HueyWilliams wrote:
The reason Gavin wears shades:
yah mon.
not sure what using my first name is about. 
give real reason (but i betcha i know it), not a smartarse answer.
Setting up Positions on a Board to Study?
Sort:
Mar 28, 2015
0
#23
MrEdCollins wrote:
What is the benefit of this?
To some, there is no benefit. Some players are easily able to visualize positions on a 2D computer screen or magazine, for example, just as easily as an on 3D board.
You have to decide for yourself if taking the time to set everything up on a board works for you. Everyone will be different.
I've determined it makes no difference to me. And for me this is good, because it's much faster using today's chess GUIs (software) to set everything up. I can then also get an engine's evaluation of the position, with a click of the button. I can also save the position for later.
My friend Neal and I participated in an over-the-board chess tournament last weekend. I noticed during Neal's games that he was not staring at the board at all, but at his little MonRoi device!!! To him, THAT was easier for him, than studying the position on the board.
Again, everyone will be different. Don't let someone tell you otherwise.
That's sorta what I was gonna say.
Forty years ago, I needed to set up positions on a board. Twenty years ago, I usually did. Now, 2D and 3D transfer is seamless.
I suspect that aptitude is not the only factor. Rather, frequency of training with multiple modes--visual and tactile--makes transfer a learned skill.
kleelof wrote:
Using a computer to play out the moves is not the same as getting help from the computer.
Ah, you mean setting up the position on the computer chess board. I see.
The Yusupov courses only insist that you set up the position on a real board and then look at the position on the board to come up with the answer. If, adter ten minutes, you cannot get the answer, you are then permitted another ten minutes to move the pieces to come up with the answer. I understand the latter idea, but the former is unclear to me. Additionally, I don't think actually move the pieces is much of a help, unless it's a combination, like at the end of Laszlo Polgar's massive "Chess," in which case the combinations are 8+ moves (16 ply) long/deep.
Ziryab wrote:
MrEdCollins wrote:
What is the benefit of this?
To some, there is no benefit. Some players are easily able to visualize positions on a 2D computer screen or magazine, for example, just as easily as an on 3D board.
You have to decide for yourself if taking the time to set everything up on a board works for you. Everyone will be different.
I've determined it makes no difference to me. And for me this is good, because it's much faster using today's chess GUIs (software) to set everything up. I can then also get an engine's evaluation of the position, with a click of the button. I can also save the position for later.
My friend Neal and I participated in an over-the-board chess tournament last weekend. I noticed during Neal's games that he was not staring at the board at all, but at his little MonRoi device!!! To him, THAT was easier for him, than studying the position on the board.
Again, everyone will be different. Don't let someone tell you otherwise.
That's sorta what I was gonna say.
Forty years ago, I needed to set up positions on a board. Twenty years ago, I usually did. Now, 2D and 3D transfer is seamless.
I suspect that aptitude is not the only factor. Rather, frequency of training with multiple modes--visual and tactile--makes transfer a learned skill.
Good we are on the same page.
I think you are making a good point with the seamlessness of 2D and 3D. When I started playing, there was a big difference between studying 2D problems and playing 2D blitz, versus 3D OTB USCF tournaments. I think they are equivalent for me now, because I can play lindfold pretty well. Josh Waitzkin has an interesting account of this (in "The Art of Learning," where he could not make out what the pieces were on the board (they were from some bizarrely styled set), and then just proceeded to take notation and keep another chess board in his head, as if playing blindfolded.
While I must admit its faster/easier to " study " using modern technology I still find I retain more of what I study if I do it the old fashioned way of setting up the board and pieces and actually moving the pieces around . I didnt own a computer until 96 but started tournament chess in 73 so had to do it the old way for more than 20 years . I also found that if I keep my study time to 2 hours or less I retain a lot more of what I study , especially now . In my younger years I could go 3 to 4 hours and retain a lot more than I do today . The longer I go past 2 hours the less I retain .
Reb wrote:
While I must admit its faster/easier to " study " using modern technology I still find I retain more of what I study if I do it the old fashioned way of setting up the board and pieces and actually moving the pieces around .
What about just looking at a board that's been set up, but not moving the pieces? Do you feel you still get more benefit looking at a set up board versus a position in a book?
Mar 29, 2015
0
#29
Arawn_of_Annuvin wrote:
while his post didn't provide anything to really back up his ultimate claim, at least he cited a source. you, on the other hand, have contributed nothing. like i said, a non-contributor.
Kudos.... a guy criticises a lack of proof then criticises for providing evidence.... thanks Milliern and Awarn... +1
flatters1 wrote:
Arawn_of_Annuvin wrote:
while his post didn't provide anything to really back up his ultimate claim, at least he cited a source. you, on the other hand, have contributed nothing. like i said, a non-contributor.
Kudos.... a guy criticises a lack of proof then criticises for providing evidence.... thanks Milliern and Awarn... +1
There's definitely a basic logic dysfunction there.
Milliern wrote:
Reb wrote:
While I must admit its faster/easier to " study " using modern technology I still find I retain more of what I study if I do it the old fashioned way of setting up the board and pieces and actually moving the pieces around .
What about just looking at a board that's been set up, but not moving the pieces? Do you feel you still get more benefit looking at a set up board versus a position in a book?
If I am solving problems from a book I dont usually set up a board and pieces , unless I cannot solve the problem then I often do . When I am working on openings I really prefer setting up a board and pieces as opposed to just visualizing the moves from a column in a book or online .
Reb wrote:
Milliern wrote:
Reb wrote:
While I must admit its faster/easier to " study " using modern technology I still find I retain more of what I study if I do it the old fashioned way of setting up the board and pieces and actually moving the pieces around .
What about just looking at a board that's been set up, but not moving the pieces? Do you feel you still get more benefit looking at a set up board versus a position in a book?
If I am solving problems from a book I dont usually set up a board and pieces , unless I cannot solve the problem then I often do . When I am working on openings I really prefer setting up a board and pieces as opposed to just visualizing the moves from a column in a book or online .
Maybe I need to start doing this. Normally, I just see the solutions and then work through the solution in my mind. I am assuming you try to work the solution out on the board before you look at the answer to a puzzle/problem.
Using a computer to play out the moves is not the same as getting help from the computer.
Exactly, I just use it to enter and save the moves. Then, I can review the moves over and over again, quickly and easily. I'm also able to record all the alternative lines for quick and easy replay.
I'm not saying this is the be-all-end-all method to use. It's just what I prefer.
I'm sure setting up up the position over and over again would be valuable. It would simply take much more time to review the exercise as many times as I can go through it with this method.
And after I've done it this way MANY times, sometimes I will then setup the board to play through it that way.