26 May 07
Originally posted by davemustaineTo quote the late Tony Miles, "Utter crap."
Hi guys. I've found another article which deals with improving your ability to focus and concentrate better during Chess Games.
Thought You Might Like It.
http://goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=500720
Bye
26 May 07
1 edit
Not to discredit the author, or discriminate against anything he is saying, but this isn't necessarily the most efficient way to go about it. I say what the hey, it's worth it to try it if you want. But don't get caught up in the idea that it's essential to your aspirations. Meditating is definately not a necessity to staying focused and relaxed. Do what works for you, and if it happens to be meditating that's fine.
26 May 07
Originally posted by davemustaineI invoked Miles' quote for several reasons.
LOL...and y is that??
First, the author really needs to use a spellchecker.
Second, the logic of the article is not formed very well. For example, in the first paragraph, the author states that chess is not a board game. Really? Gee, I kinda thought it was. I suspect the author meant that chess is not JUST a board game. It sometimes is important to be accurate when making statements.
A reader shouldn't have to read halfway through an article before he discovers the main idea of the article (meditation). It would be much clearer to simply add the word meditation in the title of the article. (Also, maybe add the word "chess" to the title?)
Also, the author states that he is sure that the reader knows what meditation is, so the author refuses to define meditation. That seems shortsighted to me. Does everyone really know what meditation is? I doubt it.
Third, there are no supporting data or references that would help to support the author's claim. The author goes on to describe a meditation regimen that supposedly will help one's chess game, but he doesn't give his opinion of WHY meditation should help, other than stating that it will improve concentration and focus. (How EXACTLY does meditation help you in chess? Does it reduce blunders? Does it allow you to calculate better?) To help support the author's assertion, he should, at the least, give a personal testimonial of how meditation helped his chess playing. Also, the author should attempt to reference any other scientific studies that would support his assertion. (Or if none exist, then he should state that none exist.)
So, as you can see, I thought the article was poorly written from a grammatical, logical, and evidential standpoint. I suspect that the article was written in only one draft. One-draft articles usually end up showing many mistakes and weaknesses.
Please note that nowhere in this response did I say that meditation is utter crap. I personally believe that simple exercise is more beneficial than meditation, because exercise helps a person both physically and mentally, while meditation would only work on a mental level, at best. But if someone else believes in meditation, more power to him.
One last question - davemustaine, you wouldn't happen to be Prashant Waikar, would you? Just wondering.
26 May 07
Originally posted by artplayerWell, it's a pendant, not a machine.
That's putting it mildly. He won the US championship when using it. The credit can't exactly go to the machine though.
When asked, Shabalov implied that the pendant was the reason for his victory. However, Alex is known for making jokes, so you can't necessarily take his comment at face value. I would hope that he was joking. I know that chess players can be superstitious, but somehow I find it hard to believe that Alex would think, "No, it wasn't my good play due to my hard work and skill that won the tournament, it was this little trinket around my neck that did it." (Holy lucky rabbit's foot, Batman!) The pendant was a gift from a member of Shabalov's chess club and store, so I suspect that Shabalov was just sending a humorous tribute to the gift giver and maybe having a little fun with the press at the same time.
27 May 07
Originally posted by Mad RookAh, sorry, could you repeat that?
I invoked Miles' quote for several reasons.
First, the author really needs to use a spellchecker.
Second, the logic of the article is not formed very well. For example, in the first paragraph, the author states that chess is not a board game. Really? Gee, I kinda thought it was. I suspect the author meant that chess is not JUST a board game. It someti ...[text shortened]... n - davemustaine, you wouldn't happen to be Prashant Waikar, would you? Just wondering.