PDA

View Full Version : Junior performance and training



auriga
07-12-2004, 11:16 AM
Amiel,

It is a great thingo, I agree.
Try charting Chris Wallis and Zhigen Lin, then come back with a prediction of where it will end.

starter

link below will save you some typing.
(ie. a= is player 1 and b= is player 2)

http://www.chessaustralia.com.au/index.cfm?p=ratings_multi&a=Wallis,%20Chris&b=Lin,%20Zhigen

DoroPhil
07-12-2004, 02:18 PM
Try charting Chris Wallis and Zhigen Lin, then come back with a prediction of where it will end.

starter

Starter, could I suggest charting, say, D. Bourmistrov and J.Nemeth, for a prediction of where Wallis and Lin will end up (ie. hovering just above 2000 and not really going anywhere)?

ursogr8
07-12-2004, 04:25 PM
Starter, could I suggest charting, say, D. Bourmistrov and J.Nemeth, for a prediction of where Wallis and Lin will end up (ie. hovering just above 2000 and not really going anywhere)?


Phil O'Dor
You can suggest anything you like on the bb; provided you are keen to defend the view. No need for my imprimatur.

Personally I don't see the parallel in your new pairing.
Z W Lin is rated 1819 at U12...........and that is miles ahead of DB and JN at the same age. So, whatever malaise you think is affecting the older pair is probably not relevant to the younger pair.

But, I will watch with interest for Denis' response to your post. Good luck; or duck.

starter

ursogr8
07-12-2004, 04:34 PM
Amiel,

It is a great thingo, I agree.
Try charting Chris Wallis and Zhigen Lin, then come back with a prediction of where it will end.

starter

And where do all these rating point increases come from? Phil O'Dor has his theory that two posters here have (already) squandered their 70 point inheritance from Bill.
Other contributors are
John Butler, and
xxxxxxxxxx, who was supposedly made famous in a game against 'starter'

starter

DoroPhil
08-12-2004, 07:30 AM
Phil O'Dor

Personally I don't see the parallel in your new pairing.
Z W Lin is rated 1819 at U12...........and that is miles ahead of DB and JN at the same age.

starter

Are you sure, starter? So, ZWL is 1819 now. Ok. If we are to subtract 220 rating points (that Gletsos gave away 'cause he had nothing better to do with his time) we will arrive at 1599.

Now, I think that's about where our little Denis was when he was that age. And, as you can see from his posts elsewhere on bb, it's all downhill from there.

ursogr8
08-12-2004, 07:47 AM
Are you sure, starter? So, ZWL is 1819 now. Ok. If we are to subtract 220 rating points (that Gletsos gave away 'cause he had nothing better to do with his time) we will arrive at 1599.

Now, I think that's about where our little Denis was when he was that age. And, as you can see from his posts elsewhere on bb, it's all downhill from there.

Phil O'Dor

Your insightful analysis has cast doubts into my mind.
But I will leave the comeback on your post to Denis; he is on hols and has all day to turn waffle into whine or vice versa.
Personally, I am still reeling from the shock that maybe my current all-time high ranking may be unearned.

Listen Phil, can you just whisper what is your ACF Id. and I will use quanta's beaut plotter to dial in and look with admiration at your monotonically increasing sequence (after Gletsos deflation, of course).

starter

Denis
08-12-2004, 10:35 AM
Now, I think that's about where our little Denis was when he was that age. And, as you can see from his posts elsewhere on bb, it's all downhill from there.

You have made a powerful enemy mr Dero. :evil:

Your own rating has been steadily decreasing over these past years also and lets take 220 away from that too, not so flash, huh? :hmm:

My chess has taken a slight receeding path prehaps on a par with your hairline I don't argue that, but that is due to my distractions in the world around us. :owned:

However your argument stinks like a week old dog carcass as Zong, Smurf were at that strength or lower at that age. And Ian only started playing in his teens, Darryl was 2000 at 21.

Thanks for the English lesson, maybe you should take it up as a proffession, I hear there is a shortage of kindergarden teachers here in Victoria. :ko:

Rincewind
08-12-2004, 10:39 AM
I wonder if we are not wandering slightly off topic here. I love friendly banter as much as the next man. However, I believe wasting such gems in the rating forums might be unwise. Why not post in the Non-Chess forums, where they could be appreciated by a wider audience?

Denis
08-12-2004, 10:47 AM
I have a technical question about our rating system. If we were to put 10 chessplayers in a cell at the bottom of the ocean. And they all were rated 1800. And they were set to play rated game against each other. Would this controlled environment, cause an inflation of ratings or deflation or would they all average out to 1800 forever?

Something that has troubled my sleep for many years. :doh:

Rincewind
08-12-2004, 11:06 AM
I have a technical question about our rating system. If we were to put 10 chessplayers in a cell at the bottom of the ocean. And they all were rated 1800. And they were set to play rated game against each other. Would this controlled environment, cause an inflation of ratings or deflation or would they all average out to 1800 forever?

Something that has troubled my sleep for many years. :doh:

Does this answer your question?

Alan Shore
08-12-2004, 01:17 PM
Does this answer your question?

Not at all - you assume all ratings are !!

With different RD variables you'd get some very different readings.

Based upon Glicko history, ratings tend to deflate rather than inflate or stay the same. For evidence of this, log onto FICS and check out some 'best' ratings for players a few years ago and they're often much higher than their present values.

Glicko works very ell in the ACF system however as it's a more controlled environment. However, it needed 'Bill tweaking' to be applied for better accuracy.

DoroPhil
08-12-2004, 02:39 PM
Your own rating has been steadily decreasing over these past years also and lets take 220 away from that too, not so flash, huh? :hmm:

You think you know who I am, don't you, little Denis? That's quite amuzing. Methinks you are just as clueless as Mr. Starter was on some other thread.


My chess has taken a slight receeding path prehaps on a par with your hairline :

When starter mentioned taxi license, I immediately knew that he was thinking I was Hacche. Now this "receding hairline" reference puzzles me somewhat as I haven't been involved a lot in a chess scene at recent times, so I am not so sure who's losing hair at the moment. So, what am I? Rujevic? Jordan? Maybe even Johansen?

Rincewind
08-12-2004, 05:31 PM
Not at all - you assume all ratings are !!

With different RD variables you'd get some very different readings.

Based upon Glicko history, ratings tend to deflate rather than inflate or stay the same. For evidence of this, log onto FICS and check out some 'best' ratings for players a few years ago and they're often much higher than their present values.

Glicko works very ell in the ACF system however as it's a more controlled environment. However, it needed 'Bill tweaking' to be applied for better accuracy.

I think you talking out of the wrong end of your trunk on this. I'd rather if you left it to Denis to decide whether my response answers his question or not. Your only adding noise to the system.

DoroPhil
13-12-2004, 02:38 PM
Solving tactical puzzles improves your ability to see tactics at the board.

I am not convinced that they do. Never tried any of them. Chess is not about tactics.


Studying endgame technique improves your capacity when you are able to apply these techniques at the board.

I am not convinced that they do. Never tried any of them. Chess is not about endgame techniques.


Opening preparation can (among other things) save time on the clock which allows you to play a higher standard of game in the middle/end of tournament games.

I am not convinced that it does. Never tried doing so. Chess is not about opening preparation.


How are any of these things NOT improving your capacity to play chess?

Because they are utterly irrelevant.


Not personally but Neil Armstrong learnt to land on the moon long before he was able to make the journey in person.

Nice one. If you have to go that far to provide examples, then maybe, just maybe, what you are trying to prove is not that "provable"?

Rincewind
13-12-2004, 02:51 PM
Nice one. If you have to go that far to provide examples, then maybe, just maybe, what you are trying to prove is not that "provable"?

It didn't take long to think of, it also goes rather nicely with my new signature line.

OK another question for you. Does gym work help with sporting performance? It seems the literature says it does. Why should the same not be true of chess?

Garvinator
13-12-2004, 02:52 PM
what does convince you then?

Rincewind
13-12-2004, 03:03 PM
I am not convinced that they do. Never tried any of them. Chess is not about tactics.

I am not convinced that they do. Never tried any of them. Chess is not about endgame techniques.

I am not convinced that it does. Never tried doing so. Chess is not about opening preparation.

One more question...

If you haven't tried any of them, how can you be so sure they aren't of any benefit?

DoroPhil
13-12-2004, 03:08 PM
OK another question for you. Does gym work help with sporting performance? It seems the literature says it does.

It does seem logical that gym work would help with sporting performance, and I'll take your word for it that it does.


Why should the same not be true of chess?

Because chess is not sport?

I don't think there's a question that, say, if best runner in the world would race the motorbike, the motorbike would come first. Yet, man against machine in chess is staged almost every year now. What conclusion(s) would you draw from that?

DoroPhil
13-12-2004, 03:12 PM
One more question...

If you haven't tried any of them, how can you be so sure they aren't of any benefit?

Did you try wearing a tie with blue stripes (this is very important! blue stripes only!) when swimming in order to improve your speed and flexibility? If not, how can you be so sure that it isn't of any benefit? Perhaps, common sense?

And I never said I was sure. I said I am not convinced otherwise. Based on my experience with chess and chess players, of course.

Rincewind
13-12-2004, 03:24 PM
And I never said I was sure. I said I am not convinced otherwise. Based on my experience with chess and chess players, of course.

That is nice,for you. However, you make no convincing counter arguments.

Chess is demonstrably is about seeing tactics, apply techniques and managing time, etc. Swimming is not about the colour of the costume you wear.

Unless you are going to go to some effort to provide reasonable arguments you will be making the top of my twit list with any away-from-the-board training whatsoever.

Rincewind
13-12-2004, 03:30 PM
Because chess is not sport?

Perhaps, but the point was one of analogy which was clearly made.


I don't think there's a question that, say, if best runner in the world would race the motorbike, the motorbike would come first. Yet, man against machine in chess is staged almost every year now. What conclusion(s) would you draw from that?

People have been able to build motorbikes that can out-"run" humans for years now. There is no interest in such an event. We have only been able to build computers that can reliably beat the world's best players relatively recently and the contests have not been convincing for either side. So the question is still unresolved.

This has nothing to do with the benefit of training for chess improvement though.

DoroPhil
13-12-2004, 03:31 PM
Chess is demonstrably is about seeing tactics, apply techniques and managing time, etc.



Bah! Wrong again, I'm afraid.

Chess is about taking as many big pieces as you can.

You can't do that in the endgame with all your techniques as there are not that many of big pieces left there by definition.

Additionally, you can't do that in the opening with all your opening preparation as all the big pieces are tucked in there by definition.

Now, what does that leave us with? :hmm:

Rincewind
13-12-2004, 03:32 PM
Now, what does that leave us with? :hmm:

Sorry, did someone say something?

DoroPhil
13-12-2004, 03:37 PM
People have been able to build motorbikes that can out-"run" humans for years now. There is no interest in such an event. We have only been able to build computers that can reliably beat the world's best players relatively recently and the contests have not been convincing for either side. So the question is still unresolved.

This has nothing to do with the benefit of training for chess improvement though.

The point is that computers are far superior to Kasparov in say, tactics, yet he managed to hold his own. So, maybe chess is not about, say, tactics?

Rincewind
13-12-2004, 03:45 PM
The point is that computers are far superior to Kasparov in say, tactics, yet he managed to hold his own. So, maybe chess is not about, say, tactics?

No, chess is not ALL about tactics. But the computers have won a couple of games when Kasparov has faulted so it is partly about tactics. So training which improves your tactically ability does help your capacity for the game.

Recherché
13-12-2004, 04:01 PM
No, it isn't.

Yes, it certainly is.


Anyway, "improves" refers to one's chess ability. Coaches can help with motivation, preparation, etc.

They cannot help with ability.

You mention preparation here, are you now acknowledging that preparation such as studying openings and tactical problems can improve your tournament play?

You seem to be implying that "ability" is something innate which can't be influence by training. If we are to take the stance that every person has some innate level of chess "ability" which cannot be altered by training (even though the experience of the Polgar sisters would seem to make this proposition dubious), what is so magical about tournament play that it can suddenly improve upon this apparently immutable quality?


I am not convinced that they do. Never tried any of them.
I am not convinced that they do. Never tried any of them.
I am not convinced that it does. Never tried doing so.

If you have never tried them, on what evidence are you claiming that they have no effect? You mentioned "common sense", but common sense suggests that they would have an effect - we get better at just about anything by studying and practising at it, and it's clear from MANY areas that you can build up skills for a specific situation (for example, playing Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" on the piano in a concert hall) by working on the skill outside of that exact setting (for example, learning to play the piano, playing other piano music, and playing the "Moonlight Sonata" at home).


Chess is not about tactics.
Chess is not about endgame techniques.
Chess is not about opening preparation.
Because they are utterly irrelevant.


What evidence do you have to support those assertions? Just writing them in your post doesn't make them true.


Do you know of anybody who managed to learn to drive without actually driving?

That argument doesn't support your case at all. People who are learning to drive usually get lessons which often involve driving practise outside normal road-driving conditions. And people who want to increase their driving skill and become advanced drivers don't do it by driving more on the road - they take an advanced driving course where they are taught principles and techniques they can then apply to actual driving conditions. Sound familiar? Yes, it's just like doing chess study.

Moreover, if we replace "driving" with "chess" in your statement, it becomes something like "do you know of anybody who managed to learn to play chess without actually playing chess?" - and that runs into two big problems.

The first that yes, there are indeed examples of famous chess players who initially learnt to play chess through chess problems, rather than playing games.

The second is that you have to somehow justify the ridiculous position that only tournament chess is "playing chess". It can be much more successfully argued that studying tactical problems, endgames, openings, positional manuals, playing casual games, and anything else like that are all in fact variations on "playing chess", and hence have the potential to improve your play in tournament games as well.

Your position is very similar to saying "driving in Sydney doesn't improve your ability to drive in Melbourne", or "practising outside of concerts will never help you become a concert pianist".


Did you try wearing a tie with blue stripes (this is very important! blue stripes only!) when swimming in order to improve your speed and flexibility? If not, how can you be so sure that it isn't of any benefit? Perhaps, common sense?

If you were, in fact, utilizing some common sense you would realise that studying and playing chess outside tournament games is analagous to working on your stroke technique, or your breathing, or your physical fitness in order to improve your swimming.


And I never said I was sure. I said I am not convinced otherwise. Based on my experience with chess and chess players, of course.

What experience? You made it very clear you had never tried any of these things yourself, so "my experience", in fact, doesn't exist.

And what is your experience with chess players? My experience of chess players at the club I play at supports the idea that those players who study and practise to improve their chess outside of tournament games improve much faster and more reliably than people who just play in tournaments.

You're like a 200kg person sitting on a couch all day saying "I am not convinced that reducing my energy intake and exercising can help me lose weight" despite the fact that it is a well known, effective, and commonly used approach to weight loss.


It does seem logical that gym work would help with sporting performance, and I'll take your word for it that it does.

So why doesn't it seem logical that studying and training at chess would help with chess performance?


Because chess is not sport?

So sport is the only area where people can improve their skills through training and study? Whoops, we'd better explain that to everybody involved in the education system, obviously it's completely redundant.


I don't think there's a question that, say, if best runner in the world would race the motorbike, the motorbike would come first. Yet, man against machine in chess is staged almost every year now. What conclusion(s) would you draw from that?

I would draw the conclusion that because our chess skill is based on one of our most vital and highly developed abilities (visual pattern recognition), and because the complexity of chess makes computational analysis of it extremely difficult and time consuming, we are able to, for the moment, stay on a rough par with technology.

Rincewind
13-12-2004, 04:08 PM
Recherché, good, but time consuming, post. I think that is what I was trying to say but in less words.

DoroPhil, thanks for reminding me of the old truism:

Never mudwrestle with a pig. You only get dirty, and the pig enjoys it. ;)

Recherché
13-12-2004, 04:20 PM
Recherché, good, but time consuming, post. I think that is what I was trying to say but in less words.

Well, it's not wasted time, for me. The practise comes in handy.

DoroPhil
14-12-2004, 07:15 AM
<some ridiculous childish insult>


Barry, you may be catching Gletsos. That was simply uncalled for. Attempt to control yourself; if you do not succeed at that, please refrain from replying to my posts altogether.

Oh, and try not to draw any conclusions from anything that is being said - that is obviously not your strong suit.

DoroPhil
14-12-2004, 07:27 AM
<About 4 screens worth of text>


Bah! The youth of today. How disappointing! So many words, but all cliches.

Can't really reply as you are just basically going round and round repeating same old nonsense.

Just one thought.



You're like a 200kg person sitting on a couch all day saying "I am not convinced that reducing my energy intake and exercising can help me lose weight" despite the fact that it is a well known, effective, and commonly used approach to weight loss.


Do you not see what's wrong with this analogy?
It could work if (and only if) I was saying what I was saying and be rated under, say, 1500.

See how this works?

DoroPhil
14-12-2004, 07:36 AM
Few more thoughts.



What experience? You made it very clear you had never tried any of these things yourself, so "my experience", in fact, doesn't exist.

"Experience" as a last link in the chain of data-information-knowledge-wisdom-experience. Look it up before you something even more ridiculous.

And as for opening preparation, there's an example of 1800-rated player over in the "Tournament news" forum. Seems that player knows theory up to at least move16 (at least in some variations). Remarkable! Remarkable waste of time and effort, that is.

Rincewind
14-12-2004, 07:37 AM
Barry, you may be catching Gletsos. That was simply uncalled for. Attempt to control yourself; if you do not succeed at that, please refrain from replying to my posts altogether.

Oh, and try not to draw any conclusions from anything that is being said - that is obviously not your strong suit.

I was just pointing out that reason only works on the reasonable. Those of you who dont subscribe to the conventions of logic are beyond its grasp by your own choice. However, the price you pay is irrelevence. I choose to spend my time on more meaningful and productive pursuits.

arosar
14-12-2004, 08:40 AM
I was just pointing out that reason only works on the reasonable. Those of you who dont subscribe to the conventions of logic are beyond its grasp by your own choice. However, the price you pay is irrelevence. I choose to spend my time on more meaningful and productive pursuits.

You're a bit of an intellectual tosser, y'know that Barry. Do your sentences take botox injections too?

AR

DoroPhil
14-12-2004, 09:43 AM
I was just pointing out that reason only works on the reasonable. Those of you who dont subscribe to the conventions of logic are beyond its grasp by your own choice. However, the price you pay is irrelevence. I choose to spend my time on more meaningful and productive pursuits.

Whatever method you use to discard anything (that you are either incapable or unwilling to understand) is fine by me.

You work in IT, don't you? We have those people running around here as I type. Poor guys, they are confused way too often, must be tough.

Alan Shore
14-12-2004, 09:51 AM
You're a bit of an intellectual tosser, y'know that Barry. Do your sentences take botox injections too?

AR

Arosar, why do you keep constantly criticising everyone? What have we ever done to you?

arosar
14-12-2004, 10:04 AM
Arosar, why do you keep constantly criticising everyone? What have we ever done to you?

Criticise? Constantly? Everyone?

You're a bit sensitive, y'know that? There's some blokes here at the park in Sydney who'll prolly make you cry if you're like this.

It's just a bit of banter.

AR

Sturkens
14-12-2004, 10:31 AM
Heya all!

Well, I was sleeping peacefully when suddenly my mind's serenity was fractured by a disturbing but also quite amusing dream.

It was the scene of the Australian Junior Championships, and Denis, after having successfully fooled the ACF with an unusual fake ID claiming that he was instead 15 year old Rajeev Vilaigavindaswami, was playing against Junta Ikeda on board one.

Things began a turn for the strange when the building was raided by ACF officials. Now, this sounds somewhat normal, but now picture the SAS storming a building, and then replace their submachine guns with 'chess piece launchers', and also mutate their faces so that two of the soldiers resembled, with a lack of ambiguity, Dorophil and Cordover.

Now, I don't really remember the rest of this dream, but I think that it's quite safe to assume that both Dorophil and Cordover were assassinated in action (why else would they be in a GOOD dream? :owned: ) via a resourceful use of the chess trophies by the tournament staff, who failed to realise that the agressors, were, in fact, their employers. (I don't care if it's not true. It's my dream, OK?)

Then... since not enough people have died, we may as well bring the half of the Mount Buller tournament organisers and hotel managers into the fray... yep, they all died too... see, strange how I can turn a personal attack into an orgy of chaos...

Oh, by the way, I will leave you with a final warning.

10 years ago, I dreamt that George Bush will send the world spiralling into darkness, that TicTacs will be sold in 5 flavours, and that pornography will be the prime cause of rating deflation in old chess men... :eh: ..yeh...

So you see, the probability of this dream being clairvoyant is quite high indeed... That means that the following events will occur.

1) The ACF-SAS will storm the Mount Buller AJCC and be beaten back by the blunt edges of the Winner's Cup.
2) Dorophil and Cordover will be killed by the afore-mentioned blunt edges...
3) Half of Mount Buller will burn...

Peace Out

Sturkens

Garvinator
14-12-2004, 10:36 AM
hey Sturkens, what is your real name. Just want to know so i know who to refer the unmentionable ones legal threats too?? ;) :lol: :lol: :whistle:

Recherché
14-12-2004, 11:13 AM
Bah! The youth of today. How disappointing! So many words, but all cliches.

Perhaps you could point to a cliché I used in my post. Like "the youth of today" from your post, for instance.


Can't really reply as you are just basically going round and round repeating same old nonsense.

The same old "nonsense" as who or what?

Are you afraid to admit you can't think of any counter-arguments? Given the weakness of the position you have taken I don't think anyone here would be surprised.


Do you not see what's wrong with this analogy?
It could work if (and only if) I was saying what I was saying and be rated under, say, 1500.

See how this works?

That's the only hole you could find in my entire post? Dear oh dear. There were more opportunities than that. You could have taken me to task on the Polgar sisters for starters.

Fine, you're like an unfit person sitting on the couch saying "I don't believe exercise can make me fit". You claim to be rated well over 2000 without doing any chess training outside tournament games; I think it's highly likely you are not "fit" with regards to your chess potential. Hell, you could probably be an IM if you wanted to put the time in. You don't need to be an innate chess genius to do that.

Or, if you wan't to be really, really nit-picky, you're like some random, undefined nobody (in fact, you are some random, undefined nobody; on this forum at any rate) telling fat people that diet changes and exercise are a waste of time.

It's a valid choice to decide for whatever reason that you don't want to spend any more time on chess; you don't need to justify it with a ridiculous and unsupported (and probably unsupportable) position about the potential of chess study and training.


"Experience" as a last link in the chain of data-information-knowledge-wisdom-experience. Look it up before you something even more ridiculous.

But when it comes to these things and their potential to impact your own playing performance, you don't have data, or information, or knowledge, or experience. And you certainly don't have the wisdom to acknowledge that without any of those things you're not at all qualified to make judgements about it.


And as for opening preparation, there's an example of 1800-rated player over in the "Tournament news" forum. Seems that player knows theory up to at least move16 (at least in some variations). Remarkable! Remarkable waste of time and effort, that is.

What's that an example of, exactly? Someone who doesn't share your opinion about the potential of chess study? You can find plently of examples of that right here in this thread. You say it's a waste of time, but maybe that particular player finds it very useful. Maybe they'd be a 1600 player without their opening knowledge.

At the top levels of chess, opening preparation is a huge factor. Every top player acknowledges and talks about its role.

DoroPhil
14-12-2004, 11:19 AM
...two of the soldiers resembled, with a lack of ambiguity, Dorophil and Cordover...


Why am I with Cordover?

skip to my lou
14-12-2004, 11:20 AM
you're like some random

You get a lot of those @ CS

DoroPhil
14-12-2004, 11:37 AM
Perhaps you could point to a cliché I used in my post.

Your whole post is one big cliche. Perhaps you could point to the part where you shared some original thoughts with the audience of this forum?



That's the only hole you could find in my entire post?

Scope definition: going through what is relevant one item a time.


Or, if you wan't to be really, really nit-picky, you're like some random, undefined nobody telling fat people that diet changes and exercise are a waste of time.

Fat people are losers!
Wait, I am getting side-tracked here.

If we are to continue with your analogy, I 'm saying that there is no substitute for actually doing exercises as opposed to being on a diet, and/or taking pils, and/or reading motivational stories about other fat people.


But when it comes to these things and their potential to impact your own playing performance, you don't have data, or information, or knowledge, or experience. And you certainly don't have the wisdom to acknowledge that without any of those things you're not at all qualified to make judgements about it.

Once again, either look up what those words mean or stop using them. I can recommend you a number of books on knowledge management. May be more profitable for your future, than proof reading :)


At the top levels of chess, opening preparation is a huge factor. Every top player acknowledges and talks about its role.

Adams-Radjabov (decisive game): 1. e4 - e5 2. Nf3 - Qe7 ... etc
Now, what conclusions do you draw from that?

Rincewind
14-12-2004, 12:52 PM
Whatever method you use to discard anything (that you are either incapable or unwilling to understand) is fine by me.

You work in IT, don't you? We have those people running around here as I type. Poor guys, they are confused way too often, must be tough.

Coming from a anonymous nobody that really cuts to the bone.

Perhaps if you knew the difference between reasoned argument and the mindless game of evasion you play, you could one day understand what is confusing your IT people.

Until then, as I said previously, I choose not to wrestle. :hand:

Recherché
14-12-2004, 01:21 PM
Your whole post is one big cliche. Perhaps you could point to the part where you shared some original thoughts with the audience of this forum?

My goal is not to provide "original thoughts". The whole point of this dicussion is that there has already been a lot of thought and research put into what can improve a player's chess skill, and that basically ALL of it suggests that the position you are taking is simply wrong - in such a situation purely "original" thoughts do not exist.


If we are to continue with your analogy, I 'm saying that there is no substitute for actually doing exercises as opposed to being on a diet, and/or taking pils, and/or reading motivational stories about other fat people.

Indeed, you are saying something like that. Tournament play can indeed be compared with exercise within this analogy, and, just as exercise is important for losing weight, tournament play is important for becoming a better chess player; however, exercise alone is never as effective as the combination of exercise and diet regulation and motivational aid.


Once again, either look up what those words mean or stop using them. I can recommend you a number of books on knowledge management. May be more profitable for your future, than proof reading :)

Any book that teaches me to think or write like you have in this thread could only be detrimental to my future. I know exactly what those words mean, and I use them accordingly. If you have your own special definition the dictionary doesn't agree with, you can't expect the general populace to know and agree with that definition either.


Adams-Radjabov (decisive game): 1. e4 - e5 2. Nf3 - Qe7 ... etc
Now, what conclusions do you draw from that?

I draw the conclusion that Radjabov, needing a win with Black to stay in the FIDE world championship knockout earlier this year, tried to avoid the opening theory and preparation of Mickey Adams. I draw a further conclusion that Adams' knowledge of opening theory was such a large factor in his potential control over the game that Radjabov sought to avoid it as best he could. I draw a further conclusion, in line with my previous statement, that at the top levels of chess opening preparation is a major factor.

I remember that game well, and your example only serves as further evidence for my case. :)

And for what it's worth, here's a quote from an interview with Nigel Short, also earlier this year:


What is happening is that these people are being brutalised, they are playing too many games and develop the habit of not preparing. This is a problem when they go abroad. Top chess these days is all about preparation, thorough, deep opening preparation, and they are not learning how to handle this properly.

DoroPhil
14-12-2004, 03:10 PM
My goal is not to provide "original thoughts". The whole point of this dicussion is that there has already been a lot of thought and research put into what can improve a player's chess skill,...

Ok then. So, we established that all you said here is indeed "cliches", "same old nonsense" or "research" as you put it.

Where does this "research" comes from though? Could it come from the same people who produce "Play 1.b4 and win!" type of books? Or are there any PhD dissertations on the correlation between various types of chess training and actual chess results/ performance?


I know exactly what those words mean, and I use them accordingly. If you have your own special definition the dictionary doesn't agree with, you can't expect the general populace to know and agree with that definition either.

The words do have tendency to change meaning as one progresses through the education system. If you insist on not learning and using the dictionary definitions only, then it's fine. If you choose to learn the terminology however, you will realise that you did not go far from data gathering stage, and therefore are not really expected to draw any conclusions yet.




I remember that game well, and your example only serves as further evidence for my case. :)

Indeed, it does. You seem to assume that you know where I am going with this.
Don't assume - that's not such a good habit.
Now, on to the next question: can you think of any other top grandmaster level games that started in a similar fashion? If not, what conclusions do you draw from that?

DoroPhil
14-12-2004, 03:24 PM
Perhaps if you knew the difference between reasoned argument and the mindless game of evasion you play.

I am not playing any games here, mindless or otherwise. If you choose to see it this way, then there is clearly a mistake on your end, for which you should hold yourself responsible.


you could one day understand what is confusing your IT people.

Oh, that's easy. IT people are confusing themselves. They are wired that way.



Until then, as I said previously, I choose not to wrestle.

No one wants to wrestle with you, Barry. Please take your mud and go.

arosar
14-12-2004, 05:04 PM
. . . there has already been a lot of thought and research put into what can improve a player's chess skill, and that basically ALL of it suggests that the position you are taking is simply wrong - in such a situation purely "original" thoughts do not exist.

Recher ... Rec . . mate, I'm almost embarassed to talk to you mate. I can't pronounce your posh handle ya see.

Anyways, I'm not following what you say above mate. Well, I sorta think you're saying one thing but could you clarify first?

Cheers mate.

AR

Spiny Norman
14-12-2004, 05:26 PM
AR, did you see the show on ABC last night ("Coupling" I think its called) ... they had your favourite avatar in it ...

Spiny Norman
14-12-2004, 05:32 PM
You work in IT, don't you? We have those people running around here as I type. Poor guys, they are confused way too often, must be tough.

Not half as confused as the people we have to help day in, day out. Mind you, like most samples of humanity, some are more (or less) confused than the others. Depends on the topic of discussion.

Alan Shore
14-12-2004, 10:34 PM
Criticise? Constantly? Everyone?

You're a bit sensitive, y'know that? There's some blokes here at the park in Sydney who'll prolly make you cry if you're like this.

It's just a bit of banter.

AR

LOL. I'm sensitive? You're the one that starts crying and threatening lawsuits if things don't go your way.

Clear case of you can give it but can't take it.

arosar
15-12-2004, 07:26 AM
LOL. I'm sensitive? You're the one that starts crying and threatening lawsuits if things don't go your way.

Uummm....did you really think I was serious dude?

Bill, hey Bill, he won't tell me that business with RGH. Can you tell me mate?

AR

Recherché
15-12-2004, 09:41 AM
Recher ... Rec . . mate, I'm almost embarassed to talk to you mate. I can't pronounce your posh handle ya see.

Roughly: ruh share SHAY

You could just call me Rob. ;)


Anyways, I'm not following what you say above mate. Well, I sorta think you're saying one thing but could you clarify first?

Well, I'm saying two things there:

1. Pretty much everybody involved with the development of chess players believes that study and training are important to improvement in addition to playing tournament games. Additionally, the results and progress of players supports this.

2. That purely original thoughts are difficult to have on any topic, and that in the context of this topic, they're irrelevant. After all this time there aren't many new ideas to be had in the area of chess improvement. The argument and discussion is about which ideas are most effective, and in what proportion.

Original thoughts = people like Newton, Einstein, etc.

Mr Anonymity here doesn't have anything "original" to say either. In fact, he's struggling to qualify for "thoughts".

Recherché
15-12-2004, 10:09 AM
Or are there any PhD dissertations on the correlation between various types of chess training and actual chess results/ performance?

None that I'm aware of. Most scientific studies of chess look into the potential/alleged mental or educational benefits of being a chess player.

However, in this situation, you are the one who requires exceptional proof of that nature. Your position is the one running contrary to accepted theories, common sense, and observed evidence.

Your position is also running contrary to your previously stated positions on the subject (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=15252#post15252):


In my opinion, our next GM can come form the next group of players. They all have a reasonable rating already but maybe don't study chess a lot?
....
Who of them doesn't study chess much or not at all?
Surely some of people on this BB know that!

It's a bit of problem when even you don't agree with you.


The words do have tendency to change meaning as one progresses through the education system. If you insist on not learning and using the dictionary definitions only, then it's fine. If you choose to learn the terminology however, you will realise that you did not go far from data gathering stage, and therefore are not really expected to draw any conclusions yet.

Be sure to let me know when you've progressed far enough through the education system to grasp the concepts of critical thinking and properly developed and supported arguments. Your writing isn't even at upper high school level.

This is not a discussion of statistics, or motivational business book jargon, or wherever you're getting your (as yet undefined) definitions of these words (which apparently contradict mine in some also unspecified way).


Now, on to the next question: can you think of any other top grandmaster level games that started in a similar fashion? If not, what conclusions do you draw from that?

Not off the top of my head. And all the ones in my database are at IM level or below. The conclusion I would draw is that in general, grandmasters have never considered that particular line to be one of the most testing responses they have available to 2. Nf3 after 1. e4 e5.

The conclusions I draw aren't simply based on the raw data, they're also based on the context of that data and the meaning my previous knowledge and experience gives to that context - for instance, in the case of the Adams-Radjabov game, I knew that Radjabov had to win with black in that game, and I also knew that trying something unusual or unbalanced in the opening was quite a common way for grandmasters to try to win must-win games as black. I knew in addition to this that they did it because they believed that avoiding the opening theory of their opponent would give them better chances to do it.

Playing this silly game of "you shouldn't be drawing any conclusions at all" is just another failed attempt to divert attention from the fact that you can't address or respond to any of my major points. You're doing nothing but evading the argument and requests to provide evidence - ANY evidence - to support your case.

We don't need to definitively and scientifically prove beyond all doubt that chess study and training helps chess players improve before we decide it's a good idea to do it.

1. We have the evidence that humans get better at just about anything if they study and train at it, even in contexts other than the one they are specifically training for. There is nothing to suggest that chess would be different.

2. We have the observation that chess study and training often has a significant positive impact on playing performance.

3. We have the opinions of the expert players in our game, and the expert coaches, that study and training are an integral part of chess improvement.

All you have is baseless denial. The "we haven't definitively proven that smoking causes lung cancer" approach.

Ian Rout
15-12-2004, 10:52 AM
I don't know these views are entirely contradictory. In any sport you can get people with such a degree of natural talent that they outstrip those around them without effort. It's only when they come up against other natural talents that they need to start training and preparing to keep up.

Of course players also learn from watching other games, listening to GMs in post-mortems at tournaments etc, so it would be just about impossible to identify a player who has learned nothing from outside their own playing experience.

PHAT
15-12-2004, 11:00 AM
...so it would be just about impossible to identify a player who has learned nothing from outside their own playing experience.

My rating would suggest you are wrong ;)

arosar
15-12-2004, 11:50 AM
Roughly: ruh share SHAY

What is it? Is that hrvatska or something?

Hey listen, did I see you down there in BHCC?

AR

Kevin Bonham
19-12-2004, 11:22 PM
Roughly: ruh share SHAY

Interesting. We have a Recherché Bay here in Tasmania and the locals generally pronounce it ruh-shursh.

arosar
20-12-2004, 02:33 PM
Well, I think we can all prefer "ruh share shay". The syllables sorta sashay off your tongue.

Anyway, what I was gonna say was, at least these juniors truly deserve their titles (and/or norms): http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2084

AR

Recherché
20-12-2004, 09:34 PM
What is it? Is that hrvatska or something?

Nah, it's English, via French. Same word root as "research".

I can't recall ever seeing Croatian which had a similar quality to it.


Hey listen, did I see you down there in BHCC?

Possibly. I've been there almost every club night this year. But I've been to hardly any of the Sunday events, if that's when you came.


Interesting. We have a Recherché Bay here in Tasmania and the locals generally pronounce it ruh-shursh.

Place names that are also words often have different pronunciations to the "correct" one.

Take the Melbourne suburb of Reh-za-vwore (Reservoir), for instance.