How titled players lie to you

idcaboutmyelo

Amazing article fully agree with what you said , this is becoming a real issue lately

Benny-Frandsen

Wholeheartedly agree. Especially opening courses

mkubecek

@Vedanth2014 said in #11:

wait that means i cant trust you since you are a cm so i do not trust you
The point of the blogpost is not "All titled players are liars and snak oil sellers". The point is that you should not trust them blindly and should always think for yourself if what they try to sell you is really so great for you or rather (or even only) for them. Thankfully, most of the time it's not that hard to spot when the promises are obviously too good to be true.

Another one of those articles, where the writer simply doesn't understand that an average person cannot affort / has the time / wants / enjoys playing months of frustrating "hardwork" chess. ... Nobody has months of time to spend on frustrating training, this is the reality.
There is a story that about a king (Ptolemaios, reportedly) who saw Eucleides' Elements (13 volume book series about geometry) and asked if there isn't an easier path to learning geometry, path suitable for a king. Acording to the legend, Eucleides' answer was "There is no royal road to geometry." The morale of the story is that sometimes - or rather most of the time - there are no magic shortcuts. There are more and less efficient ways of learning but you still need to do the hard work - or accept that you won't reach farther than certain level (which is perfectly fine, life is about choosing one's priorities). Even harder truth is that there are limits how far you can get however hard you work.

@Vedanth2014 said in #11: > wait that means i cant trust you since you are a cm so i do not trust you The point of the blogpost is not "All titled players are liars and snak oil sellers". The point is that you should not trust them blindly and should always think for yourself if what they try to sell you is really so great for you or rather (or even only) for them. Thankfully, most of the time it's not that hard to spot when the promises are obviously too good to be true. > Another one of those articles, where the writer simply doesn't understand that an average person cannot affort / has the time / wants / enjoys playing months of frustrating "hardwork" chess. ... Nobody has months of time to spend on frustrating training, this is the reality. There is a story that about a king (Ptolemaios, reportedly) who saw Eucleides' Elements (13 volume book series about geometry) and asked if there isn't an easier path to learning geometry, path suitable for a king. Acording to the legend, Eucleides' answer was "There is no royal road to geometry." The morale of the story is that sometimes - or rather most of the time - there are no magic shortcuts. There are more and less efficient ways of learning but you still need to do the hard work - or accept that you won't reach farther than certain level (which is perfectly fine, life is about choosing one's priorities). Even harder truth is that there are limits how far you can get however hard you work.

sfudslj

YOU are a titled player as well :D

Volker-Racho

edited

What surely helps improve in chess quickly and reliably is improve your physical state. Go swimming, cycling or whatever you like for a few hours a week and you will benefit not only at the chess board. Mens sana in corpore sano. The truth is taught at school for free (depending on how national education systems work of course), not sold on some dubious online media.

thefrickouttaherelol

Wait where was your link to your chess training website??? Without that, this article feels so empty...

One of the greatest lessons I learned in project management and the professional world was - tackle the hardest thing first.

A lot of people asking on this topic, "What do you consider hard training?"

It's whatever thing you are struggling with the most, or are avoiding the most, but is also the thing that will bring you the greatest results.

Usually, actual hard stuff takes substantial physical, mental and emotional investment. It's something you don't want to do, but you will do anyways. It's the hardest puzzles, the densest books, the analysis of games WITHOUT the engine on, then cross-checking your work with the engine.

If I were to take chess seriously and stop playing bullet, I would probably invest a ton of time into puzzles until I had a 3000 rating in puzzles. Then I could probably follow and understand others' game analysis quite well.

I don't think anyone who is asking "What do you consider hard training?" is being very authentic with themselves - you already know what's challenging for you. It's the reason you're not doing it.

Wait where was your link to your chess training website??? Without that, this article feels so empty... One of the greatest lessons I learned in project management and the professional world was - tackle the hardest thing first. A lot of people asking on this topic, "What do you consider hard training?" It's whatever thing you are struggling with the most, or are avoiding the most, but is also the thing that will bring you the greatest results. Usually, actual hard stuff takes substantial physical, mental and emotional investment. It's something you don't want to do, but you will do anyways. It's the hardest puzzles, the densest books, the analysis of games WITHOUT the engine on, then cross-checking your work with the engine. If I were to take chess seriously and stop playing bullet, I would probably invest a ton of time into puzzles until I had a 3000 rating in puzzles. Then I could probably follow and understand others' game analysis quite well. I don't think anyone who is asking "What do you consider hard training?" is being very authentic with themselves - you already know what's challenging for you. It's the reason you're not doing it.

mtconstantine

Great article. Thank you for this indeed quite an eye-opener piece!

As a very recent chess learner and that too in 40s, I can totally relate to what you are saying. I think I was about to get into the pitfall (some of which you identified), but it was soon enough that I got it very clear that studying with proper time allocation and practicing patterns/puzzles are core parts of training.

I enjoy learning it as a hobby.

Great article. Thank you for this indeed quite an eye-opener piece! As a very recent chess learner and that too in 40s, I can totally relate to what you are saying. I think I was about to get into the pitfall (some of which you identified), but it was soon enough that I got it very clear that studying with proper time allocation and practicing patterns/puzzles are core parts of training. I enjoy learning it as a hobby.

patriots_12

Great Article! Exactly why I never fell for the aimichess ads!

kusoge edited

To address each part quickly:

"Lie No. 1 - You are training hard"

The only part I fully agree with. Claiming that you already deserve results and all is a common grifter strategy.

"Lie No. 2 - Training should be fun"

This is where the post takes a dive into unchallenged nonsense in my opinion. The claim is that effective training is a chore, at least for months, and that results will be your only satisfaction out of it eventually basically.

To cut to the chase, this is a dubious and unfounded claim presented by someone who's accepted it as a truth their entire life without questioning it, like something you'd hear from an old soviet master. It used to be that way so it must be true?

Well in fact it isn't true, if anything we understand these days that any task can be made way more enjoyable depending on how you frame it. There would be a million things to say on that topic but among others video games (RPGs in particular) taught us a lot.

Let's say you want to solve a hundred chess puzzles to improve at tactics (but you could say the same about learning some endgames, opening lines etc). If when you succeed you get some positive feedback like experience points for example, with which you eventually level up, it will not only add a fun element to the process but it will also give you a sense of progression and a goal to aim for (reaching the next level).

That's not to say that practice is or should always be a game, and that sometimes it won't be a chore.
But you can trick your brain into enjoying some repetitive or abstract tasks (abstract because you can't easily quantify progress at chess) way more depending on how you frame them.

"Lie No. 3 - Traditional methods are not effective"

Linked to the point above but traditional methods can definitely be improved upon. Which is why people nowadays improve way faster than ever before.

You compare the cost of a video course (which presents any chess content in a way more accessible and easy to understand format) to a second hand book by itself. And then you link those books to coaches, while completely ignoring the cost of those coaches for some reason. Weird how you use the same snake oil tactics when it suits you.

Yes books are good and will always remain important. But again there's always ways to impart knowledge more efficiently, even using those same books (I'm not saying not to use them). Although you claim that young players are still taught in the old ways, there's in fact a lot of young players who drill opening theory (for example) in online courses because it's really fast and efficient.

"Lie No. 4 - You can tick something off once and for all"

I mostly agree with you on that one but for players with limited time and ambition (which is almost every player in chess), there's still a lot of things you really only need to do once. Like basic endgame principles (king and pawn, the most basic rook endgames etc) or some basic opening lines. Yes if you want to compete at the highest level you need to constantly come back to what you know (or think you know) but really in practice, most players will be fine if they forget a bit of everything and retain the general principles they learned.

Be open-minded about it. There's always a lot to learn with the "old ways" but don't treat them like the end all be all. We've come a long way since the era of the soviet masters.

This blog post is a mixed bag for me. I don't think anybody disagrees that shady marketing has increased a lot in chess in recent years but at the same time a lot of the author's conclusions just rely on unchallenged assumptions based on the good old days (when people took way longer to improve than they do nowadays). To address each part quickly: ***************************** "Lie No. 1 - You are training hard" ***************************** The only part I fully agree with. Claiming that you already deserve results and all is a common grifter strategy. ***************************** "Lie No. 2 - Training should be fun" ***************************** This is where the post takes a dive into unchallenged nonsense in my opinion. The claim is that effective training is a chore, at least for months, and that results will be your only satisfaction out of it eventually basically. To cut to the chase, this is a dubious and unfounded claim presented by someone who's accepted it as a truth their entire life without questioning it, like something you'd hear from an old soviet master. It used to be that way so it must be true? Well in fact it isn't true, if anything we understand these days that any task can be made way more enjoyable depending on how you frame it. There would be a million things to say on that topic but among others video games (RPGs in particular) taught us a lot. Let's say you want to solve a hundred chess puzzles to improve at tactics (but you could say the same about learning some endgames, opening lines etc). If when you succeed you get some positive feedback like experience points for example, with which you eventually level up, it will not only add a fun element to the process but it will also give you a sense of progression and a goal to aim for (reaching the next level). That's not to say that practice is or should always be a game, and that sometimes it won't be a chore. But you can trick your brain into enjoying some repetitive or abstract tasks (abstract because you can't easily quantify progress at chess) way more depending on how you frame them. ***************************** "Lie No. 3 - Traditional methods are not effective" ***************************** Linked to the point above but traditional methods can definitely be improved upon. Which is why people nowadays improve way faster than ever before. You compare the cost of a video course (which presents any chess content in a way more accessible and easy to understand format) to a second hand book by itself. And then you link those books to coaches, while completely ignoring the cost of those coaches for some reason. Weird how you use the same snake oil tactics when it suits you. Yes books are good and will always remain important. But again there's always ways to impart knowledge more efficiently, even using those same books (I'm not saying not to use them). Although you claim that young players are still taught in the old ways, there's in fact a lot of young players who drill opening theory (for example) in online courses because it's really fast and efficient. ***************************** "Lie No. 4 - You can tick something off once and for all" ***************************** I mostly agree with you on that one but for players with limited time and ambition (which is almost every player in chess), there's still a lot of things you really only need to do once. Like basic endgame principles (king and pawn, the most basic rook endgames etc) or some basic opening lines. Yes if you want to compete at the highest level you need to constantly come back to what you know (or think you know) but really in practice, most players will be fine if they forget a bit of everything and retain the general principles they learned. Be open-minded about it. There's always a lot to learn with the "old ways" but don't treat them like the end all be all. We've come a long way since the era of the soviet masters.