The Woodpecker Method | Dojo Book Review

[@Swishead]

The thing I noticed about this book is that the authors seem to hate Capablanca. So many exercises from his games are moves that he himself didn't find.

[@aaronadams7831]

FYI You can turn the timer off on Chessable. Also there is a template online where you record your times and data from each round. It’s on the official site for the book.

[@neilpreece3791]

The point of having a score is that it allows you to check progress from cycle to cycle. Obviously if you only do the problems once it becomes less meaningful. It also forces you to write down all your analysis, which is a great habit to develop.

[@1982gonzocontroli]

Love the review! I agree with most Jesse's points. Many ideas seem to be underdeveloped but the puzzles themselves are extremely well chosen and annotated. Easily in my top 3 tactics books. While the points themselves are meaningless, it's important to specify precisely how far was I supposed to calculate in order to treat the puzzle as "solved correctly". Think of Perfect Your Chess, which simply gives a bunch of variations + the game continuation, both of which can go for 20 plies, and you can see how valuable the information is.

[@ChessDojo]

Great point, and glad you enjoyed it!

[@MindsetByDave]

I genuinely love the tactics tests on the Dojo. They really force you to look and consider every line. No handholding. It’s harder. But that’s kind of the point. Also just moved up to the 1100 cohort and loving the Benedictine Visualise book. I’m on the 10 ply section now and still getting good results. Has really increased my confidence

[@ChessDojo]

So glad you're enjoying it!

[@haydenn680]

The beginner section of the WPM on Chessable SINGLEHANDEDLY took me from 1000-1500. The pattern recognition was perfect for the gamification on chessable. Also a lot of these gripes with Chessable (besides the point system) are settings errors.

[@Murphy1938]

If the settings can be changed that’s good, but if the defaults are as Jesse described that’s still an issue because many/most users will just use the default settings

[@SerLaama]

Solving literally any set of puzzles will SINGLEHANDEDLY get you to 1500.

[@haydenn680]

@ then why are there so many below 1500s that have high puzzle ratings?

[@ChessHoodie]

Great video! I haven't read the book, but I was still enjoying Jesse's take on it, and how he describes where the book shines and where it disappoints in a way. I am not a big fan of chessable for some other reasons compared to those mentioned by Jesse, but now my stance is reaffirmed, when hearing about how a puzzle book is being presented there. Spoiler alert ( maybe?) : A few days ago I shared in a comment that I started studying Steinitz. From what I've seen the guy often found a way to sacrifice his heavy pieces ( We are not talking vs Bardeleben game, but instead some early games that are mostly not featured in books), so I would assume that most of the positions featuring his games would be of that sort. Specifically to make this comment accurate, I quickly went over the 16 games I analyzed so far ( last time the count was 7, but I've made some progress since). Here are the stats about the number of times him sacrificing different pieces: Queen: 3 ( last time I said 4, but apparently I miscounted) Rook: 7 ( Seven times!) Exchange: 4 Bishop: 3 Knight: 2 Out of those 16 games he won 14 and lost 2 , and in the two games he lost he didn't sacrifice anything ( in one game he lost his queen, and in the other he went pawngrabbing and got crushed). So, in the 14 games he won he made 19 piece sacrifices !!!, 14 of which were heavy pieces sacrifice!! ( I didn't count pawn sacs). Now, bare in mind that this was a young Steinitz, who had not yet become the one described in the books and such. IMO, this describes what was his natural gift, since these are the games before he made serious progress, so this was his innate ability in a way. From what I see, he somehow had a natural gift of using the heavy pieces aggressively. So my guess is ( spoiler alert) - that the positions from his games will feature heavy pieces sacs. Of course, I might be totally wrong, since I have only analyzed around 2-3% of his games, so maybe it is that my data is skewed by coincidence ( although, I don't believe it since I was looking at games not at random, but in chronological order).

[@ChessDojo]

Wow, that sounds like a great study! It makes me curious about a statistical analysis of the different historical greats, their sacrifices, and other elements of play.

[@ChessHoodie]

@@ChessDojo It would require a lot of effort to establish that kind of stat analysis. With my limited powers I have acquired some (widely unknown) "stats" and playing habits/ techniques for some historical players, namely Morphy, Anderssen, Alekhine, Botvinnik and Steinitz ( the last two on the list, I have analyzed low volume of games, so for them I have the least amount of playing patterns). I'll share a few observation here ( while keeping most a secret). A) Morphy usually castled short, one exemption being the "Opera game", and there are only a few more games where he went for a long castle. B) When given a choice of which rook to develop to open or semi open "e" file, Morphy almost exclusively chose the "f" rook ( other choice was "a" rook). If you think about it a little deeper, there are several reasons for this: 1) Sometimes he will push the "f" pawn, and he needs the rook on the f file to support that push ( mostly when the e file is semi-open, there is a black pawn on e6(e7) ) 2) Often there was a black bishop on the a7-g1 diagonal and the f2 square would become tender in the future and prone to some combinative play by black, so one of the rooks was kept on f1 for protection 3) in many of his games black would try to create counter play by attacking the b2 pawn. Instead of him leaving the a1 rook being able to defend that pawn ( with Rb1), he understood that it is more important that when black takes on b2 ( with his queen), he doesn't have to lose a tempo on saving the rook on a1, so in essence, he doesn't have to react to Qxb2, but instead can go on with his kingside operations 4) sometimes he would do a rook lift Re1-Re3, but opponent managed to place one of his rooks on e8. In that case Re8xe3 would open the f file , and his rook on f1 would be perfectly placed ( If he had had a rook on a1 in that position he would have to spend a whole tempo to make that rook useful) C) Anderssen often used the rook cutoff technique. In the midst of attack he would play a quiet rook move, cutting of the opposing king escape route which would happen several moves later. Had he continued his attack without this quiet move, the opposing king would have just ran away. D) Alekhine often postponed castling, for the sake of winning the battle for the center. If the struggle for the center was tense, and there was move needed to be played to gain the upper hand there ( or secure some sort of equality there), he would postpone castling and spend a tempo on that move that influenced the battle for the center. I have many more examples ( without the exact stats, just noticed by analyzing many games of these players), but I really can't share them all in a youtube comment

[@MaxTheFireCat]

Fascinating analysis and insight, as always.

[@ChessDojo]

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it 😃

[@westsidebilling]

I'm about 30% of the way through the Woodpecker Method, and it's made me feel really stupid! I'm about 1500 OTB (USCF) and I struggle to solve even half of the (so called) easy problems. It's getting a little easier, but this has been far more difficult than I thought it would be.

[@ChessDojo]

It's a solid challenge!

[@inguh7041]

It is not 'easy', don't worry - there's nothing wrong with you! Even I (rated 1900-2000) didn't manage to solve all the easy ones, missing replies or making weaker moves etc. etc. I guess that's how we learn, though...

[@Johnhoward4794]

The big issue I found with this book is that the book doesn’t have a proper assortment of themes and motifs. The point of tactics, not calculation (they are different. Tactics are quick patterns you spot through drilling patterns whereas calculation involves deep analysis and thinking for longer periods), is to assimilate patterns into your subconscious so you notice them right away in your games. The point is to see right away, not spend time calculating every possibility. This book absolutely failed in that respect. There are basically no themes in the book. A different book, like combinative motifs by Maxim Blokh for example, sorts everything by themes such as skewer, knight forks, decoys, open file tactics, etc, and sorts them perfectly, so through doing it you will have those patterns so ingrained in your head that you notice them in your games effortlessly. The woodpecker method, from me doing it many times over, hasn’t helped my game and felt more like a bad quality calculation book. Also, the method they preach such as spaced repetition and doing the same tactics over and over is not their idea, and it can be done with any other tactics book, not just the woodpecker method.

[@Tom-ov9ks]

Great review. I enjoy the puzzles with a significant advantage rather than outright win. There are a few of these in Woodpecker Method, making it superior to online tactics trainers in my opinion. It seems to be somewhere between computer generated and a curated problem set. I find the inclusion of the knockout world champions a bit odd. If you are going to include all the official FIDE world champions it starts with Botvinnik not Steinitz.

[@wengeshi6797]

How about reviewing The Woodpecker Method 2: Positional Play? especially for 2000+ players

[@ChessDojo]

We'll see what Jesse thinks! Currently, he's working on reviewing all of the books currently in the Dojo Training Program.

[@Xmask19]

I've been working through the book on chesstempo and found it to feel quite productive.

[@NoOne-so7jt]

How does it work on ChessTempo compared to Chessable as Jesse described? Do you only have to play through one line based on the opponent's move chosen by the computer? Thanks.

[@Xmask19]

@NoOne-so7jt It makes you play through multiple lines each up to the checkmark.

[@JoseDownUnder]

Thanks for this review. Which is the best tactics book Dojo recommends ?

[@ChessDojo]

Glad you enjoyed it! We recommend different tactics books for different rating levels. You can see them without needing to sign up here: www.chessdojo.club/material/books

[@JoseDownUnder]

@@ChessDojo thank you , are those FIDE ratings ?

[@jimmccann3856]

But... surely woodpeckering pays best for the Most Common Patterns? GM Alburt"s Chess Training Pocket Book aims at "300 Most Important Positions and Ideas". The Return on Investment has gotta be higher for Alburt, than for Smith, right? And... whats gotta pay best of all, per woodpecker hour, are screwups from the Adult Improver"s OWN NOTEBOOKS. The themes tend to recur, and thus be more relevant, because they come from that players opening repertoire, and they stick better because the pain is personal. What am I missing here, Jesse? Please explain...

[@josephwilson1565]

Hello, on the topic of tactics has anyone at the dojo come across 'the big book of chess tactics' (or Formerly known as 'Tactical Targets in chess') and have an opinion on the book or know of an opinion of the book in the chess world ( and elo range if you don't mind)

[@federicomontalbano6303]

Dojo Talks Olympiads please

[@ChessDojo]

We'll see what we can cook up!

[@TFPMadcow]

Is there any other software you can use to generate tactical puzzles from somebodys games?

[@PaniDaniele]

Does anybody have the name of the russian book on endgame tactics he shows at the end? Thanks!

[@NoOne-so7jt]

The cover said "Encyclopedia of Chess Endings" in Russian.

[@ChessDojo]

Encyclopedia of Chess Endings by Nikolai Kalinichenko!

[@ChessAndWater]

Let me correct a couple of things. There is a clear and long introduction on the book how to do the exercise cycles. Also, no need to vent about who was world champion and who was not... and completely irrelevant for the book (not sure if sorting problems by date makes any sense at all, though). The chessable version is excellent. It has very clear instructions how to use it on the platform, additional notes, and suggests setting. The timer can be switched off with one click for the whole book. Also, there are no hints "Look at the white Knight". The titles visible when doing problems is just the name of the players, something that's often printed in puzzle books right next to the diagram anyway. And also here, if you want it hidden, it is one click and it will stay off.

[@SerLaama]

ok gramps let's get you to bed

[@geitekop507]

Tried reading the Woodpecker #2, i realised how ridiculously weak I actually am. 😢 Demotivated me immediately...

[@ChessDojo]

It looks like a tough one!

[@geitekop507]

@@ChessDojo Yeah... The positional version is just...odd? No confidence at all in analysing positions. Funnily enough if I analyze a position, I feel like I understand the position for a move or two, but then 'forget' what I was thinking of? Even worse, after I think I understand the position, I still can't find the right move. :( (not even woodpecker related, just my own games) I guess that's what happens when you only drill tactical patterns but never think of positional play...

[@fancitickler]

Would agree with Jesse that you can be over-primed to see tactics (especially short term "tricks" or even seeing ghosts in the position) rather strategy long term ie seeing and exploiting weaknesses in a position that requires more subtlety (maneuvering) rather than brute force. I'd rather spend time looking at endgames and specific mating attacks than trying to find the win or overlooked win in a given position. Most times you don't need to find the killer blow or winning move as a move that prolongs the tension/agony or pressure in a position is enough for your opponent to weaken his/her position. (Hence there may be detrimental effect as it doesn't take into account the second or third best move which is usually good enough to succeed.) Perfection is the enemy of good as they say. Excellent critique of the book btw! The book you displayed, is it called *Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations and Games by Lazlo Polgar?*

[@prabhatkiranmukherje]

I think this particular criticism misses the point a bit. In this respect I think it's fine for puzzles to not be like the game. You have to spot it instantly in a game, and I think the constant repetition is meant to drill the patterns into the mind so you see it automatically in the game. Because the only way to see tactics in games is be good at tactics; treating every position in a classical game as a tactics problem simply doesn't work as you'll burn way too much time and get nowhere.

[@ROSITT]

there's tactics and there's positional play. what you are talking about is positional play and endgames while this book is for tactics. A book can't properly encompass everything...

[@ChessDojo]

Yes! The two books are Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations and Games by Lazlo Polgar and Encyclopedia of Chess Endings by Nikolai Kalinichenko.

[@fancitickler]

@@ChessDojo Domo arigato, Kraai Sensei.

[@TFPMadcow]

Oh, chessable butchered yet another chess book? I’m surprised.

[@ChessAndWater]

No, it is actually excellent on chessable, aand Jesse gives a lot of misinformation.

[@eudesgeoffroy8416]

Two years late, uh? The #2 was just released. Red thumb.

[@ChessDojo]

We'll see what we can do about #2! Currently, Jesse is working on reviewing all of the books currently in the Dojo Training Program.

[@Prak-lm2vs]

hmm.. since when did Dojo started to discredit others work and started to promote Dojo-only-rocks! pass

[@1982gonzocontroli]

Chessable edition of the book is terrible and Jesse clearly explains why. It's not about "discrediting", it's an honest review. I would hate those to be puff pieces that only speak about the good things.

[@bluefin.64]

They didn't. I've been following the Dojo closely for years, and they are nothing like that. Their training program is $15 a month or $8.33 paid yearly, a huge drop that tells you that the they are as interested in participation as in making money. They could easily make more by charging more, they don't need sly, cheapo self promotion. The Dojo guys are very fair minded, and you could argue they are even generous.