again, you are programmed to believe chess = classical.
I didn't make this argument.
And you don't defend the arguments you do make.
This generates a lot of replies at the cost of your reputation, but I suppose being degenerately desperate for attention leaves you unconcerned.
I think one time Ben Fingold joked about "white bread" chess by which he meant people learning to play "properly" like a Russian schoolboy so to speak. The other side is park players who might beat masters in blitz, but have never opened a book, can't name an opening or tell you what a bad pawn structure is.
I think this is the one you're thinking of:
at about 7:00
Not only is it conventional wisdom, but it's just common sense.
If you want to be fast and accurate, you first have to practice being slow and accurate... that's not just chess that's anything.
practice being slow to be fast? Thats the opposite of common sense. To reference Christopher Yoo again. He developed his fast intution, pattern recognition, etc by doing puzzle rush bud. not playing classical lol.
I will have to disagree. Many other sports require you to be accurate slow first, before being accurate fast. I took piano lessons for about 6 years; my teacher(s) (two) both constantly told me to slow down, since when I played fast I Was missing notes.
When I played soccer, when our coach would teach us a new technique, he would first show us, and we would go through the motion slowly. Slowly, many times, before speeding it up.
"Why does slowing down work so well? ... First, going slow allows you to attend more closely to errors, creating a higher degree of precision...
As Tom Martinez likes to say, 'It's not how fast you can do it, it's how slow you can do it correctly.'
Second, going slow helps the practicer to develop something more important: A working perception of the skill's internal blueprints."
-Daniel Coyle, "The Talent Code"
When you do something slow, you are able to do it well, and eventually it becomes muscle memory, then you are able to do it fast.
No, the more times you do it the more times it becomes muscle memory. Doing it slow means you won't do it as much. Doing it slow is only learning how to do it in the first place, but not necessarily at doing it fast. This is why alot of these pros do the puzzle rush. Its also what these kids are doing nowadays to improve their "muscle memory" Playing classical is literally the opposite of what you want to achieve imo.
The problem with not doing it right, but doing it repeatedly, is that your "muscle memory" has become a hard habit to break. Blitz reinforces error.
No, the more times you do it the more times it becomes muscle memory. Doing it slow means you won't do it as much.
There's an old saying, "practice doesn't make perfect. Practice makes permanent."
It's important to practice being slow and accurate.
I play badminton a decent bit. When I try and teach anyone, their first mistake is just throwing the birdie up, aiming at it blindly, then totally missing it. I have no idea if their hand eye coordination is just bad but you have to learn a skill slowly first before jumping right into it, or else you will fail since you have little understanding of what you are doing.
I play badminton a decent bit. When I try and teach anyone, their first mistake is just throwing the birdie up, aiming at it blindly, then totally missing it. I have no idea if their hand eye coordination is just bad but you have to learn a skill slowly first before jumping right into it, or else you will fail since you have little understanding of what you are doing.
that's my younger brother lmao
When you do something slow, you are able to do it well, and eventually it becomes muscle memory, then you are able to do it fast.
No, the more times you do it the more times it becomes muscle memory. Doing it slow means you won't do it as much. Doing it slow is only learning how to do it in the first place, but not necessarily at doing it fast. This is why alot of these pros do the puzzle rush. Its also what these kids are doing nowadays to improve their "muscle memory" Playing classical is literally the opposite of what you want to achieve imo.
The pros do puzzle rush because they are already good.
But as you want to progress in blitz, you will eventually have to learn to play better chess. Many top GM blitz games resemble classical games. As for the rest of us? We still need to learn how to play chess accurately first.
“you are acting as if high accuracy determines your skill level in chess.”
IT LITERALLY DOES THOUGH LMAO
I can't consider what the Super Grandmaster say about the game
You've quoted many grandmasters in this topic, it's true.
I'm waiting for you to quote one that supports your point.
How you play the game is less important than how you study the game, in my opinion.
Studying is the secret to improvement. It's where the majority of your learning happens. And that's a separate activity that doesn't involve playing.
If you really want to improve, playing should be used to practice what you've already studied - to test your lines, to experiment with your ideas. Not lines and ideas that you think of in the moment - but lines and ideas that you've studied beforehand.
If you aren't studying, then you're probably relying on trial and error. Just trying to "figure it out" on your own. This means improvement is going to be relatively slow, regardless of whether you play classical or blitz . . .
Not only is it conventional wisdom, but it's just common sense.
If you want to be fast and accurate, you first have to practice being slow and accurate... that's not just chess that's anything.
practice being slow to be fast? Thats the opposite of common sense. To reference Christopher Yoo again. He developed his fast intution, pattern recognition, etc by doing puzzle rush bud. not playing classical lol.
I will have to disagree. Many other sports require you to be accurate slow first, before being accurate fast. I took piano lessons for about 6 years; my teacher(s) (two) both constantly told me to slow down, since when I played fast I Was missing notes.
When I played soccer, when our coach would teach us a new technique, he would first show us, and we would go through the motion slowly. Slowly, many times, before speeding it up.
"Why does slowing down work so well? ... First, going slow allows you to attend more closely to errors, creating a higher degree of precision...
As Tom Martinez likes to say, 'It's not how fast you can do it, it's how slow you can do it correctly.'
Second, going slow helps the practicer to develop something more important: A working perception of the skill's internal blueprints."
-Daniel Coyle, "The Talent Code"
Thats because it is not a sport. Again, you are acting as if high accuracy determines your skill level in chess. It does not. Only your win/loss/draw does. And do I really have to quote Levon and Hikaru again for you? Or Findegold?
[]
Again, noone is saying that classical is not easier for beginners. But to then at the same time claim it is more advanced and difficult. is a contradiction. Even according to your piano analogy.
Of course, a single game's accuracy does not determine your skill level in chess, I acknowledge that. However, if you are able to be consistently more accurate than your opponent, you are probably improving or at the very least better than your opponent.
Slow chess aims to practice being accurate; once you are accurate enough at a certain part (let us use rook and king vs king endgame), you will be able to play it fast.
For example, top players can play really well really fast when up an entire piece. An 800 will probably blunder the extra piece away.
My point is, you practice being accurate; therefore, when you play blitz, you can play accurately faster, thus improving at blitz.
As much as I say everything, I doubt we’re ever gonna convince you. You aren’t going to change your opinion simply because some dudes on an online forum told you that you were wrong. And honestly, I can’t even remember what we’re talking about in the first place lol
How you play the game is less important than how you study the game, in my opinion.
Studying is the secret to improvement. It's where the majority of your learning happens. And that's a separate activity that doesn't involve playing.
If you really want to improve, playing should be used to practice what you've already studied - to test your lines, to experiment with your ideas. Not lines and ideas that you think of in the moment - but lines and ideas that you've studied beforehand.
If you aren't studying, then you're probably relying on trial and error. Just trying to "figure it out" on your own. This means improvement is going to be relatively slow, regardless of whether you play classical or blitz . . .
Nice post, and you know, there are some things in my life I'm not good at (or knowledgeable about) because I enjoy the (as you put it) trial and error. I don't want to study for 100s of hours, I want to enjoy discovering things on my own, even if that means I'm stuck discovering beginner level things.
I think this might be one reason people get stuck below certain ratings.
i compare my skill level to previous positions on the mountain, while enjoying the ever-improving view.
puzzles are basically solo chess. 😁