13 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by zebanoIm reading a book called Mastery by George Leonard. He talks about "the Mastery Curve" This is where your improving but at an up and down pace.
Anyone else notice this? I seem to lose lots of games all at the same time... then go for awhile without a loss, then lose a bunch...
The three types of potential masters are "the Dabbler, the Obsessive and the Hacker"
Intresting theorys about becoming a master at anything, even chess 😀
13 Jan 06
Originally posted by GrandmousterCould you brief synopsis of his findings about the 3 types of potentials? I personall see components of both the Obsessive and the Hack in myself (assuming the definitions from common rhetoric).
Im reading a book called Mastery by George Leonard. He talks about "the Mastery Curve" This is where your improving but at an up and down pace.
The three types of potential masters are "the Dabbler, the Obsessive and the Hacker"
Intresting theorys about becoming a master at anything, even chess 😀
13 Jan 06
Originally posted by zebanoAccording to the author "The dabbler approaches each new sport, career opportunity, or relationship with enormous enthusiasm. He or she loves the rituals involved in getting started, the spiffy equipment, the lingo, the shine of newness. "
Could you brief synopsis of his findings about the 3 types of potentials? I personall see components of both the Obsessive and the Hack in myself (assuming the definitions from common rhetoric).
He goes on to say, that once the dabbler hits a wall, he gives up, and finds a new intrest.
The obsesive pushes through the wall, and is a perfectionsit type.
The hacker is content to stay at a certain level, and is more consitant. but doesnt stride to get better.
Relationships may crumble, if the other person,or fellow hacker (or wife) or friend gets better.
Thats basicly what he's saying. I borrowed this book from someone, and need to finish reading it
13 Jan 06
Originally posted by GrandmousterI guess that makes me an obsessive without enough time to obsess. What I find odd is how you refered to the 3 types as potential masters which seems counterintuitive in the case of dabblers and hackers who almost certainly will not become masters. Is there any given breakdown of each type that suceeds in becoming masters?
According to the author "The dabbler approaches each new sport, career opportunity, or relationship with enormous enthusiasm. He or she loves the rituals involved in getting started, the spiffy equipment, the lingo, the shine of newness. "
He goes on to say, that once the dabbler hits a wall, he gives up, and finds a new intrest.
The obsesive push ...[text shortened]... ts basicly what he's saying. I borrowed this book from someone, and need to finish reading it
13 Jan 06
Originally posted by zebanoYes - I've been watching your chess career closely and you do seem to lose lots of games all at the same time...then you go for awhile without a loss, then lose a bunch. Why do you think this is so?
Anyone else notice this? I seem to lose lots of games all at the same time... then go for awhile without a loss, then lose a bunch...
13 Jan 06
Originally posted by zebanotounge in chess (cheek) I ment by potential masters, is everyone starts out with goals. Some want to be the next world champion, or some just want to get better.
I guess that makes me an obsessive without enough time to obsess. What I find odd is how you refered to the 3 types as potential masters which seems counterintuitive in the case of dabblers and hackers who almost certainly will not become masters. Is there any given breakdown of each type that suceeds in becoming masters?
For me i want to become a master, so i think of myself as an obsessive.
For chess players, their goals should be to master chess.
Along the way to mastery, are seemingly endless books, software, advice, and ups and downs.
I found the best way to study anything, even chess.
This technology i can pass on to anyone intrested.
I would post it here, but somepeople tend to be critical of my past post regarding this, and i dont want to fed the trolls.
13 Jan 06
could be due to insomnia, stress, not enough time etc... one bad move is often enough to lose a game, and if you have a day or two of sub-par performance, you tend to mess up most of your current games. not necessarily by committing fatal blunders, but statistically bad enough to give a harvest of lost games in a week or two.
also, random things tend to create waves. fluctuation is the norm. 'losing streaks' would emerge even in flipping coins. and human brain is very good at spotting that kind of patterns. you can see anything in the clouds.