- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Variants synergy for chess improving, intuition building, or general improvement

#1

I am looking for partial or complete rationales or arguments about how the practice of one variant can improve in anyway the practice of another. please try not to be too general if possible. hypotheses welcome if that is not a beaten question, if beaten, maybe here could serve as a kind of table of content of dispersed elements in orbit of that question.... (links, descriptor). thanks.

I am looking for partial or complete rationales or arguments about how the practice of one variant can improve in anyway the practice of another. please try not to be too general if possible. hypotheses welcome if that is not a beaten question, if beaten, maybe here could serve as a kind of table of content of dispersed elements in orbit of that question.... (links, descriptor). thanks.
#2
<Comment deleted by user>
#3

Yes, i would also include time-controls as variants. good that you did. thanks for replying.

Yes, i would also include time-controls as variants. good that you did. thanks for replying.
#5

#4 Thanks for that. I have much to read there. However, the slant may make it too general. A start, though. Maybe within i can extract relationships between aspects that can be strengthened across. And yes, first the question is about variants to standard. But then I would decompose standard into many skills, themes, or type of thinking learning. could be just ply-level compute, or move selection gamut intuition (if needed i can reword more conform). Perhaps with such a more detailed view of player level or improvement trajectory, there could be pros and cons... (will check for that in the thread though, possibly, report here after a while).
https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/playing-variants-makes-you-weaker?page=2#14

Edit: that thread being recent, I would not expect repeats from there. but maybe pointers within from their participants, or development justify conclusion either way. if others that did not participate want to add to that fine. also welcome.

For example, here are some thoughts or hypotheses I ponder:
Variants with same mobility rules but different termination classes or valuing, or initial conditions, are likely to hone skills of a certain kind over some others, but would all contribute to intuition or tactical short term mechanics in standard. What care should be taken in the transpositions. So i think 960 (which i understand a bit) is flattening standard opening data, but heightening geometrical concepts for middle-games or any phase where the "position memory" of initial condition has been mixed enough (like the baker dough...). anti-chess, could be a negative filter of standard chess (same mobility, but opposite outcomes, how to transpose what is learned there, knowing that?)

Also, it could be that some judicious blend of practice of diverse variants at day scale, week, or more could be where the best improvement lies. no one bullet solution. sorry to take so much room. but I would rather have this thread be complementary. However, I am not the boss of anybody....

#4 Thanks for that. I have much to read there. However, the slant may make it too general. A start, though. Maybe within i can extract relationships between aspects that can be strengthened across. And yes, first the question is about variants to standard. But then I would decompose standard into many skills, themes, or type of thinking learning. could be just ply-level compute, or move selection gamut intuition (if needed i can reword more conform). Perhaps with such a more detailed view of player level or improvement trajectory, there could be pros and cons... (will check for that in the thread though, possibly, report here after a while). https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/playing-variants-makes-you-weaker?page=2#14 Edit: that thread being recent, I would not expect repeats from there. but maybe pointers within from their participants, or development justify conclusion either way. if others that did not participate want to add to that fine. also welcome. For example, here are some thoughts or hypotheses I ponder: Variants with same mobility rules but different termination classes or valuing, or initial conditions, are likely to hone skills of a certain kind over some others, but would all contribute to intuition or tactical short term mechanics in standard. What care should be taken in the transpositions. So i think 960 (which i understand a bit) is flattening standard opening data, but heightening geometrical concepts for middle-games or any phase where the "position memory" of initial condition has been mixed enough (like the baker dough...). anti-chess, could be a negative filter of standard chess (same mobility, but opposite outcomes, how to transpose what is learned there, knowing that?) Also, it could be that some judicious blend of practice of diverse variants at day scale, week, or more could be where the best improvement lies. no one bullet solution. sorry to take so much room. but I would rather have this thread be complementary. However, I am not the boss of anybody....
#6

I think chess960 makes me better in piece awareness and also most variants should help by just making you think in another tactical way, time control is also good for practicing.

I think chess960 makes me better in piece awareness and also most variants should help by just making you think in another tactical way, time control is also good for practicing.
#7

https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/playing-variants-makes-you-weaker?page=3#26
Very well developed post (does not mean others before were not good, but this one, is not mere opinion), it contains questions, reasoning, and some explicit debate. possibly aware of all previous posts. a landmark of the thread maybe. still reading.

This here, might be a filtered version of that thread (me hoping). I really like the final question of that post. and would wish this to be continued here seriously.

https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/playing-variants-makes-you-weaker?page=3#26 Very well developed post (does not mean others before were not good, but this one, is not mere opinion), it contains questions, reasoning, and some explicit debate. possibly aware of all previous posts. a landmark of the thread maybe. still reading. This here, might be a filtered version of that thread (me hoping). I really like the final question of that post. and would wish this to be continued here seriously.
#8

Dosage seem to be a frequent argument for deleterious effects of variants on standard.. so far. other than the previous mentioned post. so my judicious blend, seems compatible, but maybe not known (and likely individual dependent).
And it might very well depend on the specific skill components one could identify, and current individual spectrum level on those, for what todays, or this week or else blend should be.

Dosage seem to be a frequent argument for deleterious effects of variants on standard.. so far. other than the previous mentioned post. so my judicious blend, seems compatible, but maybe not known (and likely individual dependent). And it might very well depend on the specific skill components one could identify, and current individual spectrum level on those, for what todays, or this week or else blend should be.
#9

I think people there may be missing the contrasting effect, which might require a conscious or deliberate approach to be present in some proportion itself (basically building the skill transfer mapping).

Also, I don't really take the 1D rating within noise decrements as significant measures... there can be some many small factors better explaining such anecdotes....

https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/playing-variants-makes-you-weaker?page=5#42
https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/playing-variants-makes-you-weaker?page=5#50
Some developed replies to the good question.

https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/playing-variants-makes-you-weaker?page=6#52
Shogi. may need transfer mapping work (I use transposition before as general English, not chess lingo).
https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/playing-variants-makes-you-weaker?page=6#53
Even wider scope of ruleset distance, an account of player experience, including GO
(i would suggest contrast effect there, because Go seems to be very symmetrical and the things being "moves" are territories, not material, but i never player myself).

And the coda, the final post, which I intend to savor, seems to approach the psychological aspects of the question, cognitive that is (although, who can exclude mood from cognition), one of my personal favorite angles, which I think is really needed in chess, being a relatively recent human practice (compared to music for example, at least in terms of demographic and teaching, maybe i am wrong).
https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/playing-variants-makes-you-weaker?page=6#54

I think people there may be missing the contrasting effect, which might require a conscious or deliberate approach to be present in some proportion itself (basically building the skill transfer mapping). Also, I don't really take the 1D rating within noise decrements as significant measures... there can be some many small factors better explaining such anecdotes.... https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/playing-variants-makes-you-weaker?page=5#42 https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/playing-variants-makes-you-weaker?page=5#50 Some developed replies to the good question. https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/playing-variants-makes-you-weaker?page=6#52 Shogi. may need transfer mapping work (I use transposition before as general English, not chess lingo). https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/playing-variants-makes-you-weaker?page=6#53 Even wider scope of ruleset distance, an account of player experience, including GO (i would suggest contrast effect there, because Go seems to be very symmetrical and the things being "moves" are territories, not material, but i never player myself). And the coda, the final post, which I intend to savor, seems to approach the psychological aspects of the question, cognitive that is (although, who can exclude mood from cognition), one of my personal favorite angles, which I think is really needed in chess, being a relatively recent human practice (compared to music for example, at least in terms of demographic and teaching, maybe i am wrong). https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/playing-variants-makes-you-weaker?page=6#54
#10

Well this looks like a one man thread (for now, thanks both early repliers). Previous thread participants are welcome to add here, and anybody else welcome (try to put meat in the opinions please).
I think that I did not bring any new idea myself, they were contained there, in better words perhaps. Maybe there is room still for more component to component mappings comments (experience, opinions, quesitons, debate even).
Because it seems clear to me that the question of that thread was a starter. Now we need development. is is done?
I will read that last post carefully. needing pause.

Well this looks like a one man thread (for now, thanks both early repliers). Previous thread participants are welcome to add here, and anybody else welcome (try to put meat in the opinions please). I think that I did not bring any new idea myself, they were contained there, in better words perhaps. Maybe there is room still for more component to component mappings comments (experience, opinions, quesitons, debate even). Because it seems clear to me that the question of that thread was a starter. Now we need development. is is done? I will read that last post carefully. needing pause.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.