I need a book...

TheSultan31003
Klauer wrote:

Hey men, why do you get personal. This is not necessary. There are two interesting points in the debate: The qualities of IM Silman's highly praised by low level players endgame book and the usefulness of martial arts for chess and knowledge.

IM Silman's endgame book

If his idea has been repeated or not by other authors doesn't prove anything about right or wrong. Sometimes the lonely caller in the desert is right, sometimes he's calling out nonsense.

The idea taking training material according to playing strength is overall accepted, not only in chess. So why not doing this in endgame books? In reality they do. The critics of Silman of master level I have read all critizise the holes in his book, not the idea of ordering the material according to strength. I looked in this book in the bookstore and was really disappointed because of the lacking material in pawn and rook endings. Btw is there any endgame book for beginners starting with corresponding squares? They all start with "basic mate", progress to key squares while advancing pawns, continue with opposition. Most authors know that opposition is a special case of corresponding fields. They don't mention it. They automatical take care of the level of their readers.

Does the amateurs praise of Silman's book mean it was good for them? Yes and no. Yes, because they had fun. Yes, because they started to explore endings. No, because they got the information, that there is "enough" at a certain level. No, because unsystematic study is favored. This is a frist world problem, as chess is a game exept for a small group, which often even doesn't know who Silman is.

The usefulness of martial arts knowledge for chess

If you stay logical you must admit, that both chess and martial arts are a product of human culture. This means they are young in the development of human genetic resources. So there is no "chess memory" or "martial arts memory", there is a natural base of human skills inclusive thinking.

Chess is more than memory and cognition, martial arts is more than kicking and hitting. When there is a common base in human information processing and acquisition of skills there must be common knowledge worth sharing from one field to the other. There is specific knowledge in each area and there is common knowledge. So a discussion should only ask: What kind of knowledge do we talk about and what do we learn from this?

I do agree with what you are saying.

I honestly just do not like arrogant people that toss out other's opinions in favor of their own mainly because of that very same arrogance.  These people do deserve a smack for sure, Verbal or otherwise.  But I digress.  I am not continuing that discussion with someone like that.

DeirdreSkye
Klauer wrote:

 

Chess is more than memory and cognition, martial arts is more than kicking and hitting. When there is a common base in human information processing and acquisition of skills there must be common knowledge worth sharing from one field to the other. There is specific knowledge in each area and there is common knowledge. So a discussion should only ask: What kind of knowledge do we talk about and what do we learn from this?

      You remind academicians that say a lot but nothing of real value. I don't care for the philosophical aspect of the matter. I care for the practical.

     The practical question here is the following. Can 20 years excperience in MMA or cooking or gardening or knitting help in chess training? They  are products of human culture all of them and cooking is more than just cooking , gardening is more than just gardening , knitting is more than just knitting , right?

     They all have in common human culture but they are all unrelated and skills are not transferable. Cognitive scientists already know that for decades. A good lawyer can't be good doctor, a good doctor can't be good pianist and a good pianist can't be good architect and if he can , his skills in architecture are unrelated to music although both are products of human culture.

     Simply put , knowledge gained in any domain is worthless  for chess as chess skills are worthless in other domains. Practically  speaking the best doctor will have no chance to use in chess the skills acuired by training in medicine. Neither the best architect or the best mathematician or the best chef or the best gardener.

     This is what we are discussing and not the philosophical co existence of the various aspects of human culture!  

IMBacon
TheSultan31003 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
IpswichMatt wrote:

I think he meant that the main purpose of endgame study is to better understand chess, not just to win more endgames.

 

      Exactly , along with developing important skills. That is why none of the great players and trainers of the past or the present categorise endgames according to ratings.

Dvoretskys manual is geared at 2200 rated players. How will someone who is a 1000 learn from that book?

Doesn't it make more sense to learn the lucena position or philidors position before they tackle complex endings involving very advanced theory? Seems like endgame theory based on the theoretical knowledge at a particular rating would make the most sense. 

The problem we humans have is...we LOVE to over evaluate our abilities.  Its not just here, but its everywhere.  I go to tournaments, and you will see some kid buying a book that is way above their skill level.  Why?  Because it works for high level players.  No one likes to look in a mirror and say: "You know...you're not as good as you think you are"

TheSultan31003
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Klauer wrote:

 

Chess is more than memory and cognition, martial arts is more than kicking and hitting. When there is a common base in human information processing and acquisition of skills there must be common knowledge worth sharing from one field to the other. There is specific knowledge in each area and there is common knowledge. So a discussion should only ask: What kind of knowledge do we talk about and what do we learn from this?

      You remind academicians that say a lot but nothing of real value. I don't care for the philosophical aspect of the matter. I care for the practical.

     The practical question here is the following. Can 20 years excperience in MMA or cooking or gardening or knitting help in chess training? They  are products of human culture all of them and cooking is more than just cooking , gardening is more than just gardening , knitting is more than just knitting , right?

     They all have in common human culture but they are all unrelated and skills are not transferable. Cognitive scientists already know that for decades. A good lawyer can't be good doctor, a good doctor can't be good pianist and a good pianist can't be good architect and if he can , his skills in architecture are unrelated to music although both are products of human culture.

     Simply put , knowledge gained in any domain is worthless  for chess as chess skills are worthless in other domains. Practically  speaking the best doctor will have no chance to use in chess the skills acuired by training in medicine. Neither the best architect or the best mathematician or the best chef or the best gardener.

     This is what we are discussing and not the philosophical co existence of the various aspects of human culture!  

" They all have in common human culture but they are all unrelated and skills are not transferable."

 

So you honestly believe that the problem solving skills developed over years of studying chess do not transfer to problem solving skills in life?  In many many different mediums?

You think a good doctor couldn't be a good lawyer?  Have you never met any really talented individuals in your life?  

That's like saying a mechanical engineer couldn't be a great fighter.  Stating absolute statements is a testament to very limited knowledge of the broader society.

Here's a hint....Yes they can.  I'm a great engineer and I'm a tremendous fighter.  I also went to college with a UFC fighter who is also a computer programmer.  There are people out there that are extremely talented.  It's unfortunate you do not know that.

It makes sense why you can't seem to see beyond the 2 inches in front of your face. 

Your world is --->   <------ this big from a lot of different perspectives.

DeirdreSkye
Klauer wrote:

@DeidreSkye

There are different levels of abstraction of discussing this. So you are right about the my remarks in this case if you ask for practical training advice. You miss asking for knowledge to conclude about training methods. But maybe this is not your point of interest. So I observe what is wanted.

 This discussion started from a guy claiming that he can use his 20 year battle experience of MMA in chess and you seem to agree with him because all are forms of human culture. My question is , can an accomplished weaver and knitter do the same?Knitting is a form of human culture.It needs knowledge, creativity and good eye brain coordination.So it can be  perfect training for chessplayers and MMA fighters(according to you and him). Am I wrong?

     Again the problem is delusionals. If we had a knitter here she would claim that knitting and chess have a lot on common.

     From the philosphical point of view all aspects of human culture are related. They are all products of the human mind. From the practical point of view though there is absolutely no relation. I am not the one saying that , cognitive scientists say that.

Garry_Fish52

any book by Jeremy Silman would be very helpful. happy.png He has an overall guide that is very detailed. happy.png