orangehonda wrote:
Inchoate? Is that a philosophy word? I had to look it up. Well anyway I'm not sure of that -- just because you can't verbalize it doesn't mean the reasons behind it are lacking. They say this Anand guy is an intuitive type player as well
I agree, orangehonda. But I can't verbalize the reasons for making a move in chess. It doesn't feel apart of me as, say, an opinion I hold on some other matter I am more familiar with. As far as this Anand guy, he's something special in this game, isn't he?
I've always been interested in the learning process, specifically how I learn as I'm learning and to some extent how I can learn better. I also enjoy teaching because I get to go through that learning process all over again with a student.
To those who say a sub-master can't teach, of course they can, they just teach the basics. If you're not more than 200-300 points higher then all you can do is play analysis games and in those cases both players get to learn.
Teaching is it's own skill so the OP makes sense . Also, I could also see how this would be difficult if a player is more an intuitive type where it would be about impossible to verbalize the process you use to find your moves. Are you an intuitive type of player Trysts?
Since I correlate intuition with habit/lightening flash of the mind, then yes, you have pinpointed accurately why I can not teach this bloody game, orangehonda! Why I am moving this piece here, or that piece there is inchoate
Inchoate? Is that a philosophy word?
I had to look it up. Well anyway I'm not sure of that -- just because you can't verbalize it doesn't mean the reasons behind it are lacking. They say this Anand guy is an intuitive type player as well 