FWIW, (and I am experimenting with it & haven't drawn conclusions yet) I'm trying to improve my knowledge of openings by writing studies. I'm doing full games that are either famous, critical games or games which have a decisive result. [I think these illustrate ideas better.] I'm 1. going thru the game adding my comments and questions, 2. then looking the opening up in books and adding what my old books say, then 3. turning on the computer and adding its comments. My hopes are this makes it easier to understand and harder to forget. I dont know how useful it would be for someone else to click thru a game that another person annotates.
This seems to call for different macro searches than "hot".
the embryonic tag system could be a path. but it would need some core structure with some protected keywords (possibly tuned à la new puzzle system themes).
otherwise googel site=lichess (something like that), might be a better way. but what keywords to search for meaningful studies, we would also need some other google syntax accessible lichess map keywords that are specific to the studies inner-modules such as chapter titles, chat, various other text boxes and annotations. hotness should be very low in the keywords or field priorities.
I guess that a thing that might help is more "people who liked this also liked this" stuff? Either implicit, like some sort of social recommendation algorithm working on everyone's "likes" to produce "recommended for you" studies, or explicit, like letting people curate lists, so you can find a list by someone that you trust or by looking what lists your favourite studies are on and hopefully use that to lead you to more stuff in the same vein.
Study suggested moves/lines against a database. Decide from there. The biggest blunder a beginner can make is to think that there is a "password" to chess, that all you need to do is remember these 10 moves and you will win the game. It will only help against lower level players. So, what you need to do is go from 1-10 suggested moves, to 2 to 11, to 3 to 12, to 4 to 13, etc....
Choose your path on your own, then deal with a group of moves you have studied.
It is also quite possible that studies are acually only useful to those who create them, ordering thought processes, and that must be as diverse as there are individuals. I am always surprised to see how diverse approaches to same type of questions or practice that involve learning or discussing can be.
There are far from the 12 types of people that sell some media. or the two types (A and B).
"There are 2 types of people in the world, those I like and those I hate... " generic movie plot wise man narration.
Well, I have come across many studies that are very brilliant and instructional such as a 60 chapter study explaining every move and variation in the Grünfeld, however these are often buried. I would suggest maybe having a feature which would let you search the studies by the amount of content. By content i mean either number of variations or number of moves in a study. Lichess could count lets say, the amount of moves in the study and allow a person to search through the studies with a filter that doesn't include many of the more superficial or misleading studies. @lovlas
However this may not work because quality>quantity but i feel like it would be a good start.
@Derrick1Rose Can you share that study please
uhm i have had the same problem with very bad studies, i feel like all the "hot" studies or the "most popular" studies are all terrible for learning ;-;
anyways i feel like studies made by titled players are often not so good either and the only good studies were made for personal use.
studies should be made by titled players
@iampanther what do you mean by that?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.