Question about some moves of last night's game
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
tyzebug wrote:
I don't think so, to be honest. Perhaps I'm cynical after studying in a rather competitive environment for too long, but trying to look at things far beyond your level usually doesn't teach much. I mean, it's like teaching quantum physics to a kindergarden student - you'll get absolutely nowhere. Or for a chess example, it's like what they say about playing stronger players - losing to a person somewhat stronger than you will probably teach you things, but being stomped by a far stronger player will probably leave you scratching your head and wondering what the heck just happened; without learning anything important (e.g. in my case, perhaps I may be able to understand some sharp tactic which cost me the game; but the thing is that I probably wouldn't understand the most important part, which is how my opponent maneuvered to make the tactic possible in the first place. "Tactics flow from a superior position," after all.)
Personally, when I look at this game, I just accept that there's a lot of subtle things I don't understand about it, and just look for the few things which I can; mostly of a tactical nature. It's more effective than trying to understand the subtle ideas that only come about when you're of sufficiently high level to understand them.
Geez, it's not only about learning. This is news, it's current, I think it's great that players of ALL levels are excited and want to understand more. Maybe he wants to show his mates, who perhaps know even less than he does, and the game gains a few more players....
Thank heavens that there are many other strong players on this site who don't buy into this rating category snobbery.
I don't think so, to be honest. Perhaps I'm cynical after studying in a rather competitive environment for too long, but trying to look at things far beyond your level usually doesn't teach much. I mean, it's like teaching quantum physics to a kindergarden student - you'll get absolutely nowhere. Or for a chess example, it's like what they say about playing stronger players - losing to a person somewhat stronger than you will probably teach you things, but being stomped by a far stronger player will probably leave you scratching your head and wondering what the heck just happened; without learning anything important (e.g. in my case, perhaps I may be able to understand some sharp tactic which cost me the game; but the thing is that I probably wouldn't understand the most important part, which is how my opponent maneuvered to make the tactic possible in the first place. "Tactics flow from a superior position," after all.)
Personally, when I look at this game, I just accept that there's a lot of subtle things I don't understand about it, and just look for the few things which I can; mostly of a tactical nature. It's more effective than trying to understand the subtle ideas that only come about when you're of sufficiently high level to understand them.