classical chess is for crippled old birds
Sort:
We got an expert on chess study here though everyone listen up
At this point I think he’s trolling cause every comment has me cracking up to be honest
Apr 25, 2022
0
#104
CooloutAC wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
Yes, that is studying, and good studying. However, I am merely talking about someone spending all their time playing blitz + bullet + puzzle rush. Studying books and repeating puzzles (accurately!) until you can do them instantly is different.
Doing the same thing online is no different then reading it in a book bud. In fact its arguably better to do that way especially if you goal is to get good playing online. People in the 40s had to read Capablanca's book, which reads like the practice page on lichess, because they didn't have computers back then. I gave the examples of books to show that its the same thing.
Except that... it is not the same as going over a book. If you are doing puzzles, looking at the solution, pondering why it is the solution - that is studying, and good study. Like I said, I am only talking about players who simply play very fast chess.
At some point, they will need to play more accurately in their games.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#105
CooloutAC wrote:
technical_knockout wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
The other climbers is the only way to measure skill. This is not a solo game like golf. Its not even like climbing a mountain at all bud. its a competitive player verse player sport that cannot be played alone.
i compare my skill level to previous positions on the mountain, while enjoying the ever-improving view.
puzzles are basically solo chess. 😁
True, but puzzle rush is not chess is it? It is simply a training exercise to improve at chess.
yes, puzzles are great training exercises for choosing between candidate moves (improved skill).
there is no timer involved, which allows for deep calculation, evaluation & blunder-checks.
3600 puzzles pb & 72 survival rush.
my blitz & bullet are just under 2000:
build a strong foundation from strengthening the underlying mechanics of a game & you can successfully increase your speed later.
It’s completely fine to never resign in blitz. A long rapid game is another thing if your an intermediate- advanced player.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#107
CooloutAC wrote:
Jalex13 wrote:
Cooloutac, my point is that your quoting of professional players is invalid since your level of playing is much different: hence it does not apply. I’m not trying to insult your playing skill, I am using it to show a visible flaw behind your opinion.
Also, I’m not arguing. I’m completely relaxed…not sure about you though.
Also, I’m not arguing. I’m completely relaxed…not sure about you though.
My level of skill is irrelevant, and you areabosoluytely are trying to insult me. You sound like ziryab. Constantly focusing on that to prove your argument means you have no argument bud. I'm not allowed to quote Wesley So? I can't consider what the Super Grandmaster say about the game is more credible then what you tell me?
And like I keep saying, its easy for me to quote them, because what they are saying is common sense. The other reason my chess skill does not matter to this argument. Because this is all common sense related to sports and human nature.
If you want to learn to do something well, it is a logical error to focus on those who do it well. That’s your argument. I disagree.
If I’m down a queen I’m resigning. There’s no point prolonging the inevitable. You don’t need to resign though
Apr 25, 2022
0
#109
I still like the post @stil1 made... improvement is about the learning done in between games.
If you look at a bullet game where you blundered a knight because you were low on time, that doesn't give you much to learn from... but sure, if you study you can still learn.
Games where you did you best but still screwed up, those contain great lessons. That's the main point of playing long games.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#110
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Jalex13 wrote:
Cooloutac, my point is that your quoting of professional players is invalid since your level of playing is much different: hence it does not apply. I’m not trying to insult your playing skill, I am using it to show a visible flaw behind your opinion.
Also, I’m not arguing. I’m completely relaxed…not sure about you though.
Also, I’m not arguing. I’m completely relaxed…not sure about you though.
My level of skill is irrelevant, and you areabosoluytely are trying to insult me. You sound like ziryab. Constantly focusing on that to prove your argument means you have no argument bud. I'm not allowed to quote Wesley So? I can't consider what the Super Grandmaster say about the game is more credible then what you tell me?
And like I keep saying, its easy for me to quote them, because what they are saying is common sense. The other reason my chess skill does not matter to this argument. Because this is all common sense related to sports and human nature.
If you want to learn to do something well, it is a logical error to focus on those who do it well. That’s your argument. I disagree.
Please quote where I said that.
You always focus your arguments on your own experience. You are terrible at chess.
Everyone is terrible when they are a beginner. Some people stay beginners a very long time.
It is good that you pay attention to what GMs say. Maybe you will not always remain a beginner.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#111
I don’t understand why u believe longer time comtrols don’t help with shorter ones, I played a lot of rapid and took a break from blitz, and after getting to 1500 rapid I was able to get from 1270 to 1410 without much effort at all, I was just playing for fun as well the blitz since I couldn’t focus on rapid then .
Apr 25, 2022
0
#112
Jalex13 wrote:
If I’m down a queen I’m resigning. There’s no point prolonging the inevitable. You don’t need to resign though
Depends on who you are playing and how much time they have. Lots of beginners do not yet know how to checkmate with that queen.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#113
CooloutAC wrote:
llama51 wrote:
I still like the post @stil1 made... improvement is about the learning done in between games.
If you look at a bullet game where you blundered a knight because you were low on time, that doesn't give you much to learn from... but sure, if you study you can still learn.
Games where you did you best but still screwed up, those contain great lessons. That's the main point of playing long games.
to be fair analyzing the game is still "learning in between games" In fact probably even more important then anything else because its your own errors you should try not to repeat.
Yeah, but you want your errors to be meaningful.
If you blunder because you had no time to think, then that's not a helpful lesson. In a long game if you believe a kingside attack is justified... even if it ends up working and you win the game... you might discover in analysis that it wasn't justified, and that's learning.
oh come on, this post is just from someone who isn't great at rapid. grandmasters have studied to the point the extra time does not benefit them, so they don't play with it. you have to be good at rapid to be great at blitz. personally, I'm not great at ether, so I will respect the opinion of more experienced players.
I’m not going to win without a queen at my level. It’s pointless
Well yeah if I’m playing an 800 or something I’ll keep playing ofc
it would be so funny if Hikaru or Danya noticed this thread.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#119
llama51 wrote:
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.
Yeah, I am the same with many things. It's arguably more fun to discover or intuit things on your own.
And studying is, for most people, a boring activity. It's tough to encourage studying in something like chess, because playing is obviously far more fun.
But studying here and there, in small, bite-sized doses, can lead to more fun in the long run. Here and there, a player wins because he tried out an idea he saw in a video, or a book. Or they run into a position that they've glanced at before, with an engine, and they get excited about knowing how things should continue from that point on.
I think studying becomes more tolerable (and even enjoyable) when the player begins seeing positive results from it.
Tony Robbins likes to say, in his motivational speeches, that people are driven by progress and results. If you see forward progress, you like it, and start to crave more - and will continue with the steps that you took to get there.
I think the hard part (with chess, at least) is fighting against the addictive quality of the game itself. Who wants to analyze or review when you can, play play play?
It's like asking a kid to eat some vegetables, when there's a whole plate full of cookies nearby. 
every pro player and commentator I have seen talk about the subjects have confirmed what I believe
This is... the literal definition of "confirmation bias"