KeSetoKaiba AMA but not really...

Josh Waitzkin's book "The Art of Learning" I have never read, but the "learning how to learn" concept is a centuries old concept. I don't know if it was always phrased this way ("learning how to learn" wording is something I came up with in the moment just to be a little humorous, yet still an accurate representation of what I was attempting to convey), but learning the process of how to figure things out on your own is a useful skill for sure.

I haven't read the book either, I just referenced it, I never thought about "learning how to learn", I just attempted to learn, for example right now, I'm studying the "Opposition" and teaching myself that, which I did before, but you know, you kind of forget and lol, I think this time around I understand it better then I did the first time around when I just "winged" it.  

I wouldn't say that learning comes naturally to me, maybe the desire to learn and understand (key concept) Chess came naturally to me.  I think learning is something that you do, if you want to be good at something, you must study it and then "learn" it, but then what defines the word "learn"?, to know something?, to have a skill? to understand something?, probably all of those things plus more, that in and of itself should show you what must be done to "learn" something. 

Cool YouTube channel man, just subscribed! 

Seems like you are a Yu Gi Oh fan, I am too!

Random chess questions

1) What is the greatest performance you have ever seen in chess

2) If you could battle anyone in a game of chess, past and present, who would it be and why?

Cool, thx for the sub and yes I like Yugioh as well.

1) By "performance" you mean like the highest level chess I've ever seen? Well, I guess whenever I watch some titled players stream chess that is at a high level. If you mean in person, I guess the closest I have (other than opponents I play) is looking at some of the other OTB chess games during a tournament when I am walking around the playing hall waiting for my opponent to move. You don't really witness their "performance" so much as keep tabs and updates on the game every time you go back. You can infer what likely happened usually, but most often it is more superficial glancing like evaluating the position and who is winning, or who you think will win. xD

2) Hmm, this is a good question to ask...past if tricky because there are sooo many choices: Bobby Fischer, Paul Morphy, Jose Raul Capablanca etc. The present might be tricky to decide too (Magnus Carlsen, Hikaru Nakamura etc.), but I'd probably be okay with any Grandmaster...

yup, I've never (not even once) played a titled GM before. I've also never met any GMs in person either. 

I guess I'm not in a rush to face them because I know they'll be tough opponents, but one day I'll play some GMs I'm sure...in the meantime, I'll just keep improving and give myself a slightly better chance at winning. 

Same thing sort of applies to playing any past chess player I named too because obviously all of these GM-caliber chess players are better at chess than I am now

If you'll be a master someday, which type of master are you most likely going to peak at?

GM keseto has a good ring to it 

I think he has the potential to be a master, a rating of 2200, but it'll take him quite some time because it's not easy for him to get rating points, besides there is the "norms".  I think a better goal would be to shoot for expert (2000) since he's about 1850 USCF I believe. 

Even for experienced coaches/scouts (chess, sports, business etc.) it is difficult to determine potential and when someone will peak. I have no idea how far I'll take chess; I like to just take things one step at a time. 

I don't even have a desire to become titled (any title) at the moment, but really ANY chess title has a good ring to it xD