- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Chess Improvement: Key to a Better Life

Here is the conclusion I can draw from this blog,

Defeat is imminent, like a ship sinking when it hits a rock. However, we can still control our fate and apply the loses we suffered to better improve ourselves, like metal patches on to the ship so it doesn't get sunk again.
The problem isn't in losing, it's in not finding a solution. While newbie sailors run around aimlessly as their ship sinks, the veteran sailor is already patching holes in their ship.

In chess, we can practice everyday, but if we are just mindlessly playing the same old opening and applying the same ideas without thought, hoping the opponent blunders and you just win, that isn't playing chess, that's just mindlessly entertainment. The same way we scroll endlessly on TikTok or Instagram. Even though it hurts to think, that is suppose to be the point of playing chess, an intellectual game. We need to expand beyond our borders.

I'd suggest playing chess in real life with real people in my opinion. Online play is too distracting as I often catch myself alt-tabbing into another tab to watch Youtube while waiting for my opponent to play a move. Focusing on something is how we can hone our skills, like a sword on a grindstone, becoming ever the sharper. But you may ask questions like, How? no one wants to play with me or I don't know what I did wrong? etc. That's the starting line in finding a solution to your problems. Making your first chess move that isn't autopilot. Calculating a 12-move sacrifice type of intense thinking. Solve problems.

Thank you, I just wanted to share my opinion. Please give me your thoughts on it.

Here is the conclusion I can draw from this blog, Defeat is imminent, like a ship sinking when it hits a rock. However, we can still control our fate and apply the loses we suffered to better improve ourselves, like metal patches on to the ship so it doesn't get sunk again. The problem isn't in losing, it's in not finding a solution. While newbie sailors run around aimlessly as their ship sinks, the veteran sailor is already patching holes in their ship. In chess, we can practice everyday, but if we are just mindlessly playing the same old opening and applying the same ideas without thought, hoping the opponent blunders and you just win, that isn't playing chess, that's just mindlessly entertainment. The same way we scroll endlessly on TikTok or Instagram. Even though it hurts to think, that is suppose to be the point of playing chess, an intellectual game. We need to expand beyond our borders. I'd suggest playing chess in real life with real people in my opinion. Online play is too distracting as I often catch myself alt-tabbing into another tab to watch Youtube while waiting for my opponent to play a move. Focusing on something is how we can hone our skills, like a sword on a grindstone, becoming ever the sharper. But you may ask questions like, How? no one wants to play with me or I don't know what I did wrong? etc. That's the starting line in finding a solution to your problems. Making your first chess move that isn't autopilot. Calculating a 12-move sacrifice type of intense thinking. Solve problems. Thank you, I just wanted to share my opinion. Please give me your thoughts on it.

Hm. This did again more harm to me than probably intended.
I felt motivated to "improve" and started again to play Blitz (although I wanted to be content with this rating).
Again I lost points (11 wins, 11 losses, but the opponents had lower rating).
And even worse (instead of admitting that we all have our limits I feel that I am "too stupid to improve").
I understand that the intention was otherwise, but for me it doesn't work this way.

Hm. This did again more harm to me than probably intended. I felt motivated to "improve" and started again to play Blitz (although I wanted to be content with this rating). Again I lost points (11 wins, 11 losses, but the opponents had lower rating). And even worse (instead of admitting that we all have our limits I feel that I am "too stupid to improve"). I understand that the intention was otherwise, but for me it doesn't work this way.

#4 I'm sorry that you're struggling, and I would like to make a suggestion. It sounds to me like it was losing rating that made you lose motivation. But, if that is the case, then you're focusing on the outcome rather than the process. A point of this article is that you should just think about what the best course of action is, rather than how good or bad your situation is. Instead of only feeling good when your rating improves, you should feel good when you improve your course of action. So going from not playing to playing again - that's an improvement in your course of action. That is something to feel good about. And then you can think about other improvements that you can make to your actions, and incorporate them into your training. Maybe there's an endgame you keep getting beaten in, so you decide to study that, or an opening you seem to always come out worse in, so you decide to study that. Or maybe you just think you should do more puzzles. Whatever it is, you might realise what things you need to incorporate into your training, and incorporate them, and you should feel good about doing that. You could be losing rating all the while, but you should still feel good, because you're doing what you need to do, and that is all you can ever do. But of course, another point in this article is that you should start small, so don't feel forced to implement every single thing at once, because that will just overwhelm you.

#4 I'm sorry that you're struggling, and I would like to make a suggestion. It sounds to me like it was losing rating that made you lose motivation. But, if that is the case, then you're focusing on the outcome rather than the process. A point of this article is that you should just think about what the best course of action is, rather than how good or bad your situation is. Instead of only feeling good when your rating improves, you should feel good when you improve your course of action. So going from not playing to playing again - that's an improvement in your course of action. That is something to feel good about. And then you can think about other improvements that you can make to your actions, and incorporate them into your training. Maybe there's an endgame you keep getting beaten in, so you decide to study that, or an opening you seem to always come out worse in, so you decide to study that. Or maybe you just think you should do more puzzles. Whatever it is, you might realise what things you need to incorporate into your training, and incorporate them, and you should feel good about doing that. You could be losing rating all the while, but you should still feel good, because you're doing what you need to do, and that is all you can ever do. But of course, another point in this article is that you should start small, so don't feel forced to implement every single thing at once, because that will just overwhelm you.

Ok, thank you. I played some OTB games and that made me feel better.
So I agree also with brianchanner.
Playing with "real people" (although there are also real people in the net, but you can't see them) is a nice thing.

I won a nice OTB game using the Kings Gambit.

  1. e4 e5 2. f4 Lc5 3. Sf3 d6 4. c3 Sc6
    (better is probably 4... Sf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Lb6 7. Sc3)
  2. b4 Lb6 6. b5 Sa5 7. fxe5 dxe5 and now
    I found 8. Da4! (also played in Sumaneev - Lunev, later 1:0)
    immediately taking advantage of the bad position of Na5.
    My opponent played 8... Qf6, now 9. c4 (threatening c5) c5?
    (better was 9... c6) and after 10. Bb2 Bc7 11.b6+! I won easily
    11... Bd7 12. Qxa5 Bxb6 13. Qc3 +-

Lunev played 8... f6, but lost later after 10.d4.

Ok, thank you. I played some OTB games and that made me feel better. So I agree also with brianchanner. Playing with "real people" (although there are also real people in the net, but you can't see them) is a nice thing. I won a nice OTB game using the Kings Gambit. 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Lc5 3. Sf3 d6 4. c3 Sc6 (better is probably 4... Sf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Lb6 7. Sc3) 5. b4 Lb6 6. b5 Sa5 7. fxe5 dxe5 and now I found 8. Da4! (also played in Sumaneev - Lunev, later 1:0) immediately taking advantage of the bad position of Na5. My opponent played 8... Qf6, now 9. c4 (threatening c5) c5? (better was 9... c6) and after 10. Bb2 Bc7 11.b6+! I won easily 11... Bd7 12. Qxa5 Bxb6 13. Qc3 +- Lunev played 8... f6, but lost later after 10.d4.

Noël seems to be exhibiting a pretty standard trope, here: Someone's life gets better -> they recognize that now they can enjoy a detached, stoic viewpoint -> that viewpoint allows them to continuously improve their life at an exponential rate -> but they mistake this correlation for the original causation -> and believe that it must have been the stoic viewpoint that allowed them to initially start improving.

One sees this time and time again. The advice always comes across to me as analogous to: “Learn to fly. Step 1: While flying, flap your wings to generate more lift.” It often resonates with many people who believe that this is what people should be doing. And, indeed they should, but there are usually reasons why they are not, and the chief reason is almost never, “Oh I never realized I should think clear-headedly before.” In short, I think the viewpoint espoused in this blog is damaging. So, I've taken the time to write out some things so that the viewpoint's expression doesn't go by unevaluated with a critical approach.

Many folks who impart the advice to just be stoic and rational forget what it's like to be back at square one. For example, Noël's friend wasn't whining to Noël about their flatmate for no reason. They were analyzing their situation out loud. To analyze their situation internally was a source of stress. They were already under stress from the flatmate situation. The total amount of stress caused by the flatmate situation and the need to analyze that situation exceeded the threshold of Noël's friend's ability to process their stress internally. This is really basic psychology. Sometimes you can't handle stuff inside. Stressed at a chessboard? Start analyzing out loud! You'll find it's much less taxing. Start analyzing with a patient friend, one who is ready to hear you process your stress and consequently guide you to finding a solution — definitely not a friend who's ready to chide you for not focusing on finding the solution from the get-go — and you'll find the analysis even less taxing.

Noël's advice is great for someone who's at the point where they don't need the advice. At one point in the blog, Noël remarks on the potential stress that would be caused by his car breaking down, and needing to pay money to fix it: “Do I have any alternatives? Sometimes no. So there is no merit in feeling bad, slurring, or wishing this did not happen.” In most situations like this, the person with the broken-down car is stressed first and foremost because they lack the resources to pay for the car's mending. They now realize that they have to reconfigure their expenditures to accommodate this unexpected cost. Since they lack the necessary resources, they also lack time — after all, taking time on something requires more money than not. So they have to reconfigure their expenditures with very little time. In fact, that time just got shorter, because one time-saving device they formerly enjoyed — the car — just went kaput. Because they lack time and resources, it would be better if they could avoid such unexpected accidents in the future, that drain so much time and resources away. So now, with limited time, they should try and reconfigure their behavior to minimize the risk of such accidents. Or, better, minimize the risk while maximizing the expected benefit — a more complicated calculation, also made under time pressure. And what will the boss say when you're late because the car broke down? If they're unreasonable, and you risk losing your job or other economic opportunities, how will you navigate that?

The above are all the things that someone with too few resources to take a stoic approach goes through — just like Noël's friend lacked the frankly superhuman cognitive resources that would be needed for them to stoically analyze their stressors. Now, someone whose conditions were more amenable, such that they wouldn't be so racked by their car breaking down, would be able to take the stoic approach as Noël recommends. And, this would help them overcome the setback. So in such a case, where someone is resourced enough to take a stoic approach already, indeed, the stoic approach works. But this is taking stoicism as the consequence of the situation and characterizing it as the situation's cause. And that's mistaken.

Telling someone who's not being stoic already for good reason that they need to be stoic is unhelpful. And the more we perpetuate the idea that such stoic, rationalist self-reliance is the key to improvement — instead of the need to find patient friends to help you analyze your situation in a measured manner — the more we're going to create stressed people, fragmented away from each other, who can't seem to act stoically and continually blame themselves for it. This is most definitely Not Good.

Noël seems to be exhibiting a pretty standard trope, here: Someone's life gets better -> they recognize that now they can enjoy a detached, stoic viewpoint -> that viewpoint allows them to continuously improve their life at an exponential rate -> but they mistake this correlation for the original causation -> and believe that it must have been the stoic viewpoint that allowed them to initially start improving. One sees this time and time again. The advice always comes across to me as analogous to: “Learn to fly. Step 1: While flying, flap your wings to generate more lift.” It often resonates with many people who believe that this is what people *should* be doing. And, indeed they should, but there are usually reasons why they are not, and the chief reason is almost never, “Oh I never realized I should think clear-headedly before.” In short, I think the viewpoint espoused in this blog is damaging. So, I've taken the time to write out some things so that the viewpoint's expression doesn't go by unevaluated with a critical approach. Many folks who impart the advice to just be stoic and rational forget what it's like to be back at square one. For example, Noël's friend wasn't whining to Noël about their flatmate for no reason. They were analyzing their situation out loud. To analyze their situation internally was a source of stress. They were already under stress from the flatmate situation. The total amount of stress caused by the flatmate situation and the need to analyze that situation exceeded the threshold of Noël's friend's ability to process their stress internally. This is really basic psychology. Sometimes you can't handle stuff inside. Stressed at a chessboard? Start analyzing out loud! You'll find it's much less taxing. Start analyzing with a patient friend, one who is ready to hear you process your stress and consequently guide you to finding a solution — definitely not a friend who's ready to chide you for not focusing on finding the solution from the get-go — and you'll find the analysis even less taxing. Noël's advice is great for someone who's at the point where they don't need the advice. At one point in the blog, Noël remarks on the potential stress that would be caused by his car breaking down, and needing to pay money to fix it: “Do I have any alternatives? Sometimes no. So there is no merit in feeling bad, slurring, or wishing this did not happen.” In most situations like this, the person with the broken-down car is stressed first and foremost because they lack the resources to pay for the car's mending. They now realize that they have to reconfigure their expenditures to accommodate this unexpected cost. Since they lack the necessary resources, they also lack time — after all, taking time on something requires more money than not. So they have to reconfigure their expenditures with very little time. In fact, that time just got shorter, because one time-saving device they formerly enjoyed — the car — just went kaput. Because they lack time and resources, it would be better if they could avoid such unexpected accidents in the future, that drain so much time and resources away. So now, with limited time, they should try and reconfigure their behavior to minimize the risk of such accidents. Or, better, minimize the risk while maximizing the expected benefit — a more complicated calculation, also made under time pressure. And what will the boss say when you're late because the car broke down? If they're unreasonable, and you risk losing your job or other economic opportunities, how will you navigate that? The above are all the things that someone with too few resources to take a stoic approach goes through — just like Noël's friend lacked the frankly superhuman cognitive resources that would be needed for them to stoically analyze their stressors. Now, someone whose conditions were more amenable, such that they wouldn't be so racked by their car breaking down, would be able to take the stoic approach as Noël recommends. And, this would help them overcome the setback. So in such a case, where someone is resourced enough to take a stoic approach already, indeed, the stoic approach works. But this is taking stoicism as the consequence of the situation and characterizing it as the situation's cause. And that's mistaken. Telling someone who's not being stoic already for good reason that they need to be stoic is unhelpful. And the more we perpetuate the idea that such stoic, rationalist self-reliance is the key to improvement — instead of the need to find patient friends to help you analyze your situation in a measured manner — the more we're going to create stressed people, fragmented away from each other, who can't seem to act stoically and continually blame themselves for it. This is most definitely Not Good.

Great text @playchesswithalex. My point was: the advice as such is good for young players who indeed play better than their rating suggests. Of course improvement is possible, but once you have reached your "appropriate" rating, it is ok (in my opinion) to keep this.

If you don't have a car yet you work for it and you are happy when you can buy your first car. This is good.
But the point is: the second car probably won't make you happier.

Constant self-optimization may lead to psychological problems. Garfield used to say "Ambition gives me a nosebleed."
Ok, this is exaggerated, since appropriate ambition is OK, but somehow such sentences make me smile.

And - coming back to chess - I think that a 15-year-old needs a different approach to chess training than a 50-year-old.
And these differences haven't been addressed so far.

Great text @playchesswithalex. My point was: the advice as such is good for young players who indeed play better than their rating suggests. Of course improvement is possible, but once you have reached your "appropriate" rating, it is ok (in my opinion) to keep this. If you don't have a car yet you work for it and you are happy when you can buy your first car. This is good. But the point is: the second car probably won't make you happier. Constant self-optimization may lead to psychological problems. Garfield used to say "Ambition gives me a nosebleed." Ok, this is exaggerated, since appropriate ambition is OK, but somehow such sentences make me smile. And - coming back to chess - I think that a 15-year-old needs a different approach to chess training than a 50-year-old. And these differences haven't been addressed so far.