This means that you're learning and that your brain is in a state of flux -- it's loosening and letting go of old ideas and beliefs while your giving it new instructions. Most learning does not occur as a stead upward slope like this /. More commonly it takes place as steps _|-- And just before the brain steps upward to the next level, it "loosens" and appears to make more mistakes, but this is actually what you want to happen. This is a common phenomenon with piano and golf players. Just before their music or game play improves, they go through a period where things actually appear to get worse before they get better. If this didn't happen, then it would be difficult to step to the next level with the new information.
Theory Overload?
Sort:
You know what, as a regular and passionate player of the piano, I have actualy had similar learning spikes, where even the piano which I love more than most things in life I wanted to give up.
I will stick by chess, take the bruises from not being 100% happy with it, untill it passes. Just like with music!
It is an unfortunate and unplatable fact that intense concentration and learning techniques with all the other facilities now available will not make you rise above your capabilities.
The cream rises to the top and the super-elite are born not created by hard work.
This does not just apply to chess but to any field of human endeavour.
Be as good as you can be and enjoy what you are.
Cool study. Love you Holly!
Going to take the advice from the majority, take chess a little less seriously - or at least don't panic from a lack of improvement.
A so familiar story, you are not studying effectively.
I suugest that you invest in the Soltis book " how to study chess" you will find yourself on page 15.
I coach juniors and .I find this book very helpful.
Jun 12, 2011
0
#27
Sceadungen wrote:
A so familiar story, you are not studying effectively.
I suugest that you invest in the Soltis book " how to study chess" you will find yourself on page 15.
I coach juniors and .I find this book very helpful.
Great book! It helped/helps me improve my studying a lot.
sxc_chess_babe wrote:
looks like elona is taking a long break maybe done.
I am far from finished with chess Holly (you already know the reasons). Life caused me to be unable to come online or even play otb.
As I needed a break, it worked out in the end. Unfortunatly, I lost a bunch of games due to timeouts. :(
Hopefully, I can now pass that wall that was stopping me from enjoying my games.
Sep 11, 2011
0
#29
Every once in a while we reach those plateaus - it just gives us a chance to rest and reflect on our journey so far so that we can begin the next leg
Sep 11, 2011
0
#30
GlennBk wrote:
It is an unfortunate and unplatable fact that intense concentration and learning techniques with all the other facilities now available will not make you rise above your capabilities.
The cream rises to the top and the super-elite are born not created by hard work.
This does not just apply to chess but to any field of human endeavour.
Be as good as you can be and enjoy what you are.
That is not what research indicates....See the polgars, tiger woods, michael jordan, mozart. All who we think of as "natural talents". All who started young, had the help of a family that could teach their craft(not sure about jordan) and that actually failed early on in life(or were avg). Jordan getting cut in hs bsktball, mozart not having his first real recognized composition(on his own) until into his 20's.
erikido23 wrote:
GlennBk wrote:
It is an unfortunate and unplatable fact that intense concentration and learning techniques with all the other facilities now available will not make you rise above your capabilities.
The cream rises to the top and the super-elite are born not created by hard work.
This does not just apply to chess but to any field of human endeavour.
Be as good as you can be and enjoy what you are.
That is not what research indicates....See the polgars, tiger woods, michael jordan, mozart. All who we think of as "natural talents". All who started young, had the help of a family that could teach their craft(not sure about jordan) and that actually failed early on in life(or were avg). Jordan getting cut in hs bsktball, mozart not having his first real recognized composition(on his own) until into his 20's.
The Jordan being cut story is a bit oversold. He was "cut" from the varsity team as a sophomore and placed on the junior varsity, but JV is where a sophomore would normally play. And he wasn't cut for lack of ability, just that the coach thought he was still a bit too short to play with the older competition in varsity. He was a superstar in JV, grew four inches over the summer, and starred in varsity the next year.
Anyway, the main point I was going to make was that this is an example of survivor's bias. We don't know how many kids started young, had parents who could teach their craft, learned all the right life lessons, and never amounted to anything. Because we never hear about them.
davidegpc wrote:
In fact most children learning chess early, and going through different coaches, with parents interested, become GM and we have more than 1200 examples today, compared to the 70ies, when there were only 88 GMs in the entire world.
I don't disagree with your overall point, but this is a poor and fallacious argument. There are any number of reasons why the number of GMs would rise, not the least of which is changes in the rules that govern how the title is awarded.
Sep 12, 2011
0
#33
This is a very common experience for many types of adult learning, not just chess. Think of it this way (I'm sure this point is made above by others too), your brain has been rewired in how to think about chess, until you play and practice your new knowledge the old knowledge interfers. Don't be discouraged, it will come and your improvement will finally show itself. Others mention this as the "cycle effect". The difficult part is that each cycle gets a bit harder, the higher you climb the more difficult it is to move up. Good luck and keep playing!
Read it again. I said I agreed with your overall point but found fault with a specific argument you made in support of that point. That's perfectly consistent.
Secondly, you misunderstand where the burden of proof lies. You asserted that the rise in the number GMs lends support to your belief that chess culture is creating more high-level players than in the past, thus showing that innate talent does not create GMs (or something to that effect).
By providing an alternate reasonable explanation, I've already proven my point: That your assertion does not logically follow from your supposition. If you say "Y is true because X is true," and I prove that X being true can have other consequences besides Y being true, then that's that.
Read it again. I said I agreed with your overall point but found fault with a specific argument you made in support of that point. That's perfectly consistent.
Secondly, you misunderstand where the burden of proof lies. You asserted that the rise in the number GMs lends support to your belief that chess culture is creating more high-level players than in the past, thus showing that innate talent does not create GMs (or something to that effect).
By providing an alternate reasonable explanation, I've already proven my point: That your assertion does not logically follow from your supposition. If you say "Y is true because X is true," and I prove that X being true can have other consequences besides Y being true, then that's that.
AnthonyCG wrote:
This sounds very normal. Whenever you learn new things you begin the process of trying to assimilate all of the new stuff you've learned and put it into practice. You're going to run into a few walls for a while while you get used to the new things you've learned. It's like when you get a different set of tires on a car - sure you know how to drive but you will still need to get used to the feel of the new tires before you're able to drive normally again.
Like others have said this can also be a good reason to pace yourself when learning. It's fun to learn new things but give yourself some time to take in the new stuff before you grab more. That is also true of tacos. Mmmm tacos.
Having had a small break from learning so harshly, I have found that the new concepts I was trying to implement are now second nature to me.
Seeing a mistake makes me think "ah, oops... Must remember that for next time" and make a mental note of it. Which is a HUGE improvement of the rage I would have felt a month or so ago.
I like the analogy of the car.
You don't have to take a break from chess, that is ridiculous. To be honest, a lot of what has been written here is over-speculation.
We study chess to become better, and there is no way that it makes us less able to win games. It does NOT. It does exactly the opposite, as it should.
The only thing you have to do is this: give yourself a pat on the back for your improvement as a chess player (from all the knowledge/study) and back all of that work up with one very simple step you take during every match:
1. Before moving, visualize the piece where you will have moved it, now see the board after the change, and then become your opponent - look all around the board and see what this move leaves behind, what it offers your opponent. If you can do that, then believe me, it's an insnat rating change of up to 300 points right there, no joke.
You can even do this rather quickly if it's a quicker kind of match c. 20 mins. If you have more time though, think a bit deeper from your opponent's perspective in reply to the move you want to make. This will become so easy over time that you'll feel like a computer. Then, depending on your level and ability, you'll be thinking on average 2 moves for each side in response to every move.
This is a very straightforward step to take, but often the idea of doing this every turn seems overwhelming. To be honest, you'll probably find it makes the game more interesting rather than cumbersome if anything.
Sep 14, 2011
0
#38
theunderground702 wrote:
You don't have to take a break from chess, that is ridiculous. To be honest, a lot of what has been written here is over-speculation.
We study chess to become better, and there is no way that it makes us less able to win games. It does NOT. It does exactly the opposite, as it should.
The only thing you have to do is this: give yourself a pat on the back for your improvement as a chess player (from all the knowledge/study) and back all of that work up with one very simple step you take during every match:
1. Before moving, visualize the piece where you will have moved it, now see the board after the change, and then become your opponent - look all around the board and see what this move leaves behind, what it offers your opponent. If you can do that, then believe me, it's an insnat rating change of up to 300 points right there, no joke.
You can even do this rather quickly if it's a quicker kind of match c. 20 mins. If you have more time though, think a bit deeper from your opponent's perspective in reply to the move you want to make. This will become so easy over time that you'll feel like a computer. Then, depending on your level and ability, you'll be thinking on average 2 moves for each side in response to every move.
This is a very straightforward step to take, but often the idea of doing this every turn seems overwhelming. To be honest, you'll probably find it makes the game more interesting rather than cumbersome if anything.
Thank you this made me literally lol.
I think every decent player thinks of what his opponents threats are and to claim a 300 point instant rating jump simply from that is, well, hilarious. You call others claims false and u come up with this? I am sorry. BUt, when 1 u tell everyone else they are wrong and 2. u claim a instant 300 point rating jump u are going to get, well, jumped.
Me: Hey mr. carlsen look at what the other player is trying to do as well
Mr. carlsen: Wow, I never thought of that. You know I can now beat rybka 4(3100+ rating) Previously I was only a lowly 2800 and I never thought I would be able to calculate 2 moves ahead. But, now the machine has no chance against my 1-2 punch
Hm ok.
davidegpc wrote:
Again, if you want to be polemic for no reason, or just trolling is ok. To prove that you gave a "reasonable" explanation, you should prove that there was a change in the rules to become GM which made it easier. I don't remember such change, so your invented explanation to me is NOT reasonable, and quite silly.
The rules for becoming GM from Fischer's time to nowadays have become increasingly complex, and make it harder to obtain such title, so your invented explanation is not the cause why we have more than 1200 GMs.
But again feel free to provide evidence of the contrary, instead of inventing an explanation which is not true.
Well, if you personally don't remember such rules changes, then they can't possibly have happened.
The introduction of FIDE ratings in 1970 encouraged more large, international open tournaments. Later in that decade, the FIDE began to peg title norms to the new rating system, thus making norms much more widely available than they used to be.
Those rules changes encouraged the widespread availability of norms tournaments that we see today, when such tournaments were exceedingly rare and clustered in a few geographic areas in the past.
Do not have time to elaborate right now, Have to feed the Dogs, but there are different ways of learning and improving your chess game and skills, you just may not be using a method that is right for you! And you sound like you have the desire for the game, but learning it can be different from person to person.