How titled players lie to you

first i dint check coments and it wasnt a joke

Do you think all title players lie like most of them. ?

probably the best way to improve in chess, is to have a coach/ instructor. Now this is anathema to most of us Amercans -s cause " Murica!!!!!! Coaches, we dont need no stinking coaches. Anyway the problem with self instruction? If you are not a decent chess player , how are you gonna guide yourself?

@Jackstraw67 said in #94:

probably the best way to improve in chess, is to have a coach/ instructor. Now this is anathema to most of us Amercans -s cause " Murica!!!!!! Coaches, we dont need no stinking coaches. Anyway the problem with self instruction? If you are not a decent chess player , how are you gonna guide yourself?

Well, chess is not alchemy. I agree that with the current state of chess theory, but more importantly the not yet named as such theories of learning, learning performance chess means coaching intermediate, and other learning targets too, like mine, so other more experienced humans in live adaptive to the individual state of learning, in its evolution.

(which is not necessarily continually improving on average, etc. Don't mind this post-editing, informed by what I already said below, that is what happens when I try to review my ramblings: more of it comes out).

However, how did A0 guide itself. By individual single learning trajectory, of the scientific method, well, given a logically locally deterministic state known action known system. "Locally, is for it to be limited to the current turn. It is for emphasis. That the problem in chess is about beyond any human horizon, it loses determinacy in terms of future state AND action certainty or even clue.

The "and action", is in case some people of game theory persuasion might be reading. I myself would include the actions in the state per my dynamical system old persuasion....

back to a0. and self-learning.
The trial and error, basic science for me, more like how we learned to walk, talk, and do those spatial puzzles before talking, about shape and shape receptacle compatibility or snug fit, combined with exact consequences learning "engine". That engine, we do share, as it is the inspiration from the human learning reality, through well established psychology of reinforcement learning.

On the other hand, (kidding). But or however: In chess, there is noise at the input output level. The outcomes are well-defined. The fog comes in the depth between the conscious actions taken, and the beyond horizon crisp outcomes.

Moreover, (also kidding): So we have devised small chunks surrogates, that mostly all of us can see, and tactical motifs are usually within the horizon to discover (or build upon). 1,3,3,5,9. The very first chess theory concept.

One can learn tactics without an interpreter, I consider that theory in a better shape than the non-turn by turn chess. Where there are 2 types of chess theory, one is pure explicit move sequence knowledge (or held as such, and it might be so, once we can intergrate all discrepancies on recrod or storage). It goes faster perhaps for the coach can be an observer too, if talented to look at others (and chess might, even as performance version, need such skill, from the play to infer thinking..). From the tactics with better discerned (and defined) concepts, one can already see that 1,3,3,5,9 might become itself both a chore, also limited by small brain (me a lot), but also we can find higher level emerging logic that bring back to under what 1,3,3,5,9 rule of thumb (averaging theory of coarse power of moblitiy on each side), the more spatially logically or mechanistically defined ruleset. It means looking at more than the board in front of you. To look under the pieces that are there. The naked board under them.

That is what A0 can learn, as it is looking there. And so is our brain, but not much our conscious, if not rambling to each other about it... Many brains.. small each on their own. And then you get chess theory of the other kind, which is trying to be position set agnostic, but then the impatience for results gets in there. and you get an evolving mess, that mostly makes sense if you already know the chess behind the words.

That is where A0 only looking at crisp outomes as statistical learning basis, will infer the emerging logic of the spatial kind, but where our small brain on the conscious side can,t help. Where raw experience a la A0, might take a long time, maybe more human life span, yet, our wet brain does that. All animals do that, given their environmental ecological universes of temporal logic (rabbit hole now to explain, for me. lots of models I could ramble on).

But it is not for impatient rating-driven theories of improvement in OTB, as long as it keeps being a game of knowledge on the opening line and closed book theocracy (sorry that is my subconscious boss, in the morning, going of some handle).

So in conclusion: not a joke this time. Well yes we can without. But it sure helps to have conscious help to heard the experience from others, real and adaptive time.

Hhh

Very good post.

It's true chess training is not fun the same way as watching "The life of Brian" is. My advice for making it less frustrating: don't go too fast. This applies to anyone who gets frustrated regardless of level (my rating is crap but it's only my chess rating so you can trust me on this one even if you're way better at chess than I am).

This part is for the very beginners mostly.

• first assume you need the basics no matter how well you understand the general concepts. When I was young I thought I can play chess if I understand the concepts and why a strategic decision is made and so forth - and here I am, playing blitz at a rather crappy level on lichess at age 59. I never really got started as I got frustrated too many times thinking "I got this". It was never fun because I tried to get to the fun part too fast, that's another way of putting it.

-then you should learn - by hook or by crook - to get satisfaction from being able to do relatively simple tasks (mate in one, two, knowing a well-known rook ending by heart etc.). This is still not fun but you can learn to like it.

The real fun begins once the basics are well behind you, but it's still not fun enough to make you laugh.

For most of us, chess is good only in small doses because the frustration of defeat mostly makes us want to quit. To call any of it fun, you really have to want to understand the game and to devote time to make something of it for yourself (whatever that might be).

All that said, we do learn WAY better when we have fun. The brain is far more receptive when the thing is not tedious. This makes chess training an annoying dilemma. You absolutely need to learn to like the training to learn most efficiently. The playing part is only fun when you win, and that gets more difficult the more you improve.

As an afterthought: when you watch a video of some great game (some Tal sacrificial thing or whatnot) you do have fun and also learn something, maybe even a lot. But you still have to learn the basics (and a lot more) to do the thing yourself.

These comments about getting better at chess are of course correct, but this seems to be well-known. Any high-level players suggesting a shortcut to improving chess are the exception, and not the norm. But certainly some people, in chess and otherwise, profess a quick-fix in order to lure in clients or customers. Hence the irony of this post. In an effort to grab the attention of the reader, this post has been titled, "How titled players lie to you." The article is not in fact how titled players, as a general class of people, lie to anyone. It is about how a small, select set of players, some of whom are titled, lie (or fudge) about what it takes to get better at chess. There are likely non-titled people making the same claims. So this is a good article about improving ones chess, but sadly the article befalls to the same general sin it seeks to address. Lying to get chess students or followers is not right, nor is posting a sensational and inaccurate title to draw in readers.

@materone said in #98:

Lying to get chess students or followers is not right, nor is posting a sensational and inaccurate title to draw in readers.

Right but how is anyone going to read a sensibly titled post?

Sorry about copying your message! I didn’t red the whole post