Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hi Thabtos, I think you are correct but it struck me as i was doing some puzzles that it essentially comes down to the decision making process and how on earth one even goes about improving that process. For example, its relatively easy to go through ones own games and find mistakes, tactical ones especially, because they stick out. So what is the ...[text shortened]... ove a mentor is a must, its simply not possible to be completely objective, at least not for me.
Methinks that if the chessplayer does not learn, he suffers of a lack of specific methods of learning and training. So don’t question the capabilities of your mind, but the value of the differ learning methods that you follow.
I assume that you did your homework and you are already familiar with the tactical and positional aspects of the Royal Game (if not, then you have to go back there).
I also assume that you already know that you have to plan. In order to plan, you must evaluate the position (static and dynamic evaluation). It follows that the learning methods in order to go further must cope with specific needs of the chessplayer (exploitation of tactical and positional aspects) in relation to the dynamism of the position; can the position be transformed to a new one, according to your convenience? How? Over here, rearrange and calculate. We may be unable to calculate very deeply, but we are still able to contribute for a successful transformation. To realize how hard is to predict an occurring position, you must realize how hard was to predict the current position that must be evaluated right now. For there is always a turning point that you must be aware of its existence. If you cannot spot such a turning point, you have to study in depth specific openings. The spot is the transformation of the position from the phase of the opening to the phase of the middlegame; another spot is the transformation of the position from the phase of the middlegame to the phase of the endgame; other spots arise during the game whenever there is a chance for a tactical blow, a chance for achieving a positional advantage, a chance for transforming a specific positional advantage into another or others that cause more problems to the opponent, a chance to press on time, a chance to keep the pieces you want to keep and to exchange the ones you want to exchange, a chance to immobilize the pawns and thus the whole army of the opponent, a chance to mobilize in full your pawns by means of breaks in one or more areas, a chance to get the initiative and turn it into a concrete advantage... If you cannot identify such spots, you must go back and learn how to evaluate;
To me, Chess is revolutionary; if you want to go further, you have to apply constantly fruitful learning methods with a single aim: to be able to plan how the position will change.
Remember: a revolutionary process is accelerated whenever it uses its own means for further evolution. I see the Royal Game as a constant struggle (in the mind) between education and demolition. The “openings” are not “designed” in order to help “us” to overcome the difficulties the chessplayers do face today. They were designed to ease specific chessplayers to cope with Their specific needs back then, and to ease Them to overcome the challenge they faced. So it is not enough to “train”. One has to Change. Therefore, to believe that the “opening” is just a preparation drill that must be followed for “something” that will happen “later on”, to me means simply that the person who holds this belief thinks that the first 16-18 moves are nothing but a “preparation”. However, the War starts from the very first move. One can well go down the drain during the opening. So a learning method that envelops specific repertoires, to me is a good learning method;
Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein did not answered an old problem. The merely posed a new question. Success in chess is related to the exploitation of specific learning methods, and of course of the way the educated chessplayer thinks. Our theses and beliefs can turn us into slaves of the opponent, or they can serve us so that our opponent ends up defeated. There is no comfort zone during the game. The dynamism of the position is the chessplayer alone; if the mind of the chessplayer is blocked, the dynamism of the position is non-existent to him. So a learning method that points towards dynamism (Suba), to me is a good learning method;
The mind copes with the differ drills we follow or we follow not. We have fantasy. The fantasy that works, is a concrete fantasy that wins games. So a learning method that envelops fantasy and hard work (Kotov), to me is a good learning method;
We don’t see the position “as it is” but through lenses. So a learning method that envelops specific ways of evaluation (Przewoznick & Soszynski), to me is a good learning method;
Creativity is crucial (be prepared to make mistakes and blunders, and learn how to minimize the blunders; get to know what works and what does not work. Creativity goes through differ phases, and in most situations it is impossible to come up with a total analysis and thus a totally clear image of the position we want to reach. Do not think that you are not creative simply because you tend to believe that creativity means “to have a totally clear image”. Creativity is the tetraktys of the Royal Game, a plexus of different ways of Seeing, Thinking, Evaluating and Acting). So a learning method that envelops creativity (ie endgame puzzles, studies etc), to me is a good learning method;
Individuality and authenticity! The way you feel and the way you think, in relation to the way your opponent feels and thinks, is the generator of the positions you enjoy. Since we play the Royal Game in order to Enjoy, a learning method that envelops individuality and authenticity (as many OTB and CC games as possible), to me is a good learning method;
All the best to you and yours my trusty feer Robbie, I wish you a Happy New Year!
Happy New Year to everybody and to all RHP members and friends too😵
24 Dec '12 22:14
YouTube
Why do we find it hard to improve?
Back to Top