It literally works in most aspects of life. Great article!
Could it be that one's simple is another's genius or vice versa? I always play simple, Im not a genius, but I over complicate things? How?, if that is the simplest move I see? Maybe positional understanding?
Everything you are saying sounds very comprehensible, and I believe it is an excellent guideline which often leads to success. However, it also contradicts Emanuel Lasker's famous saying "When you see a good move, look for a better one”, which I believe is very true, too. So, how to dissolve this contradiction?
By the way, I also agree to NoMercyNate1991's profound analysis.
By the way, I also agree to NoMercyNate1991's profound analysis.
@BlackTiger39 said in #24:
> Everything you are saying sounds very comprehensible, and I believe it is an excellent guideline which often leads to success. However, it also contradicts Emanuel Lasker's famous saying "When you see a good move, look for a better one”, which I believe is very true, too. So, how to dissolve this contradiction?
> By the way, I also agree to NoMercyNate1991's profound analysis.
You have two problems with this.
1. It is true that Lasker said this, but he said it in a time period when clocks were normally set very high if at all. And it was very high probability that they would adjourn the game. So having enough time to look for better moves was a good thing.
2. This quote from lasker is categorically used in such a way as to learn how to formulate a plan and try to better your analysis. It does not mean to continually look for a better move for ever for example. (Going by the fact that you can take literal context out of the quote.) You use it to better analysis. In other words, if you think you have a good move, you should look for better (If time allows it) but the otherside of that is, if you think you have a good move, you should also blunder check. Having the idea that you don't have to have a genuis move AND you practice doing better moves should be synergistic.. Not antagonistic.
> Everything you are saying sounds very comprehensible, and I believe it is an excellent guideline which often leads to success. However, it also contradicts Emanuel Lasker's famous saying "When you see a good move, look for a better one”, which I believe is very true, too. So, how to dissolve this contradiction?
> By the way, I also agree to NoMercyNate1991's profound analysis.
You have two problems with this.
1. It is true that Lasker said this, but he said it in a time period when clocks were normally set very high if at all. And it was very high probability that they would adjourn the game. So having enough time to look for better moves was a good thing.
2. This quote from lasker is categorically used in such a way as to learn how to formulate a plan and try to better your analysis. It does not mean to continually look for a better move for ever for example. (Going by the fact that you can take literal context out of the quote.) You use it to better analysis. In other words, if you think you have a good move, you should look for better (If time allows it) but the otherside of that is, if you think you have a good move, you should also blunder check. Having the idea that you don't have to have a genuis move AND you practice doing better moves should be synergistic.. Not antagonistic.
When you find mate, look for a better one :)
lots of stars, even in the human visible hemisphere moonless night. It is a eureka, until there are other eurékas nested behind.
I say, seek the eureka(s).. They are always dependent on your prior knowledge or state of learned chess player, and are stepping stones to digesting explorative expereince, i.e. more temporary eurakas.... Also, a genius moment or eureka, does not have to a be a win all the time. Finding that an hypothesis born of previous experience and need to understand it, does not generalize as much as first shot of theorizing (for oneself, we all have that going on) would have had it, given our trajectory biases so far, which usually happens by probably negative feedback with respect to chess competition outcome rules, can be has rewarding. and can keep that wheel going for self. And is compatible with sharing such things with others, in multipartites discussions, where "low" level hypothesis sharing as question or even argument is fair game.
I find at my non blogger level and humble naïve chess player, still serious about the chess that happens on the board in any game, that, on the contrary, seeking the surprises from own previous tentative eureka generalizations, is what keeps me daily coming back to some chess study. Not the same chess probably. Not the same ultimate goals or priority with respect of daily energies put into chess anything. I assume the title direction is about top level performance imperative, needing one to be humble about the board or how big chess is. Sorry, that is a valid point, but the conclusion or the attitude proposition could be nuanced for all levels of chess.. Which is the direction that these blogs might be transmitting to. If they took the lobby space for lichess user intercom activities, I would think that this transmission to all, is valid point I just made.
I say, seek the eureka(s).. They are always dependent on your prior knowledge or state of learned chess player, and are stepping stones to digesting explorative expereince, i.e. more temporary eurakas.... Also, a genius moment or eureka, does not have to a be a win all the time. Finding that an hypothesis born of previous experience and need to understand it, does not generalize as much as first shot of theorizing (for oneself, we all have that going on) would have had it, given our trajectory biases so far, which usually happens by probably negative feedback with respect to chess competition outcome rules, can be has rewarding. and can keep that wheel going for self. And is compatible with sharing such things with others, in multipartites discussions, where "low" level hypothesis sharing as question or even argument is fair game.
I find at my non blogger level and humble naïve chess player, still serious about the chess that happens on the board in any game, that, on the contrary, seeking the surprises from own previous tentative eureka generalizations, is what keeps me daily coming back to some chess study. Not the same chess probably. Not the same ultimate goals or priority with respect of daily energies put into chess anything. I assume the title direction is about top level performance imperative, needing one to be humble about the board or how big chess is. Sorry, that is a valid point, but the conclusion or the attitude proposition could be nuanced for all levels of chess.. Which is the direction that these blogs might be transmitting to. If they took the lobby space for lichess user intercom activities, I would think that this transmission to all, is valid point I just made.
nice, simple and short.
good one
@kimia_ashirley said in #22:
> Yes, but this is low. Tesla's IQ was 210. :)
how old are you? my friend's brother's iq was 160 when he was 10 (somehow)
> Yes, but this is low. Tesla's IQ was 210. :)
how old are you? my friend's brother's iq was 160 when he was 10 (somehow)