Learning from your mistakes?

[COMMENT DELETED]

DeirdreSkye wrote (~9 days ago): "... Those seriously interested to improve must know that chess needs a lot of personal work and almost military discipline.Those who try to do it another way are either lazy or unable to study seriously for various reasons(I am among them since I have neither the time or the concentration to study chess, that is why I am a chessable member) ..."

Is "lazy" an appropriate assessment for someone who does not choose the best way for serious improvement (with the "almost military discipline" and everything)?

Are the judgments of such a teacher necessarily appropriate for someone who is not seeking to become a titled player? Again: Is "lazy" an appropriate assessment for someone who does not choose the best way for serious improvement (with the "almost military discipline" and everything)?

Are there only two possibilities:

A) best, or

B) easy and convenient?

Why would you think there isn't a whole range of possibilities? What reason is there to call any of them "lazy", instead of just simply one's personal choice? If one has a job and one does not do it with appropriate energy, then one might understandably be considered lazy. However, for most of us, chess is not a job. For a hobby, what obligation does one have to work to some degree other than what one wants?

 

It's a common practice for someone to not think a joke is funny, or to even state that the joke is not even to be considered humor.  Just because one person doesn't think a joke is funny, doesn't make the joke null and void of humor.  Quite the contrary, this sort of thing happens all the time with humor.  You get people that will say all the time, that a joke is not funny when it really is, or even say, that it shouldn't even be classified as a joke when you told that same joke to 99 different people and they all laughed at it.  Personally, I think that Sky guy is just disagreeing with your joke simply to save face.  Regardless, just know that his dissenting opinion on the validity of your type of humor means nothing, people say that sort of stuff all the time when faced with a joke they do not paticularly like, or one that they are the butt of...

 

I personally feel that chessable is just another program to use for opening training, and thats all.  bookup was used long before chessable ever existed, and nobody called these people lazy...  

 

I find that using digital media is a lot faster than using the old-fashioned board.  I never looked at master games until I was able to complete the games in my head.  I still can't complete a whole game in my head, at a reasonable speed, however, most of those books nowadays show you a diagram every 8 moves or so, so it's doable now for me.  It's not that I'm lazy, that I don't bother to get out the board to read a chess book that has a twenty move chess game that I need to decipher, just that it's inconvenient for me to take out a chess board in my room as there is not a whole lot of space as it is.  Had I of got a bigger house with a bigger room I would have been able to play through chess for zebras without resorting to using chessbase rather than an actual board.  It's just more convient for me to use digital media than to use an actual board on most days.  Granted there are times where I study with an actual board, just not usually...  If that is lazy then I guess I'm lazy , but, in my "opinion," I think anyone who calls that lazy is not trying to see it from the other side.  There are reasons why people prefer digital media rather than old-fashioned board and book.  I told you mine, anyone care to share why they themselves prefer digital media like chessable to old fashion board and book?  I also know for a fact that using digital media is a lot faster than using the old fashion board and book.  So there is another plus....  I wouldn't say chessable is for the lazy without first checking out what their spaced repetion program is all about.  What you have to do is study each opening you studied in the past at spaced intervals until you don't get any of them wrong at all where then they are placed at very latent intervals.  If you have about 10 opening books you are going thorough like me, you don't even have time in the day to do all of the spaced repetition unless you stop actual playing of chess, which would be silly, so the only thing to do in that case is to focus on one or two opening books at a time and finish the others later, which even then, you'd be going back to the computer every 4 hours, completing the spaced repetition.  That's if you actually did it every 4 hours, which I don't think is humanly possible with the bigger opening books, like the ones I am studying...

 

So yeah, if you think, a faster, more effcient way of memorizing openings, is lazy, then by all means call it lazy, however, I would question if English is your second language, because as I said, anyone who does the spaced repetition on chessable, is anything but lazy...???

Daybreak, I feel  the same. It is more efficient. I guess  Dsky doesn't understand that some of us don't want a coach, as they want to improve by self study. And a good coach is not cheap. Not a surprise that some of them will tell you  that only their method is "the" road to improvement,  and everything else is for "lazy" people.  Who knows,  perhaps Dsky will once recognize that he was victim of somebody who was after his money. 

For me is just  a great feeling to know that I am improving using the tools I choose. 

Is it "bad" because it isn't the best-way-serious-almost-military-discipline method or do you have some other reason for your evaluation?

I'm half way with torrubirubi. Just remember Bokonon says, "All of the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless lies.", then hire a chess coach for money. Ref.: https://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/personal/bokonon.html

I think you should all play chess in uniforms, like little soldiers following a hard regime of discipline.

This is the future of chess: Hard work, concentration, more discipline, more hard work, and if you are tired, more work, much harder.

Follow the master, be rude, tell everybody how smart you are.

March! 1-2-3-4, be hard, work hard, and fight all signs of laziness wherever you see it. Try harder!

I tend to agree with this sort of thing. I've written three books for Chessable, and I tried to spend a lot of words on typical ideas and plans, in addition to the concrete variations - plus videos to help the reader along. 

Of course, if you're trying to learn an opening like the Dragon, sometimes you just gotta straight parrot-fashion memorize stuff to avoid losing right out of the opening.

The thing on memorisation applies to every opening book.  The advantage of Chessable over classical repertoire books is that you can ask the authors about moves that you don't understand.  I am known in Chessable to ask questions  about almost every move thatbI can't understand, even not when I go through the whole line. I don't know any other tool where you have free access to the knowledge of IMs and GMs as in Chessable.  The idea that Chessable is only  about memorisation comes or from people who don't understand the concept or from people who are eager to criticize Chessable  to show how smart they are concerning training.  I know  hundred of comments from authors of Chessable's authors showing the ideas behind moves.  In fact,  Chessable's books are the join work by author and students of these books. 

To call all 30 000 Chessable students "lazy"is just a a sign of huge ignorance. It is simply ridiculous.

We have probably people in Chessable learning by heart without understanding what they are learning,  but they are a minority. Even these students profit from the questions asked by other students.

We talk like you be a super GM. And although you are clearly better than me you are just a huge patzer  in comparison with really strong players. I know several titled players that are modest and kind,  and a lot of such strong players believe that Chessable is a great tool. Spaced repetition is being used since decades by strong players. 

Does any of that measure a person's ability to judge character?

Is understanding chess a yes or no thing or a matter of degree? What qualifies you (or anyone) to judge the character of those who are glad to have help getting to 1700?

I am sure that everything you said is absolutely true...for you. Pity that nobody cares what you say. If you know soooo much about everything, about what is good and bad, what is fact or fiction: why you are not a GM?

I don't remember that you came to a thread and said something positive. Every time you have to begin with something like "everybody is wrong" or "everybody(but you)" are lazy, always referring to your wonderful unknown chess guru. Do you have any idea how silly and arrogant this sounds? Do you think you can impress people with such a behaviour? Really?

I am sorry for people who have to deal with you daily in real life. Something really bad happened to you to make you so a negative person. You think you know more about chess training than Kasparov or JB? Well, write a book and let's see what do you have to say (beside of course the "hard work -discipline mantra, of course; empty words).

Bobby, the questions in Chessable are always related to very concrete positions, like "Is it really necessary to exchange the bishop for the knight here?" or "why Do I have to play Ne7 here and in a similar position I play Nf6?" and so on. Some questions are on possible plans out of the opening or on alternative moves.

Agreed

KMS

 

What about the cost of the good coach?

I record the first mistake I make in every game. Opening mistakes mainly. I use other tools to sharpen the middle and end.