<Comment deleted by user>
“supporting me”. So you are here for the money?
Pls drop these self commercials from the site. Keep the site pure, no rubbish “give me your money please”
Pls drop these self commercials from the site. Keep the site pure, no rubbish “give me your money please”
@BongoOve said in #3:
> “supporting me”. So you are here for the money?
>
> Pls drop these self commercials from the site. Keep the site pure, no rubbish “give me your money please”
My blogs are always free, you don't have to support me if you don't want to, but I support you.
> “supporting me”. So you are here for the money?
>
> Pls drop these self commercials from the site. Keep the site pure, no rubbish “give me your money please”
My blogs are always free, you don't have to support me if you don't want to, but I support you.
@Urquharts said in #4:
> @BongoOve
>
> You think most of those bloggers aren't here for self commercials?
In my opinion, many blog are ads in disguise, and teach half a lesson and then ask for hundreds of dollars. My goal is free blogs, quality lessons, and if people wish to support me they can (or not). I believe steamers operate the same way, and there are definitely links to streamers on Lichess. Anyway, grateful for you, and I hope you enjoyed the article.
> @BongoOve
>
> You think most of those bloggers aren't here for self commercials?
In my opinion, many blog are ads in disguise, and teach half a lesson and then ask for hundreds of dollars. My goal is free blogs, quality lessons, and if people wish to support me they can (or not). I believe steamers operate the same way, and there are definitely links to streamers on Lichess. Anyway, grateful for you, and I hope you enjoyed the article.
Back to the blog post, I really would like to know the questions that strong players actually consider when analyzing their own games, like the ones mentioned in the section "Curiosity Layers are Critical".
If can I add some questions, I try to answer "when I first felt the game was already lost (or, less often, won)?" and "when I had the last chance to prevent it?". More often that expected, I find games lost because of panicking under a heavy attack that actually was stoppable.
If can I add some questions, I try to answer "when I first felt the game was already lost (or, less often, won)?" and "when I had the last chance to prevent it?". More often that expected, I find games lost because of panicking under a heavy attack that actually was stoppable.
@RyanVelez I agree with you on this point.
And the article was super nice to read and in addition also really interesting! I rarely like blogs but you surely deserved one.
Thanks for sharing :)
And the article was super nice to read and in addition also really interesting! I rarely like blogs but you surely deserved one.
Thanks for sharing :)
I was very happy with the introduction, but then, I think that excellent program I would call akin to the scientific reductionist approach, that physics has always been favoring, and also some fields of biology, which I would call cern and discern and cern back again. Or thorough use of a superposition principle (of underlying building block problem with an explicit reasoning of combining them to bring the layers together).
Normally, there should not be a specific ordering of the layers in that principle. or program. That has always threw me off in the chess theory being laid out in dispersed order through full game starting from initial position to some resigned or consented end.
I also think one person is not enough to fully implement this program. So great idea. But we need to be many to actually push that. And individual performance priority, that the title might imply (does it?), might not have enough time, and survival in that track, to go fully in that direction. Sorry, human brain limitations (and other biology) apply to us all.
I costs me to say what I just said. A great idea that I do not yet see made explicit in the layer choices (say the ones with numbers about chess theory elements, why those and why in that order, should we not also participate in the reasoning that led to that layering). Is it not obligatory language stream ordering either in the left-right direction (with some line feeds) or the paragraph down ordering, that lead to making arbitrary ordering.
the separation. See, going "down" back to mobility rules. There are no expertise needed but knowing their geometry of the 2D board ways, to connect to many of the board features mentioned.
Maybe we should us this space here, to discuss further what one person, no matter how much genius or talent or solo experience they have, can't be oneself do all the things that can't fit in one human lifetime.
Sorry, I do sound like a party pooper. I write this because I believe there is originality of thinking in the approach, but I see some more work needed. I say that in my humble lack of solo chess performance, and teaching experience. But as a competent thinker interested by chess (some version of it, at least, maybe just the board and 2 abstract players with all the time in the world? and I don't have to be one of them? I could be observing and doing data sampling, ok getting lost here).
So great series of promising posts. I suggest allowing the many to have a bite at it. I just did. I hope you don't mind and welcome the help. I say we all need it. all the patzers included. They still can be logical, and have their own intution to apply to the wheel. This is not a cleavage among walks of chess. just a reminder of our limitation and potential strengths together.
The I is honest form, it allows objectification of the subjectivity, in the writing by the reader. But many of those is usuallly more obective even, and how we have progressed in our many irons of science, as long as we don't go burning books or entire libraries into history oblivion.. again. derailing. stoppin.
Normally, there should not be a specific ordering of the layers in that principle. or program. That has always threw me off in the chess theory being laid out in dispersed order through full game starting from initial position to some resigned or consented end.
I also think one person is not enough to fully implement this program. So great idea. But we need to be many to actually push that. And individual performance priority, that the title might imply (does it?), might not have enough time, and survival in that track, to go fully in that direction. Sorry, human brain limitations (and other biology) apply to us all.
I costs me to say what I just said. A great idea that I do not yet see made explicit in the layer choices (say the ones with numbers about chess theory elements, why those and why in that order, should we not also participate in the reasoning that led to that layering). Is it not obligatory language stream ordering either in the left-right direction (with some line feeds) or the paragraph down ordering, that lead to making arbitrary ordering.
the separation. See, going "down" back to mobility rules. There are no expertise needed but knowing their geometry of the 2D board ways, to connect to many of the board features mentioned.
Maybe we should us this space here, to discuss further what one person, no matter how much genius or talent or solo experience they have, can't be oneself do all the things that can't fit in one human lifetime.
Sorry, I do sound like a party pooper. I write this because I believe there is originality of thinking in the approach, but I see some more work needed. I say that in my humble lack of solo chess performance, and teaching experience. But as a competent thinker interested by chess (some version of it, at least, maybe just the board and 2 abstract players with all the time in the world? and I don't have to be one of them? I could be observing and doing data sampling, ok getting lost here).
So great series of promising posts. I suggest allowing the many to have a bite at it. I just did. I hope you don't mind and welcome the help. I say we all need it. all the patzers included. They still can be logical, and have their own intution to apply to the wheel. This is not a cleavage among walks of chess. just a reminder of our limitation and potential strengths together.
The I is honest form, it allows objectification of the subjectivity, in the writing by the reader. But many of those is usuallly more obective even, and how we have progressed in our many irons of science, as long as we don't go burning books or entire libraries into history oblivion.. again. derailing. stoppin.
@OctoPinky said in #7:
> Back to the blog post, I really would like to know the questions that strong players actually consider when analyzing their own games, like the ones mentioned in the section "Curiosity Layers are Critical".
>
> If can I add some questions, I try to answer "when I first felt the game was already lost (or, less often, won)?" and "when I had the last chance to prevent it?". More often that expected, I find games lost because of panicking under a heavy attack that actually was stoppable.
That could be a good article idea, I'll think on it. But for now, here are some things I think about:
1. When winning, I think "What are the most likely reasons I would lose this won game?" If I stop those, then I am guaranteed to win, basically.
2. When the position is very even, I think "How do I maintain the integrity of my position?" In chess, you can improve a piece's placement, but you cannot gain a winning position without the opponent making an error. So, maintaining a position's integrity is the best you can do until an error occurs.
3. When I am losing, I think "What is the best way for me to create complications?" When losing, all it takes is one critical error, a few errors, or a lot of inaccuracies to make it back into the game.
To answer your question more fully, I'd have to do a full write up with specific examples. Right now, I am giving you generalities that are still helpful. But I will add your topic idea to the list!
> Back to the blog post, I really would like to know the questions that strong players actually consider when analyzing their own games, like the ones mentioned in the section "Curiosity Layers are Critical".
>
> If can I add some questions, I try to answer "when I first felt the game was already lost (or, less often, won)?" and "when I had the last chance to prevent it?". More often that expected, I find games lost because of panicking under a heavy attack that actually was stoppable.
That could be a good article idea, I'll think on it. But for now, here are some things I think about:
1. When winning, I think "What are the most likely reasons I would lose this won game?" If I stop those, then I am guaranteed to win, basically.
2. When the position is very even, I think "How do I maintain the integrity of my position?" In chess, you can improve a piece's placement, but you cannot gain a winning position without the opponent making an error. So, maintaining a position's integrity is the best you can do until an error occurs.
3. When I am losing, I think "What is the best way for me to create complications?" When losing, all it takes is one critical error, a few errors, or a lot of inaccuracies to make it back into the game.
To answer your question more fully, I'd have to do a full write up with specific examples. Right now, I am giving you generalities that are still helpful. But I will add your topic idea to the list!