tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23075362.post2750572334300938732..comments2024-01-29T13:41:11.764-05:00Comments on Blunder Prone .... Imagination, Inspiration and Improvement: Peering through the amber....BlunderPronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08316158004635698398noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23075362.post-80082274302376156722014-12-19T21:46:47.656-05:002014-12-19T21:46:47.656-05:00I tested on myself that easy tactics like mate in ...I tested on myself that easy tactics like mate in 1 (easy version) may NOT be that simple too improve. In other words - I have solved about 50K puzzles so far and I have gained about progress in a range of 20% (against first average score).<br /><br />Probably other excercises are needed, but I have not tested it yet (if it works) even if I suppose it may be true.Tomaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09690570865003924020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23075362.post-36215672551918964832014-12-14T13:26:28.762-05:002014-12-14T13:26:28.762-05:00Tactics are a skill where you usually dont improve...Tactics are a skill where you usually dont improve, you can solve as many tactical puzzles as you want, you dont improve anymore after something like 4000 puzzles<br />Even simple puzzles as "Mate in 1" are seemingly not improvable ( up to GM-level ) .<br />You can improve to GM-level with tasks like Attack, defend, find all checks, Knight vision ( Troyis ) and others.<br /><br />AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23075362.post-70296543377932641252014-12-14T11:53:25.592-05:002014-12-14T11:53:25.592-05:00BP - nice to see you active again and entertaining...BP - nice to see you active again and entertaining as always.<br /><br />I thought Eric's comment above gives an excellent perspective. <br /><br />Re: the skills issue AoxmoxoA raised, the learning process involves obtaining knowledge, then successfully applying that knowledge however many repetitions it takes for it to become internalized. People's repetition thresholds are different and if your practice is shallow, the internalization process is weak. In other words, you can do the mechanics but you don't understand why they work.<br /><br />I've commented elsewhere that I think tactics problems are good and necessary for improving players, including building pattern recognition for when tactics may be present in a position, but it's more a player's ability to integrate that (and other individual skills/techniques) into their complete game that will matter to the bottom line. I would suggest that the amount of of integration of knowledge is what gives each person their individual "floor" for performance after a hiatus.ChessAdminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02231584333139931889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23075362.post-8893853227007665342014-12-14T09:21:09.691-05:002014-12-14T09:21:09.691-05:00@AoxomoxoA,
I have a hard time understanding the...@AoxomoxoA, <br />I have a hard time understanding the "chess can be learned like a Motor skill" concept. Riding a bike is a motor skill because it requires my limbs and balance. Chess is all in the head. I may move my arm true. <br /><br />In doing over 10,000 tactics in trying to develop "motor skills" for tactics, I am still at odds. True I can recognize more basic patterns, but why do I still miss a lot? I think it has to do with linking the learned pattern to long term memory where it can become a motor skill. Lately, I make myslef more aware of the tactical puzzles I can solve quickly versus those that I don't see right off. Those I can perform quicker are most likely because I have a solid memory marker of that theme or pattern. I use labels. Those that I can't I try and create labels and memory markers. BlunderPronehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08316158004635698398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23075362.post-73347149235643238082014-12-14T06:59:47.016-05:002014-12-14T06:59:47.016-05:00I think that knowledge and memory is not the main ...I think that knowledge and memory is not the main factor for the performance in chess, i think that the most important factor is skill.<br /><br />To perform a job good you need KSA<br />( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge,_Skills,_and_Abilities ) Knowledge, Skills and Abilitys<br /><br />As you can read at wikipedia : Skill - Is an observable competence to perform a learned psychomotor act. ( the meaning of skill is a little different here than the way the word skill used in common )<br /><br />( Motor-) Skills are things you can do ( virtually ) without much thinking and without ( many ) errors.<br />The benefit of skills are that you can perform them parralell ( You may ride a bike and play jojo at the same time ). So the effect of skills multiply. Examples for Chess skills are : to be aware where the pieces are, what they are doing to be able to play blindfold ( visualistation / memorising a game ) maneuvering with a knight, spotting a mate in 1,..., and so forth. So you can see chess skills at a bullet game. A good player can see a good move ( most of the times ) without ( much ) thinking. Magnus will beat us both, if we have an hour at the clock and he has 30 sec ( or so ). He drops no piece because he is instantly aware of all pieces and their contacts, he is atomatically aware of weak pawns........... and because these are skills all that happens "in the same moment"<br /><br />The traditional learning and knowing has seemingly a smaller ( of couse still quite some ) effect.<br />Example:<br />I try to explain lower rated chess-friends to use the principles of an opening, they all know them, but they simply get driven away and start attacking before the development is finished. You can show them over and over again: see you lost that game and you did not finished your opening.. they are suprised but they have problems to APPLY the ( theoretical- )knowledge<br /><br />I am shure we both could sitt with all available chessbocks and unlimited time to read them during a game and still we dont beat a GM. Knowledge, which can be written in a book is not decisiv.<br /><br /><br />To generate skills (psycomotor acts= automated (subconcious) behavior ) from knolwdge that seems to be important.<br /><br />And Skills are "for ever" you dont forget skills ( psycomotor act's). Once you learned to swim, ride byke... you keep this skill for the whole lifeAoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23075362.post-53976237213287308322014-12-14T00:12:41.025-05:002014-12-14T00:12:41.025-05:00Nice to see another post from you, BP.
Besides ...Nice to see another post from you, BP. <br /><br />Besides the ability to remember vast amounts of arcane knowledge pertaining to openings, tactics, and endgames, I think there are a number of other important factors.<br /><br />First of all, let me as an aside, mention the meaning of a 200 point rating differential. <br />200 points means that the higher rated player is 'expected' to win 75% of the time. This can be verified using the 'rating estimator' at USchess.org<br /><br /> In professional sports leagues a team that beats another 75% of the time is considered dominant. But if you matched a major league team against a minor league team or a college team, the results would be far worse for the underdog team than 25%.<br /><br />One of the most important factors besides 'knowledge' is the will to win. In my own games, when I'm playing very casually against weak players, I can play like an 800. I've noticed other good players seem to play fairly hard, even if it's a casual game. Bobby Fischer, on the other hand, was known to be absolutely manic about winning. His resolve was probably worth a hundred rating points vis a vis another player with the hypothetically same knowledge base. <br /><br />I've found that in order to play my best, I have to limit the number of tournament games I play, --kind of like putting a baseball pitcher on a 'pitch count' to make sure he doesn't wear out his arm. I've concluded that playing more than 40 rated games a year will result in me playing without the necessary desire to win, due to having drained my reserves of mental energy. There just isn't much in the tank if I've played too many games in too short a span of time. <br /><br />Then, of course, there are the 'style match up' issues. Player A may consistently lose to Player B, even though their ratings are very close, simply because Player B has a style that's difficult for Player A to play against. But Player A may do fine against Player C, while Player B struggles agaist Player C. And so on and so on . . . <br />Sometimes even a much lower rated player seems to do consistently well against a much higher rated player due to style issues. I see this quite a bit at the club I play at, where many of the members have played each other multiple times . . . Eric Stricklandnoreply@blogger.com