Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

How titled players lie to you

@Tyloidicus i do get the point about the rather silly and exploitive methods of advertising

But using terms like demolish or destroy aren’t all that bad. Chess is a competition. In fact it’s a war game with kings and queens with you directing battle. So battle talk is t the problem

The problem lies in that they say that an opening will do it for you.

Now I’ve watched some of the videos with destroy and crush with opening x

And all I could think about was how stupid it was because all they did was show me the base lines

Not like mainline

I’m talking like for the Open Sicilian just showing e4c5Nf3d6d4cxd4Nxd4nf6

And all I could think was, how the hell is that gonna crush anything? How could anyone say this is how you will win a game.

I’ve been playing the Sicilian since I started chess and I memorized that line in 5 minutes.

Opening theory can win you a game sometimes but you have to have some depth to it.

@Tyloidicus i do get the point about the rather silly and exploitive methods of advertising But using terms like demolish or destroy aren’t all that bad. Chess is a competition. In fact it’s a war game with kings and queens with you directing battle. So battle talk is t the problem The problem lies in that they say that an opening will do it for you. Now I’ve watched some of the videos with destroy and crush with opening x And all I could think about was how stupid it was because all they did was show me the base lines Not like mainline I’m talking like for the Open Sicilian just showing e4c5Nf3d6d4cxd4Nxd4nf6 And all I could think was, how the hell is that gonna crush anything? How could anyone say this is how you will win a game. I’ve been playing the Sicilian since I started chess and I memorized that line in 5 minutes. Opening theory can win you a game sometimes but you have to have some depth to it.

@mkubecek said in #64:

Unfortunately it takes some time and many people lack the patience and perseverance needed to get to that stage. That's why the promises of magic shortcuts and cheap tricks (cheap in the sense of work, not money) are so appealing.

It might be more than just avoiding effort. It might be about not really enjoying the game enough, to study it at all, and rather use an external source of knowledge. I even think that there might be lots of work involved there, just with the wrong motivation of what the chess game might be. The social competition is not the core ruleset. It comes as some added layer. I did not see that much marketing about easy, more about goal illusions as promises. And mostly focusing on the rating being the audience definition of improving and purpose of getting serious about chess.

Having ladders Christmas tree decorations on the daily online chess front pages as unsolicited mantras reminders of what others might consider the epitome of chess, each time we want to do real chess activity, is brainwashing, and might give the wrong impression about the nature of the game. lol. Just an exercise in alternate argumentation.

Chess might have been misrepresented way before the now very visible book title and improving methods induced common sense of what it means to achieve chess improvement. Where is the chessboard curiosity in all of this. Is chess only about the social competition game. Does all chess study have to be derived from the that culture that this is echoed in the marketing tendencies we can see on the books about chess being pushed on the chess internet site or the claims they might paint or imply?

@mkubecek said in #64: > Unfortunately it takes some time and many people lack the patience and perseverance needed to get to that stage. That's why the promises of magic shortcuts and cheap tricks (cheap in the sense of work, not money) are so appealing. It might be more than just avoiding effort. It might be about not really enjoying the game enough, to study it at all, and rather use an external source of knowledge. I even think that there might be lots of work involved there, just with the wrong motivation of what the chess game might be. The social competition is not the core ruleset. It comes as some added layer. I did not see that much marketing about easy, more about goal illusions as promises. And mostly focusing on the rating being the audience definition of improving and purpose of getting serious about chess. Having ladders Christmas tree decorations on the daily online chess front pages as unsolicited mantras reminders of what others might consider the epitome of chess, each time we want to do real chess activity, is brainwashing, and might give the wrong impression about the nature of the game. lol. Just an exercise in alternate argumentation. Chess might have been misrepresented way before the now very visible book title and improving methods induced common sense of what it means to achieve chess improvement. Where is the chessboard curiosity in all of this. Is chess only about the social competition game. Does all chess study have to be derived from the that culture that this is echoed in the marketing tendencies we can see on the books about chess being pushed on the chess internet site or the claims they might paint or imply?

@SupremeCrowOfJudgeme said in #71:

Now I’ve watched some of the videos with destroy and crush with opening x
And all I could think about was how stupid it was because all they did was show me the base lines
I would say that's in fact the better case, they don't give you the magic bullet they promised but at least they teach you something useful. But there are also videos that teach people trappy/crappy lines which "crush" your opponent if he/she falls for the traps but leave you objectively worse when your opponent responds correctly.

@SupremeCrowOfJudgeme said in #71: > Now I’ve watched some of the videos with destroy and crush with opening x > And all I could think about was how stupid it was because all they did was show me the base lines I would say that's in fact the better case, they don't give you the magic bullet they promised but at least they teach you something useful. But there are also videos that teach people trappy/crappy lines which "crush" your opponent if he/she falls for the traps but leave you objectively worse when your opponent responds correctly.

@dboing said in #72:

Is chess only about the social competition game.

This is a very interesting point. Athletics is not only about competition, as there are people that exercice just for themselves. Piano playing is more often a non-competitive activity than the opposite. Language learning is certainly non competition-related. Yet people invest their time and money just to have some fun, improvement and ultimately pleasure.

I think focusing exclusively on the competition can ruin a good share of chess playing pleasure.

@dboing said in #72: > Is chess only about the social competition game. This is a very interesting point. Athletics is not only about competition, as there are people that exercice just for themselves. Piano playing is more often a non-competitive activity than the opposite. Language learning is certainly non competition-related. Yet people invest their time and money just to have some fun, improvement and ultimately pleasure. I think focusing *exclusively* on the competition can ruin a good share of chess playing pleasure.

@mkubecek said in #73:

I would say that's in fact the better case, they don't give you the magic bullet they promised but at least they teach you something useful. But there are also videos that teach people trappy/crappy lines which "crush" your opponent if he/she falls for the traps but leave you objectively worse when your opponent responds correctly.

They do indeed teach some necessary basics for opening lines and I think it's great but I've rarely found opening videos that meet the par for their advertising. I just have a real problem with being told I'll get 1 thing and then given something that severely disappoints.

I definitely agree with you on trap lines though. One of the first things I was told when going off to study chess on my own was to stay far away from those trap lines

@mkubecek said in #73: > I would say that's in fact the better case, they don't give you the magic bullet they promised but at least they teach you something useful. But there are also videos that teach people trappy/crappy lines which "crush" your opponent if he/she falls for the traps but leave you objectively worse when your opponent responds correctly. They do indeed teach some necessary basics for opening lines and I think it's great but I've rarely found opening videos that meet the par for their advertising. I just have a real problem with being told I'll get 1 thing and then given something that severely disappoints. I definitely agree with you on trap lines though. One of the first things I was told when going off to study chess on my own was to stay far away from those trap lines

Top tier article.
Thank you.

Top tier article. Thank you.

@mkubecek said in #73:

I would say that's in fact the better case, they don't give you the magic bullet they promised but at least they teach you something useful. But there are also videos that teach people trappy/crappy lines which "crush" your opponent if he/she falls for the traps but leave you objectively worse when your opponent responds correctly.

I consider teaching a line of moves for its deeper assessment, a kind of magic bullet for those who can use that to win, without having done the chess reasoning (perhaps, for my own case of ambitions of understanding chess in the long run), based on the foresight full problem given their on board (mind) skill set of their learning trajectory in the big space of learning trajectories.

I might be trying to sell some ideas as well. but about the chessboard itself. (I am thinking one of the lesser propagated Deepmind A0 paper).

I have maybe a very hard work ambitoin in the long run, and that might be why I find a lot to be a bunch of shortcut to my amb ition. I am ready to never get there. But, to enjoy interllectual pursuit and instantenous progress of understanding since I am the boss of my learning, we should all be. And I study things I first have had questions pop up. Not lectures. I might use integrative, critical, and comparative presentation and if someone of the same technical horizon language as me, can shrink it down to board logic as much as possible, that will not count as magic bullet spoiler, as I can take is as some mathematical things to prove to myself, now that it has been made conjecture, with less muddy fog about it, that ready to wear knowledge, I would not be able to reproduce. That is just me. But my ambitions of understanding being priority over the social game storylines, I would think, on lichess, I would not be alone. I just have my non-chess luggage becoing a tool set of sorts for structuring my understanding. as I parse with help from others, the exsiting older book offer content. All with me as the final judge of whether I understand or not. I might let some slip by (ROTS), but as long as my concsious can take notes, I am on a mission from Caissa to week out from my luggages (in chess) any knowledge that I would not be able to argue from the board elements of my current yet in constant evolution (hence the immediate claim, I can chunk my own questions of what i do not understand to be short term feasible. That is also what puzzles might be for, to force me outside of my own current imagination, maybe not outside so much, as not from my concsious control. Maybe that is like some validation from my more deliberate slow games, where I have the time and continuity of board for long duration, to make hypotheses influenced by external knowledge but not in memery. I can observe the knowledge but I am not bound to it, by study. Now, looping back to top of this post.

Leaning a move sequence as discussed, would be relinquishing the pleasur of understanding from the board. Why I think I feel alienated from the represented chess culture that some not to be named online chess site, front page, is force feeding us, tentacularly spread over the whole visual field. no espace.. at least there is still room for the game we play.

The old stuff needs cleaning, it lacks totoal concern for the learner cognitive psychology, which the modern stuff might be tap;ing on, in the fog of that willful or not but established past ignorance. But among the modern offer. There might be gems.

But the lists of full games, as a theory of learning, might be hard work non-sense. if one updates their non-chess scientific common sense. But chess might be such a pinnacle of intellectural feat when you get the title of prove it socially (and in your own self image perhaps), that nothing could be wrong in how one might have consciously narrated the logic of their past learning. hypothesis. of the stalling in chess learning. stuck with frozen immutable older tenet on one end, or the snake oil noise on the other, to filter through to find the gems within the books. rare are the books that are gems in their entirety.

they often resort to full game lists to compensate by example for their gaps in understanding or how to communicate it to someone who is not already having it. I current only know of one book. And one might understand my point about full game structure books. in the evolutoin from Soltis to FLORES about same book. The latter does not have a list of full games as its top level TOC. As simple as that. Even the other gem I consider misunderstood. PCC. They are well aware of their limitations, but notheless show their exercise or the dircation of cleaning up, if reading through the proposition, not through the admitance of "failure" in the execise offcial pretense of a table of features counting. The take home from there is a gem within. The whole book is still stuck with the communication problem (but now I understand the inertia of the cultural context they might have been facing). To compensate for their conscious gaps, they still have to resort to examples to makes sense of their thought shaping matrix of feature to odds forecasting a la 1,3,3,5,9 but rescaled. The feature decomposition being the take home. And not even the features as gerrymandered as they has to, when taksing themselve to such a quantitative exercise.

That is not snake oil to me, and that is not inertia from those authors. The inertia is that no one saw that their were doing more chess theory that anyone else before. in the only book considering the problem of many features co-existing always static, or in all possible plans. at least at the starting position. off topic you say. no I am trying to explain that the chessboard and what is on it should be overtaking the front page. an allegory that last part. not that which we are being hammered silly with.

mileage may vary with usage.

@mkubecek said in #73: > I would say that's in fact the better case, they don't give you the magic bullet they promised but at least they teach you something useful. But there are also videos that teach people trappy/crappy lines which "crush" your opponent if he/she falls for the traps but leave you objectively worse when your opponent responds correctly. I consider teaching a line of moves for its deeper assessment, a kind of magic bullet for those who can use that to win, without having done the chess reasoning (perhaps, for my own case of ambitions of understanding chess in the long run), based on the foresight full problem given their on board (mind) skill set of their learning trajectory in the big space of learning trajectories. I might be trying to sell some ideas as well. but about the chessboard itself. (I am thinking one of the lesser propagated Deepmind A0 paper). I have maybe a very hard work ambitoin in the long run, and that might be why I find a lot to be a bunch of shortcut to my amb ition. I am ready to never get there. But, to enjoy interllectual pursuit and instantenous progress of understanding since I am the boss of my learning, we should all be. And I study things I first have had questions pop up. Not lectures. I might use integrative, critical, and comparative presentation and if someone of the same technical horizon language as me, can shrink it down to board logic as much as possible, that will not count as magic bullet spoiler, as I can take is as some mathematical things to prove to myself, now that it has been made conjecture, with less muddy fog about it, that ready to wear knowledge, I would not be able to reproduce. That is just me. But my ambitions of understanding being priority over the social game storylines, I would think, on lichess, I would not be alone. I just have my non-chess luggage becoing a tool set of sorts for structuring my understanding. as I parse with help from others, the exsiting older book offer content. All with me as the final judge of whether I understand or not. I might let some slip by (ROTS), but as long as my concsious can take notes, I am on a mission from Caissa to week out from my luggages (in chess) any knowledge that I would not be able to argue from the board elements of my current yet in constant evolution (hence the immediate claim, I can chunk my own questions of what i do not understand to be short term feasible. That is also what puzzles might be for, to force me outside of my own current imagination, maybe not outside so much, as not from my concsious control. Maybe that is like some validation from my more deliberate slow games, where I have the time and continuity of board for long duration, to make hypotheses influenced by external knowledge but not in memery. I can observe the knowledge but I am not bound to it, by study. Now, looping back to top of this post. Leaning a move sequence as discussed, would be relinquishing the pleasur of understanding from the board. Why I think I feel alienated from the represented chess culture that some not to be named online chess site, front page, is force feeding us, tentacularly spread over the whole visual field. no espace.. at least there is still room for the game we play. The old stuff needs cleaning, it lacks totoal concern for the learner cognitive psychology, which the modern stuff might be tap;ing on, in the fog of that willful or not but established past ignorance. But among the modern offer. There might be gems. But the lists of full games, as a theory of learning, might be hard work non-sense. if one updates their non-chess scientific common sense. But chess might be such a pinnacle of intellectural feat when you get the title of prove it socially (and in your own self image perhaps), that nothing could be wrong in how one might have consciously narrated the logic of their past learning. hypothesis. of the stalling in chess learning. stuck with frozen immutable older tenet on one end, or the snake oil noise on the other, to filter through to find the gems within the books. rare are the books that are gems in their entirety. they often resort to full game lists to compensate by example for their gaps in understanding or how to communicate it to someone who is not already having it. I current only know of one book. And one might understand my point about full game structure books. in the evolutoin from Soltis to FLORES about same book. The latter does not have a list of full games as its top level TOC. As simple as that. Even the other gem I consider misunderstood. PCC. They are well aware of their limitations, but notheless show their exercise or the dircation of cleaning up, if reading through the proposition, not through the admitance of "failure" in the execise offcial pretense of a table of features counting. The take home from there is a gem within. The whole book is still stuck with the communication problem (but now I understand the inertia of the cultural context they might have been facing). To compensate for their conscious gaps, they still have to resort to examples to makes sense of their thought shaping matrix of feature to odds forecasting a la 1,3,3,5,9 but rescaled. The feature decomposition being the take home. And not even the features as gerrymandered as they has to, when taksing themselve to such a quantitative exercise. That is not snake oil to me, and that is not inertia from those authors. The inertia is that no one saw that their were doing more chess theory that anyone else before. in the only book considering the problem of many features co-existing always static, or in all possible plans. at least at the starting position. off topic you say. no I am trying to explain that the chessboard and what is on it should be overtaking the front page. an allegory that last part. not that which we are being hammered silly with. mileage may vary with usage.

wait a second...... he is a titled player!

wait a second...... he is a titled player!

whoops! I should have checked all of the comments :), i just realized that the joke has been used twice... :)

whoops! I should have checked all of the comments :), i just realized that the joke has been used twice... :)

First hes titled player so why we shiold trust him? Some titleds players are actouly lieng like he but there only few of dam so why he shiold be bad bicouse he helping ? He bad bicouse tryng to get more poepls so think about it!

First hes titled player so why we shiold trust him? Some titleds players are actouly lieng like he but there only few of dam so why he shiold be bad bicouse he helping ? He bad bicouse tryng to get more poepls so think about it!