... I leave it to the readers of this thread to read the quotes you provided of the NM and decide for themselves whether it is good to allow bad habits of calculation, ...
Let us know if you ever feel that you have a quote of a specific sentence saying that "it is good to allow bad habits of calculation".
... or as I quote the NM," Sloppy habits of calculation. " ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^ Not quoting NM Peter Kurzdorfer.
... repeating yourself over and over in print also does nothing to logically pursue your opinion. ...
It takes cooperation for a discussion to progress logically. If you produce "interpretation" that incorporates alteration of the original language, I can not see much to do apart from calling attention to the non-Kurzdorfer language and remind you of my attempt to discuss the Kurzdorfer language.
Not only do I want to. I do.
You discern something in my attitude from something other than my words?
No way do I think you make to master with sloppy calculation habits. Notice he did not simply say calculation but also the habits that form accurate calculation.
I played a guy OTB today rated about 1875 USCF. I lost the first game and won the 2nd game.
In the first game I missed a move in my calculation about 5 moves deep. The 2nd game was more positional and calculating wasn't as deep, but had more branches to keep track of near the end of the game. Tough as nails opponent for me.
-my 1200 chess.com rating is meaningless.
In any game, there are times when you can have somewhat sloppy calculations, and other times you have to have laser focus. Assuming 2 players of relative equal strength.
The trick is be able to understand when each applies.
If your cruising along and your opponent plays an agressive move in an equal board position, then one has to take a good look. Both for defence reasons, but to get a fresh perspective on what weaknesses he created for himself to attack you.
I think it is appropriate to keep in mind that the NM Peter Kurzdorfer quote did not contain, "the habits that form accurate calculation". The quote also did not contain, "it is ok to have".
I suspect that there is not much real disagreement here apart from what one is willing to call sloppy. I have not seen it claimed that NM calculation habits are perfect. If an NM's calculation habits are not perfect, it seems plausible to me that an IM (or someone with experience against an IM opponent) might consider the NM imperfection to be great enough to justify saying that the NM has not given up sloppy computation habits.
There may also be a problem here with the word, "habits". I don't think that "habits" necessarily refers to what one does all the time.
"... On the one hand, your play needs to be purposeful much of the time; the ability to navigate through many different types of positions needs to be yours; your ability to calculate variations and find candidate moves needs to be present in at least an embryonic stage. On the other hand, it will be heart-warming and perhaps inspiring to realize that you do not need to give up blunders or misconceptions or a poor memory or sloppy calculating habits; that you do not need to know all the latest opening variations, or even know what they are called. You do not have to memorize hundreds of endgame positions or instantly recognize the proper procedure in a variety of pawn structures.
[To play at a master level consistently] is not an easy task, to be sure ..., but it is a possible one. ..." - NM Peter Kurzdorfer (2015)
His endgame book is a decent beginning for the casual player who is too lazy for serious study!
...
... My use of the word "lazy" was perhaps lazy shorthand for "people with limited ambitions looking for shortcuts to endgame skill." ...
Is there any reason for people to do more than what is necessary for their ambitions in a hobby?
Let's see. One of my "hobbies" is fishing. The main point is to waste time, as much as possible.
Then, another hobby is shooting. The more I do, the more satisfying the hobby. ...
If I am following you correctly, this doesn't move you to discontinue fishing and shooting in order to spend more time on chess? Perhaps other people have somewhat similar sorts of issues when they decide how much work to put into chess?
Time in the outdoors improves my chess. Time at the range improves my concentration, which is vital to chess performance.
Chess fills in gaps when I can't be in the woods or on the river.
Teaching chess earns money for ammo.
Never say never. If you gain enough skill in chess, you'll look at endgame study with a fresh perspective.
I haven't gone through Silman's endgame book, but I have taken a good look at it.
It's geared toward a more easy going learning style suited for the 1700 and below crowd.
For players wanting to really get past the amature wall, players really start thinking about learning endgame theory, rather than just wanting to learn a series of common endgame scenarios, even if the book has some scenarios geared toward players over 2100.
I consider myself at that juncture where I need to study endgame theory, along with other areas of study, to make anymore major progress. I'm about 1850 OTB, and in some software training programs.
First of all saying I said something by chopping my statement to fit your "argument" is irresponsible. ...
As you can see (above), you did indeed use "it is ok to have" in your interpretation of his words. I see nothing irresponsible in calling attention to your interpretation using words, not in the original quote.