So if someone is telling me something, it is stored internally in a file "unverified".
Only after I checked the facts myself it is relocated to the file "true according to known facts" or "false according to known facts".
At a later stage relocating between true and false can take place when new facts become known.
At that stage doubt is unnecessary. I just flick between files whenever new facts arrive.
This attitude towards the things people are telling you has upsides and downsides.
On the upside:
- Nobody can easily cheat me.
- I don't spend energy at good advice which isn't verified by the advicer. It is simply unbelievable how many people are stuffed to the eyeballs with good advice which they haven't checked or live by themselves. You can spent your whole life following such advice without coming a millimeter further.
- I trot on places nobody has gone before.
- People think I'm selfopinionated, arrogant and pedantic. From this place I like to apologize for that. I hope you can now understand a little where it comes from.
- I have to find out everything myself. So experimenting became part of my life. I'm used to it and I very like it.
- I can't be lazy.
Especially in a learning situation my attitude has a large impact.
Nothing is believed based solely on the blue eyes of the teacher.
To prevent teachers from being driven mad by me I have a special internal file called "hypothesis".
A special thing about it is that it is a temporary file.
From everything that's stored here I ASSUME it is true. And I act AS IF it is true.
But I have the severe obligation to undertake everything that's within my capability to prove the hypothesis or to flaw it. I regard it as my duty to NOT steer things in a direction I WANT to be true. That is, I'm really trying to be objective.
When a hypothesis is flawed, I feel the obligation to develope another hypothesis, untill I have found a hypothesis that covers all facts and that proofs to be true.
So how about improving at chess?
The past 8 years I allready tried the following:
- To study openings
- To study positional play
- To study master games
- To study endgames
- To write a chess program
- To play a lot
- To play a lot blitz
- To work with a thoughtprocess
- To visualize the board and pieces
- To play blindfolded
- To solve tactical problems without repetition
- To solve heavy tactical problems with lots of calculation
- To solve tactical problems 7 times
Until now every hypothesis is flawed.
Except for solving tactical puzzles, which helped me to improve 200 rating points before stalling.
The hypothesis I'm working on right now can be summarized as:
After you reach a certain level, improvement in chess can be achieved mainly by pattern recognition.
Working with CTS in the way I described in an earlier post is intended to train pattern recognition. I consider CTS as a bad way to train pattern recognition, but never the less A way.
Since this is not the time to develop a better method, I stick with CTS until the hypothesis is proven or flawed.
The positive thing I can report is that the hypothesis isn't flawed until today, while all previous hypothesises have been flawed at an earlier stage.
I hope this unenigmatizes things a little:)