When everything else fails. . .
Ever since somebody lyed to me about the very existence of Santa Claus, I decided to take nothing for granted anymore.
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:
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:
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:)
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:)
A useful autobiography...it helps unwrap the mystery that is Temposchlucker. Are you a scientist or programmer? You have that kind of vibe :)
ReplyDeleteFrom this patzer's standpoint, it seems very reasonable that building up pattern recognition skills is key: that's what all the GM's say, what MDLM says, and resonates with my limited experience (it's the reason I joined this crazy group of Knights in the first place).
I frankly think your insanely-high-volume approach will improve your chess (at least once you have integrated your learning into your OTB play a little bit). It may take more than seven circles, given the number of problems at CTS, but it should be possible.
It is weird: people, without training or heavy attention, can remember up to recognize 10,000 vivid pictures that they were shown the previous day (I'm trying to track down the reference to check their methodology). Why is it so hard for our brain to learn 10,000 chess patterns?
You did all these things:
ReplyDeleteTo 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
without a rating increase. I wonder if you did none of these things whether you would of improved by 200 rating points once you studied tactics.
Maybe the tactical study unlocked the key to the value found in those other studies. You can actual use some of the endgame knowledge now that you are tactical sound.
Then again I have slowed down on my tactical studies and my ratings have gone right down the hopper!
Merry Christmas
Tak,
ReplyDeleteThat's not how it felt.
Actually it felt very extreme.
It was as if during the tactics training I suddenly gained more powers. Essentially it felt as if the main growth in powers happened in only 6 weeks during tactical training.
As if only when every detail of your training is in line a spike in results take place. If only one minor detail isn't in line, nothing happens.
You have brought up alot of different factors in these last posts. I know know if this will help, I often catch myself thinking, "I am as good as I am ever going to get". On further reflection, I do think it's more likely that after 6-8 months after I have stopped the circles I will probably integrate what I was studying into a better framework.
ReplyDeleteI suspect your right about CTS as being *a* way to improve but not the best; still it's unclear what it will yield you half a year from now.