What Chess Idea is Ready for Retirement?

I was inspired by John Brockman's,

What scientific idea is ready for retirement?

Here are some possible ideas to consider,

- Uniformity and uniqueness of the Universe?
- Left-brain/Right-brain?
- Long-term memory is immutable?
- Spacetime?
- The Power of statistics?
etc.

We could also ask, What history idea is ready for retirement? Something @batgirl would possibly appreciate. Few candidates may be,

- Mesopotamia is the first advanced civilization?
- History is and should be science?
- An account mostly false, brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools? etc.

Of course, this post is about chess. So my question is, What chess idea is ready for retirement?

Here's few suggestions,

- We should start teaching the Beginner the moves first?
- Openings are very important?
- Engines can teach you something?, etc.

What's your thoughts? what chess ideas may be ripe to send to the graveyard of history?

Oleg Osipoff, The Japanese Girl in Red, 1999

"Chess is about fun."

No, it isn't. It's a ruthless grind.

What do you suggest we teach beginners first if not the moves?

(I modestly suggest that the very first instruction to a beginner is that the point of the game is to capture the king, rather than confuse the issue with garbage about stopping the game the very move before the whole point of the game happens.)

Know what you mean. The idea of self-development is exciting, but the process is usually a bit dull. There’s a lot of hard, boring work to do before we can reap the rewards. If any. Sometimes, it is methods we use that are unfit for the purpose.

Everything we know of is a system having three aspects,

1) members with their properties

2) interactions/relationships/roles/jobs between the members of the system

3) system function, purpose, raison d’être

Only ##2 and 3 give meaning and understanding to what is going on. 

Teaching the moves first is like teaching a kid how to kick the football randomly, aimlessly, into the air, on the first day of practice, which, you would agree, would make no sense at all 

Fun question.

About history: it's one big fraud. Pyramids are pre-Younger-Dryas, so are advanced civilizations. HIstory is about grants and about politics. Believe nothing. Check out channels on youtube: UnchartedX and "Bright Insight" and be a critical thinker too.

As it comes to chess, the biggest incorrect information is that chess masters have a clear image of the physical appearance of the board and pieces. Study has shown  they remember abstracts, tons of them. But as soon as they try to remember the board as it is, it becomes blurry for them just as well. So you're not the only one.

Here's a white paper. Feel free to read. It's accessible material and the chess player will understand what really to train:

Chess as a Behavioral Model

Hoi Machariel, thanks for checking in.

You're right. To find their way in a complex and uncertain world, humans develop and use very simple abstract mental models of reality to make intelligent decisions. They prove to be very efficient. They are mind maps that give orientation and direction in the maze of life.

Yet, we don't know much about it.

"Cognitive constraints are very elementary... People never mention them in [speak aloud] protocols, though they obviously follow them. One cannot find them in chess books, and I have found that chess players are not familiar with them. The cognitive constraints seem to be very much like the grammatical rules. We follow them unconsciously and unintentionally to represent the environment in a senseful manner" (FM Pertti Saariluoma, Professor of cognitive science, FIDE 2350).

I was actually looking for a fitting pic for mental models and ran across this. Hope you guys would forgive me putting up this model 

@Machariel and thanks for providing the link for chess as a behavioral model. Yet I couldn't find that most elementary pattern of all chess, the basic piece relationship we talked about before

Keep looking. It's there somewhere ;D

I see 48 basics contacts (three of them irregular) white men established

Chess is 1, 0, or 1/2.

Many girls stay away from chess. I'd like to see the presumptions about who can become a good chess player changed.

I avoided learning chess because of the mythology that in order to succeed at chess, one must be:

1. Good at math

2. Have great spatial-relations abilities

3. Have lots of testosterone - (want to fight and kill)

Chess most closely resembles language-learning skills. Finding just the right word in a new language becomes easier with constant exposure. I remember an expert, (now a  GM ), who played non-stop quick games with a better player. His rating shot up - just like immersion language learning.  Context, though, is everything.

 Like language, one must be able to perceive  the essential truth of an idea, (when reviewing Master games), then use that idea properly, in a different context. A knight, squatting in front of an isolated pawn may be perfect in a closed struggle for the center, but if your opponent is shredding your castled position, the outpost is not worth a dime. 

I would love to see the qualities expected in candidate learners changed from their male-centric focus. 

In order to become a great chess player, one must:

1. Love to learn a new language or musical instrument. 

2. Love creativity, (each player can dance as she pleases). 

It's time for guys to stop posting this variation of the "Boys Only" sign. We know you poor dudes are terrified of us, but you'll have so much more fun when you find out we're not scary. 

Exactly. Men like to solve problems. It's heritage from the stone age when they needed to overcome problems to steal that T-Rex from the Sabretooth's mouth and bring it home for the women to make some T-bone steak. (Get it, get it? T-Rex, T-bo... oh nevermind). So each time I move a pawn I can feel the prehistoric Sabretooth-defying manly goodness in me awakening.

But what do women see when they attempt to play chess? They think three things and it's all about the queen:

1: her butt is too big

2: how can I get that crown on my head and when will my husband pay for that damn thing?

3: I don't like her

Behold this important and totally reliable academic paper of why so few women play chess.

The game can and should be expanded, If that fits into your title. I advanced ‘Format Chess’ some time ago, and should like to see it become prevalent. In that game, the pieces start on the second rank, and the pawns on the third.

Secondly, with today’s technology there is no reason why audio cannot be ascribed to the pieces if the players so desire. Any language, tone, dialect etc.. Basically lack of imagination is ready for “Retirement”.

Tangent, yes, it's called a joke. Unrelated, no.

Whoah, thanks for that link Machariel!

"Many of the [blindfold] masters report that they have no mental image [of the board and pieces] at all"

Here I was driving myself crazy trying to see the light and dark squares in "seeing" a position in my head, but it turns out the blindfold masters were doing it my way after all!  (only far, far better.)

You're welcome sir!

What gives meaning and purpose to any situation is the structure of Functional Relationships between the actors and possibilities and intentions rising out of it.

Once you've mastered to see this, you would be able to mentally visualize and retain any position no matter how complex it may be