19 Feb 07
One for the stronger players, this, when did you start to think you had a solid understanding of chess? You know, the sort of level that when someone says such and such a move was indicated you go 'well, of course it was' as opposed to 'umm, why?'?
There are other endeavours where I consider myself to be accomplished and I can pretty much see where I went from living in a void full of facts to actually knowing what I was doing; with chess I'm not there yet.
19 Feb 07
Originally posted by KnightloreI had some training from an IM recently and as much as I did learn from him I also got a much wider sense of how much I don't know. I've heard this quote from a GM: "Staring into the abyss of chess" which seems to explain it.
One for the stronger players, this, when did you start to think you had a solid understanding of chess? You know, the sort of level that when someone says such and such a move was indicated you go 'well, of course it was' as opposed to 'umm, why?'?
There are other endeavours where I consider myself to be accomplished and I can pretty much see where I ...[text shortened]... in a void full of facts to actually knowing what I was doing; with chess I'm not there yet.
Here's a quote from the introduction to John Emms recent book - Discovering Chess Openings: "The study of chess openings is difficult and never ending. It's like Pandoras box: the more you study the more you realize how little you know. If that's the opinion of someone who's been trying for nearly thirty years to get to grips with openings, how does a newcomer to chess find this ever-spiraling science? Intimidating, or is that to mild a description"
There is also this step idea about learning to master something:
1) Unconsciously ignorant
2) Conciously ignorant
3) Consciously knowledgeable
4) Unconsciously knowledgeable
On this scale then I've finally arrived at level 2
19 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KnightloreI have been playing chess for 40 years and it hasn't happened yet. I suppose it is the difference between playing chess and studying chess. Some people view chess as a job, chess is their life and livelihood. Then there are those that view chess as a sport but still take it very seriously and study hard, chess is their life but not their livelihood. I view chess as a hobby, something to unwind and relax with so I don't study it much, chess is neither my life nor my livelihood but it is enormous FUN! I don't think any of those three are wrong, all are equally valid if that is what you want.
One for the stronger players, this, when did you start to think you had a solid understanding of chess? You know, the sort of level that when someone says such and such a move was indicated you go 'well, of course it was' as opposed to 'umm, why?'
19 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KnightloreI think I'll have minimal competence in the basics sometime next year; solid understanding is still a ways off.
One for the stronger players, this, when did you start to think you had a solid understanding of chess? You know, the sort of level that when someone says such and such a move was indicated you go 'well, of course it was' as opposed to 'umm, why?'?
There are other endeavours where I consider myself to be accomplished and I can pretty much see where I ...[text shortened]... in a void full of facts to actually knowing what I was doing; with chess I'm not there yet.