not everyone can reach 2000

you read too much. I have no issues with you elubas.

and I didn't say you were wrong.  I said Mr D, seemed senseable.  contrary to popular opinion the forums are not a personality contest.

regarding the "liking" comment. perhaps that was a little harsh. 

once the thread becomes unsolveable, just an long winded thats person versus that- it isn't worth participation.  it may or may not be worth lurking.

But how does it relate to the topic as anything remotely interesting? Everyone was just sharing their opinions but it seems you just came in to muddy the waters with something that everyone already knows. (that all this is opinion).

I mean I get the point of the quote obviously :) Certainly some people will talk vaguely enough so that they can never be disproven :) But on the other hand as said, just observing an object for example doesn't stimulate much discussion either. It's when you break down a concept that you learn what's so cool about it.

there's differnces sure, but whether its multiplication problems or chess- many coaches have a common consensus opinion...

Personally I consider it pretty relevant to mention how much a theory may or may not stack up with reality. I'm not sure why that's such a taboo topic. It's not exactly crazy to be more interested in an idea that seems to allign more with reality than something else. It's good to look at where a theory comes from, whether there's bias or not, etc. It's all part of getting the most out of our ideas.

There are commonalities of course, but even those tend to be vague and general. For example, all coaches will tell you to study tactics, but that's not saying much. If you ask them how to study tactics, well there are dozens of different methods, and it probably depends on which coach you have.

Add to that that people learn differently because people are different. A training method that works great for one player might be terrible for another player.

There is some advice that I do think holds up really well, though: Whatever study method you choose, don't cut corners. Embrace your mind being challenged. Do problems that don't have an obvious answer and make you think outside the box.

Its not taboo! its just unknowable.

when a great chess coach does this landmark study trying to show (over long lengths of time, in a statistically rigorous manner)- I would LOVE to see that study.

until then the idea that a coach can greatly improve results by having their students put in the time, is corraborated by their results.

one thing that sometimes drives me buggy in these kinds of debates though is that you don't know where (in plain language) people stand.

are you saying that you think Most of the success of certain people is all innate talent?   how then do you explain the dramatically different output of talent from some parts of the world.

presumably africa has people of talent.  yes I know there's a lot of poverty- but there are pockets of wealth too.  what you tend to see is that where coaching flourishes- grandmasters appear.  so consider that as proof that hard work is a big part of chess success...

but aggregate results of a country hardly settle the secret of what creates success in chess.

If that word helps me make my point, will do. That'll be pretty unlikely, though.

"are you saying that you think Most of the success of certain people is all innate talent?   how then do you explain the dramatically different output of talent from some parts of the world."

I'm saying that chess skill is a mysterious combination of talent and hard work. Emphasis on the word mysterious.

You can 'reason' your way towards anything it seems. No point continuing with this. It's off topic anyway.

"until then the idea that a coach can greatly improve results by having their students put in the time, is corraborated by their results."

Yes, I agree. I just don't want people to get the impression that chess coaches are omniscient or anything :)

You're the one who decided to comment on my commenting in the first place...

so you don't Agree with MrD because he has a theory on what cause chess improvement.  this is still a little crazy. he has improved. I thinks he's the guy that brought his blitz game up to 1800.

maybe he doesn't have the Definitive answer on the perfect (and best) way to improve.  but he's clearly onto something.

"improvement is a mysterious mix"... I don't disagree with that. but my point is that there IS a consensus, not perfect agreement mind you, but a consensus on what helps.

to quote hiesman.

Add positives and/or subtract negatives.

people (authors and coaches) have theories, generally they work.  when they don't (for many people) the theories fade.

NK.  wow. as if this thread isn't hard enough to follow.

I'd say you buzzline but I really have too much respect for him. sorry.

Well no actually I do agree with binary. Just because his theory isn't certain doesn't mean it isn't plausible. If I said it wasn't plausible, then your reply would make sense, but because you don't take the time to comprehend my comments, you accuse me of saying things I didn't say.

Isn't that kind of unfair? If I actually agree with binary, it doesn't seem right for me to be accused of the opposite.

We should be able to remark on the limitations of our understanding without taking it as an insult. There are tons of things I don't know about this world but that doesn't mean I won't make my best guess.

Who is Mr.D, anyway?

"people (authors and coaches) have theories, generally they work."

They tend to have pretty mixed results I thought. They definitely can work, but there are no guarantees.

He means me. D is for digital.

An unintended result of choosing a ridiculous name is people give me nicknames

Mr D=binary

ok. you agree with binary? its not apparent.

speaking of misunderstandings you getting me all wrong, too. 

I call a draw on the question of how is at fault when two apparently polite (and non-trollish) people misunderstand each other.  on one hand, the readers should (yes) try hard to catch the meaning of the writer.

on the other hand, if the writing isn't succinct, meandering or unclear...

part of this is hard because I'm neither the best at writing (or chess).  but I try hard Not to do long posts for this very point.

IMHO it is better to be kaynight clear, with a witty, simple and Very easy to understand remark than all this back and forth philosophizing.  espacially when I know I'm not good at it.

I don't engage you often elubas.  your absolutely famous for philosophizing and while some like it and other hate it- I'm very neutral on it.  I'd rather read (and say) something short that seems resonates.

but not everything you say misses the mark.  sometimes you hit it pretty good.  you just talk too Much after that

so lets truce. if you like what mr D/binary wrote.  (you just don't think its as simple as this).  I'm agreeable