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

Will you make a video about bongcloud theory? Really need to work on my bongcloud

thats a fair theory, but i have a better one; potential to peak is directly proportional to nationality, level of training invested in, and years of experience. in Russia, USA and India, for instance, chess players typically peak at IM-GM level with roughly the same level of training and experience. 

What an odd argument. 

he has the potential to be a master, a rating of 2200, (why 2200 necessarily?)

BUT

it'll take him quite some time because it's not easy for him to get rating points (why isnt it?)

THEREFORE

a better goal would be to shoot for expert (2000) (why not keep climbing to all the way to 2400 or 2500?)

BECAUSE

he's about 1850 USCF (so what?)

(My points in bold italics)

There isn't anything "odd" about what I said, it's more objective then anything is it not?  My "argument" which was more like a statement merely meant that he has potential that's it that's all all, why turn it into something it wasn't meant to be.  I think you've read into it too much friend, I'm guilty of doing that at times as well, perhaps you're a deep thinker as I am.   

Oh and by the way by your logic, why stop at 2500???, why not not have him shoot for 2900 and be the highest rated Chess player of all time?? Err....

I think 2200 would be a much more realistic goal and since I know the gentleman personally, I know he has other ventures outside of Chess, so a goal of 2500 or higher would have him dedicate to Chess 24/7, something I'm not so sure he'd be willing to do.    

I would just add that 2200 uscf/fide is the lowest rated one can be for a title.

Also, it's not easy to gain rating points otb in reality any case...

Most adults never even pass 2000. Let's let this thread die, hmm?

I'll just respond to the recent posts in one post of mine here:

@Marcyful I don't have any plans to teach Bongcloud theory lol. If serious, then don't play it, that is my advice xD 

Obviously, a comical joke, but if you actually want to try Bongcloud and have it studied, then there are many places to do so including @Hikaru 's own Bongcloud speedrun series.

@JacobTanya I disagree about nationality meaning much of anything when it comes to chess players and especially when it comes to potential. People are people. It doesn't matter what country they live in if they have the resources to improve and work on their chess. Chess being so easily accessible (especially now with online) means that really anyone can work on their game and as long as they can keep improving their chess, then there is no telling just how much potential someone could reach

If you want further evidence, just look up the highest rated players in the world (either online like chess.com leaderboard or OTB like FIDE ratings) and notice the variety of country flags players represent. Potential has to do with the individual and their abilities (including the ability and desire to improve).

As for my own rating goals, why limit myself? I'd be open to 2500 rating or 2900 rating or 4000 rating one day (4000 engine joke for hyperbole effect), but it is usually best to focus on short-term goals and the next step. Circa 1850 might reasonably look to reach 1900 or 2000 in the near-future as an ambition, but this isn't to say that 2100 or 2200 after that aren't also realistic. With this being said, @chesslover0_0 is probably more accurate here.

Lastly, I agree with your post @ninjaswat ...well at least all but the last portion. I don't want this thread to die, but I'm certainly glad to let the "rating potential topic" end, so we can move onto other subjects. 

As this thread originally intended, if anyone has any ideas for videos, feel free to share them Similarly, any questions about chess topics, I might turn into a video if I think I could do it justice. 

I have enough video ideas for the time being, but I'm always happy to put that list on hold and answer something more present which is being asked

How about endgame strategies, how to play against gambit players, how to push pawns to gain an advantage, how to get a pawn successfully promoted to a queen and how to use the pawns in front of the king after casting. Also what's the best way to become an awesome chess player. Is it coaching, taking classes, repetition and playing thousands of games, studying openings, middle games and endgames or would you just say Barry you should have started learning chess when you were 5 and now you would be awesome? 

(My responses in bold above)

Video on pawns in front of King mentioned above I'll post here:

Thanks I appreciate all that. Not sure how to figure out my learning style though. I know it's not reading that's for sure 

It you can find your style really systematically or scientifically, then more power to you...but it doesn't have to be this academic. It can be as simple as trying to learn chess with a wide array of medium and see which works better. Chess books might help a reader, YouTube videos might help an observer, playing games might help a hands-on learner, puzzles and endgame studies might help an interactive learner and so on. Just try learning chess in every way you reasonable can and see which methods you get results from and what you like doing more. 

Agreed, barrygage, I tend to agree with all that KesetoKaiba said here, just try various mediums and see which one resonates with you best.  Me personally, I believe that Chess should be treated like any academic study, in that it's something to be studied.  I'm not a fan of passive Chess learning, mostly I'm talking about watching and hearing, something you do with "Chess videos".  I believe in active Chess learning, opening up a book, and setting up positions on a board and then studying them, which, by definition means to closely analyze them in detail with the intent on learning something from them.  Yes, I know this takes alot of time and work but I believe it's the best way to learn Chess, and, it's probably a lost art today, with today's technology and "Chess videos" being so easily accessible but this is just one person's opinion.  

Also it should depend on far you want to take Chess, I guess in the final analysis, you should try various methods of learning and ultimately stick to what works best for you.