@kusoge said in #39:
> 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.
insanely good written, that was exactly my thought
