The blog is nice
> This is like someone handing you Chat GPT during an exam and you saying “I don’t trust this, let me think for myself”
I mean... that's exactly what I'd do?
If I'm allowed to use any tools on an exam, I'd rather use google. if all I do is ask an AI to (poorly) do it, why am I taking the exam??
> This is like someone handing you Chat GPT during an exam and you saying “I don’t trust this, let me think for myself”.
Well, if your coach is really bad and also trying to cheat by giving you potentially-made-up analysis during a game, then it would be like that.
This is a really weird one. It's almost as the author wants to allude to cheating, but legal, and is saying it is like cheating on the test. But instead of cheating with a chess computer that is accurate, it's like cheating with ChatGPT, which might just make up a fake answer that has the form of a real answer.
The author shouldn't mention ChatGPT at all in any context, though. Because, it was recently in the news about a lawyer who used it to prepare filings for a case, and it made up fake ruling for fake cases, but claiming they were from real judges who are still on the bench. Not surprisingly, the lawyers client lost their case, and the lawyers got in big trouble; and have more trouble remaining to be discovered.
I remember a number of years ago when Carlsen briefly hired Kasparov as a coach, and quickly realized it wasn't useful to him. He didn't need a coach, he needed seconds.
Maybe lower level players should take a lesson from that. Chess is very individual, and indeed, each GM is unique. GMs are very critical of what other GMs say about how to improve. However, they all have seconds; who are lower rated than them, but high enough rated to do research. Maybe lower level players should hire somebody not to coach them, but to prepare lines for them. And to do the grunt work of analysis after their games, and find all the relevant lines, and then they can look at those on their own. This isn't coaching at all; are Carlsen's seconds qualified to be his coach? No. But this is work that they do, that gives him an advantage.
I had a friend who was a FM, and also a children's coach. As he explained to me, his job was not to help children get better at chess; they'll improve by spending time studying, if they're personally motivated to win more. If they just want to have fun playing, they won't study regardless of what he says. Instead, his job was to make parents feel like they had done everything they could to help prepare their children. So it didn't actually matter what he taught. What matters was that he spoke reassuringly to the parents, encouraged them, told them they were making the right choice by hiring a coach, promised them that their children would reach their chess potential if they put in the effort. And when their children lost, his job was to remind them that chess isn't a great career, the important thing is the lessons they learn by doing their best and competing.
I think it is the same for an adult. If you feel sadness that you're not better, that you're not higher rated, but you're not actually prepared to quit your job and spend 14 hours a day studying chess, then you can hire a coach. But their job is not to increase your rating, turn you into a professional, or help you realize your dreams of being world champion. Their job is to make you feel like you did everything you can. And they may not admit it, but they know it. If they're good, their job is to be a type of counselor. If they're not as good, their job is to make promises, and then blame your lack of time and effort when your dreams don't appear in front of you. But either way, you're paying them to talk to you, not to increase your rating or chess understanding.
It's interesting because I really do feel this even though I read the article..
I am a musician and I started playing chess late (age 28ish), now I am 32... I think I am unique in the sense that I am very passionate about chess and at the same time very bad at it, and started way too late to actually make a "class jump".. I can definitely still improve alot more but I will never compete with titled players etc... on the other hand because of my musical background my memory is freakishly good.. I never studied much theory and I just am able to memorize insane amounts of opening ideas and tactical patterns in early middle games that have impressed a GM (I took a few lessons) in the past. He said my opening knowledge is like a 2200 (I was 1500 at the time).
Pair that with my terrible middle game skills, endgame skills, tactical skills, and mental weakness.. and you get something that's... well.. unique..
yep... the article is correct. I can't get over it. haha
I guess it's just a good thing to not let it be "but i'm unique", using it to avoid doing simple and effective things you know will help... but at the same time it's possible to simply acknowledge that everyone is infact unique ...
honestly a great article but it doesn't apply to me since i am just build different ;)
@TomvantHoff said in #15:
> honestly a great article but it doesn't apply to me since i am just build different ;)
Im built different too
Matt
Schack