The podcasts are really great!
I can't wait to read the book.
I can't wait to read the book.
Congrats perpetual chess on the book! It looks good and I'll probably get the audio book version so I can listen while I play chess. Love the podcast by the way.
For those interested in guess the move, over the years several people have made apps specifically for this. The app I use I like quite a bit as you can load a pgn from your favorite player and when you guess the move it will evaluate it with stockfish and give you a score based on how well you did, but you also get to see the original player's move. sites.google.com/view/fredm/home#h.vdoi2rkonimf
I have been doing this with Carlsen's games and it has been very rewarding, but also very difficult.
For those interested in guess the move, over the years several people have made apps specifically for this. The app I use I like quite a bit as you can load a pgn from your favorite player and when you guess the move it will evaluate it with stockfish and give you a score based on how well you did, but you also get to see the original player's move. sites.google.com/view/fredm/home#h.vdoi2rkonimf
I have been doing this with Carlsen's games and it has been very rewarding, but also very difficult.
You can also play Solitaire chess if you use the original SCID, not SCID vs PC.
And since the original SCID has had a faelift, I do prefer it for that feature alone.
And since the original SCID has had a faelift, I do prefer it for that feature alone.
Guess you pretty much nailed the balance between "advertisement and bringing something new and interesting for the readers" with this post : D
> By the way, I still enjoy tracing the evolution of chess learning through history, I just don't view it as vital to chess improvement.
Chess learning evolution is about which games are being studied? Not about how game based study makes for learning. That would never be considered, would it? Or how a game may be studied in different ways or angles each with some aspect of learning if we only knew what that meant. I am glad that there is a separation with chess play improvement, though.
Also, not that I mingle in the target audience crowd subset of lichess user population, but (I lost my though for another one). Ah, got it back I think: I am curious though about how learning toward improvement has been studied itself. so we could look at its evolution.
I am curious about the evolution of learning on the other side of learning. Not the filtered by success side, because then not all the same practice specifics that worked for them but not for others would be accounted for. The usual selection bias on hypotheses, I guess. So only GM can say what works or not, as they actually tested many ways all by themselves? How many different GM testimony would it take to get an objective view out of their confronted many views? Do we chose which GM will listen to?
I trust in GM to be GMs. I am not sure about either the theory of learning expertise, their cognitive science or psychology reference basis, or even alternative life trajectories using the same proven methods that worked for them on any other life trajectory. One has to look past the GM title for the actual theory of learning or teaching or coaching experience, and also have some control group notion in the end. Why I like that lichess has so much good quality data, across the spectrum of such trajectories, not only those ending up with GM soon in life (is there another kind nowadays).
This mean one can use GM hypotheses of learning as data point evidence, but that it can't be delivered as convincing truth without other arguments. This is possible, though, that GM had kept a sense for learning besides their own ascension. But we might like to know, when their title has been used.
I am glad though that we are still tracing the evolution, or wanting to.
Chess learning evolution is about which games are being studied? Not about how game based study makes for learning. That would never be considered, would it? Or how a game may be studied in different ways or angles each with some aspect of learning if we only knew what that meant. I am glad that there is a separation with chess play improvement, though.
Also, not that I mingle in the target audience crowd subset of lichess user population, but (I lost my though for another one). Ah, got it back I think: I am curious though about how learning toward improvement has been studied itself. so we could look at its evolution.
I am curious about the evolution of learning on the other side of learning. Not the filtered by success side, because then not all the same practice specifics that worked for them but not for others would be accounted for. The usual selection bias on hypotheses, I guess. So only GM can say what works or not, as they actually tested many ways all by themselves? How many different GM testimony would it take to get an objective view out of their confronted many views? Do we chose which GM will listen to?
I trust in GM to be GMs. I am not sure about either the theory of learning expertise, their cognitive science or psychology reference basis, or even alternative life trajectories using the same proven methods that worked for them on any other life trajectory. One has to look past the GM title for the actual theory of learning or teaching or coaching experience, and also have some control group notion in the end. Why I like that lichess has so much good quality data, across the spectrum of such trajectories, not only those ending up with GM soon in life (is there another kind nowadays).
This mean one can use GM hypotheses of learning as data point evidence, but that it can't be delivered as convincing truth without other arguments. This is possible, though, that GM had kept a sense for learning besides their own ascension. But we might like to know, when their title has been used.
I am glad though that we are still tracing the evolution, or wanting to.
Ok, so now we are simply advertising books in the blog posts? Great.
@rooooks said in #5:
> Guess you pretty much nailed the balance between "advertisement and bringing something new and interesting for the readers" with this post : D
Ha I am not so sure according to the other comments.
> Guess you pretty much nailed the balance between "advertisement and bringing something new and interesting for the readers" with this post : D
Ha I am not so sure according to the other comments.
It sounds fantastic. I can't wait to read it. You must have picked up loads of stuff over the years.
Best of luck with it!
Best of luck with it!
<Comment deleted by user>