had an elementary checkmate in three. Fail! It was checkmate in two. Rating drops to -18.9. The Chess Tempo Fails database now contains fifteen positions for review later.

Black to move

I played 3...Bg2+, seeing 4.Kg1 Bf3+ 5.Kf1 Qg2#

The correct answer was 3...Qh3+ 4.Ke2 Qd3#. It is an elegant checkmate.

After fifty problems, my rating has risen to -9.3. I remain short of Saturday's goal, but cannot deem the day a failure. The vertical gray bar on the graph to the right marks the beginning of Sunday's set of fifty problems.

*I am too embarrassed to mention my actual Chess Tempo rating not only because the number is far below my USCF rating, but because the percentile score places me well below a level that I judge to be in the class of skilled chess players. Of course, only serious chess enthusiasts use Chess Tempo with any consistency, and it is not inconceivable that the overall pool may reflect a subset of the upper percentiles of other rating pools. It is not reasonable to comparing ratings on one site to those on another, nor to official ratings achieved through tournament play.

Training Log

My weekly training update begins with my 2012 New Year's Resolutions, and this week adds a fourth element.

1. Solve a minimum of 50 tactics problems per week.

Continuing with the puzzles in the Shredder iPad app, I solved 58.
1440 puzzles: 11292/14400 points 78%
last 10 puzzles: 74/100 74%

In addition, I did one session with the Tactics Trainer at Chess.com. Without prior logging, and with a viewing limit of the past twenty-five problems, I do not know the total number of problems attempted during this session. There were certainly more than twenty-five attempts. My cumulative data going back to summer 2008 provides a benchmark for future weeks.

Current:	1802
Highest:	2400 (11 Jun 09)
Lowest:	1444 (28 Jul 08)
# Attempts:	4948
Passed:	2261 (45.7%)
Failed:	2687 (54.3%)
Total Time:	33.3 hrs

At Chess.com, I constantly strive to get each rating--blitz, bullet, tactics trainer, etc.--equal to or above my USCF rating. After adjustments to the rating formula at the site a bit over a year ago, all ratings have dropped. Just staying over 1800 in Tactics Trainer proves challenging.

2. Spend thirty minutes once per week solving problems in Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book II and Paata Gaprindashvili, Imagination in Chess.

The thirty minutes spent with Alburt's text was not high quality time. During two hours of chess classes where the students were all engaged playing each other, and wanting no interference from me, I managed to work through a few problems with this text. That I failed more than one suggests that the text meets important criteria for effective training: deliberate practice. See Temposchlucker's informative post last week, "More about plan A." Temposchlucker's definition, "you only train puzzles you did slow or wrong," differs from how Neil Charness, et al. explain the term in "The Role of Deliberate Practice in Chess Expertise." Charness refers to an earlier article that defines deliberate practice as "appropriately challenging tasks that are chosen with the goal of improving a particular skill" (152). "Slow or wrong" does seem to be a reasonable measure for "appropriately challenging."

My difficulties with Alburt and Gaprindashvili have been that: I get them wrong, or I spend an inordinate amount of time solving the problem. Problems in the Shredder app must be solved successfully, and the scoring is based on time and number of errors. Full credit requires speed. Speed is a vital element in the Chess.com problems as well, but the problem ends when an error is entered or when the time expires. Chess.com's Tactics Trainer does present "appropriately challenging" problems because success brings harder problems, while failure brings easier. My pass rate of 45.7% is encouraging in this aspect, but careful reflection is not an integral element.

Sanjoy Mahajan has an article at Freakonomics highlighting careful reflection as the heart of deliberate practice. Mahajan's article also links to an earlier Freakonomics article, "The Science of Genius: A Q&A with Author David Shenk." It was Shenk's The Genius in All of Us (2010) that led me to articles by K. Anders Ericsson and Neil Charness (see "Seeking Failure").

This past week, I did only a few problems in Alburt, but did reflect on my failure. I have gone through the first eighteen problems in the text.

3. Complete my Pawn Endgame flash card project.

An earlier scholarly article by Charness led me to start a project that has limped along: 200 one-hour sessions on pawn endings. I put in one quality session this week, and posted a detailed description of that session in "Pawn Endings Flash Cards."

[R]esearch by Chase and Ericsson (1982) on the effects of practice on a specific task measuring the capacity of STM [short-term memory] has shown that through extended practice (more than 200 hours), it is possible for subjects to improve performance by more than 1,000%.
K. Anders Ericsson and Neil Charness, “Expert Performance” (1994), 735.

4. Additional Training Focus

Yesterday, I posted "Memorizing Chess Games." Tactical and strategic elements of chess skill can be developed through active pursuit of memorizing entire games, especially as these games increase in quality. The brief games that I memorized this week are more useful in teaching than training. But, the ease with which these were learned inspires me to put forth the effort needed for longer, higher quality games.

Seeking Failure

For deliberate practice to work, the demands have to be serious and sustained. Simply playing lots of chess or soccer or golf isn't enough. Simply taking lessons from a wonderful teacher is not enough. Simply wanting it badly enough is not enough. Deliberate practice requires a mind-set of never, ever, being satisfied with your current ability. It requires constant self-critique, a pathological restlessness, a passion to aim consistently just beyond one's capability so that daily disappointment and failure is actually desired, and a never-ending resolve to dust oneself off and try again and again.
David Shenk, The Genius in All of Us, 55

David Shenk is known to chessplayers as author of The Immortal Game: A History of Chess (2006). The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ is Wrong (2010) is his new book. It develops further some of the themes in The Immortal Game.