Sequential singletasking
After the maltreatment of my system II for so many years it is time to settle the score. Sorry system II for ignoring your real nature for so long. As a procedural programmer for so many years I should have known better.
I promise you that I will do everything within my power to protect you from multitasking in the future. Just like a procedural computer program your middle name is "sequential".
In order to pamper my system II from now on, I must flatten out the tree of analysis. I must break off the branches and lay them in a row behind each other.
Of course there are recursive actions and conditional branching. But we must protect our system II at all costs from the administration that is involved.
Start with the target with the highest value
Do your thing
Not viable?
Start with the target with the highest value
Do your thing
Not viable?
Start with the target with the highest value
Do your thing
Not viable?
Until you run out of targets.
Start with the most promising point of pressure
Do your thing
Not viable?
Start with the most promising point of pressure
Do your thing
Not viable?
Start with the most promising point of pressure
Do your thing
Not viable?
Until you run out of points of pressure.
That is the kind of simplification we need. After all, we have seen that the tree of scenarios has not so much branches.
Of course we have to work out the different "do your thing"-s. And even more important: how do we know that a line is not viable anymore?
I promise you that I will do everything within my power to protect you from multitasking in the future. Just like a procedural computer program your middle name is "sequential".
In order to pamper my system II from now on, I must flatten out the tree of analysis. I must break off the branches and lay them in a row behind each other.
Of course there are recursive actions and conditional branching. But we must protect our system II at all costs from the administration that is involved.
Start with the target with the highest value
Do your thing
Not viable?
Start with the target with the highest value
Do your thing
Not viable?
Start with the target with the highest value
Do your thing
Not viable?
Until you run out of targets.
Start with the most promising point of pressure
Do your thing
Not viable?
Start with the most promising point of pressure
Do your thing
Not viable?
Start with the most promising point of pressure
Do your thing
Not viable?
Until you run out of points of pressure.
That is the kind of simplification we need. After all, we have seen that the tree of scenarios has not so much branches.
Of course we have to work out the different "do your thing"-s. And even more important: how do we know that a line is not viable anymore?
Tempo asks:
ReplyDelete"And even more important: how do we know that a line is not viable anymore?"
The short answer: YOU DON'T KNOW, in all positions and variations.
The usual (longer) answer is to stop calculating when the position reaches quiescence and make a valuation. However, all that means is that we still have to make a valuation about the "quietness" of the end position(s), in addition to the assessment of the relative values in that final position.
It ALWAYS boils down to a VALUATION (judgement) - according to Dr. Lasker. The accuracy of that valuation is not as important as the belief that the valuation is correct, based on your present knowledge and skill, and is therefore reliable for making decisions. Make your judgement, make your moves accordingly, and then assess the result, refining the judgement.
You may ask: But what if that valuation is NOT correct? YOU MAY LOSE! You then study WHY that valuation was incorrect, and re-evaluate, thereby refining your valuations (and improving your knowledge and skill). If no introspection is performed on WHY your valuation was incorrect, you will not change it, and you will make the same mistaken valuation in similar positions. Only by exercising your valuations can you hope to improve them, perhaps by making finer distinctions about nuances hidden in each position. It is the intense (and repeated) search for the most accurate valuation that drives those improved (more nuanced) valuations into System 1.
Not surprisingly, this is the same process you used to learn how to drive reasonably well within 50 hours. You do not improve continually as a driver BECAUSE YOU STOP Focusing on improvement once you reach an acceptable (to YOU) level of skill. For example, consider if you were suddenly placed in a Formula One race car and told to compete at Le Mans. I submit that you would be woefully UNSKILLED for that challenge, although you might have ADEQUATE skills for driving to and from work, on vacation or a drive in the country, or going shopping in an urban setting.
Acquiring a greater proficiency in a particular skill depends on your level of satisfaction - what is "good enough" to YOU? (It's somewhat similar to the old adage about finding something you have lost. YOU ALWAYS FIND WHAT YOU HAVE LOST IN THE LAST PLACE YOU LOOK FOR IT. Why is that? BECAUSE YOU STOP LOOKING ONCE YOU FIND IT!)
Lather, rinse, repeat until your skill improves to the desired level.
SO EASY TO DO -- N-O-T!!
And, it WILL take a long time (10,00 hours sounds about right, on average, according to the research on "deliberate practice" by Dr. K. Anders Erikkson) and lots of exercises performed regularly with the same intense focus on correcting and refining the valuations. If you're expecting a "miracle" to occur (i.e., there is no need to perform all that effort because we can shortcut the process), then I think you will be disappointed. Every shortcut just means we go down the rabbit hole, wasting previous time.
It is hard to accept that we will not EVER make perfect valuations. Even Grandmasters do not always make perfect valuations; that's why they (sometimes) lose or draw.
Correction: that should be "10,000 hours" not "10,00 hours." Hopefully the context makes that clear.
ReplyDeleteStacia Pugh on how she gained 600 rating points in 2 years, + how she is turning chess into a career
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQdF0yKKtI8
This week on Perpetual Chess, the popular adult improver series makes its triumphant return, with another great guest. I am joined by Stacia Pugh. Stacia has only been playing tournament chess for a few years but has seen her rating rapidly rise to 1777, including a 300 point rise in the past year. What's her story? How did she do it? Stacia joins us to discuss exactly that.
- Stacia retells how she got into chess, and shares how the male and youth dominated chess world has treated an adult woman. She also shares how she is managing to turn her love of chess from a hobby into a career.
- She gives tons of study advice, including book recommendations and a discussion of the study habit that she feels helped her chess the most.
Stacia even made a list of her top 10 chess improvement tips for Perpetual Chess listeners; it can be found at the bottom of this capsule.
To reach Stacia and/or track her progress, you can follow her on twitter, or contact her and read her blog on chess.com.
If you would like to help support the podcast go here.
https://www.perpetualchesspod.com/don...
Stacia's top 10 improvement tips:
1. Maintain balance between hard work and passion
2. Game Analysis - always learn from your mistakes
3. Work with a coach or stronger player
4. Tactics book with themes
5. Teach or explain what you learn (helps solidify)
6. It's not about rating; it's about learning
7. Patterns make you better
8. OTB and community will inspire you and keep your interest
9. Don't forget end game
10. Openings choices should be chosen by someone else! (that knows what they're doing)