- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

I Don't Speak Chess

I unterstand your problem and the Blog is very interisting. Thanks for writing! (:

I unterstand your problem and the Blog is very interisting. Thanks for writing! (:

Great writeup, I enjoyed reading it!

Great writeup, I enjoyed reading it!

I am working on reading it. I read the introduction. I like this topic of field terminology "appropriation" of natural language in order to discern the field objects they just figured out to be important.

There is a subtle sub-topic:
we use natural language words in more restricted meaning (sets, if liking to think of meaning to word or word to meaning relations), where because of natural language familiarity, we think, at first or even repeated compatible exposure, that we are talking about the same thing on the board, but are not really.

As long as the various positions where the word was used might have been compatible for both the teacher (book or person) and the learner (person) with their respective different meanings, such mutually sliding meanings can persist for a long time across experience.

I will try to find that out as i read more chunks.. later.

In short, it is about pure chess concepts that make sense on the board and to the venerable authors and then hastily then being put into their own words, and a full cohort of chess enthusiast historically picking that up. I would not assume that all the words are well defined, but would try to find the real concepts behind the words myself per each author. I am not sure every author even have the same nomenclature for same chess objects for all objects. So I would not blame your previous self completely.

There is some vague room, obligatorily i think.. between well defined and example defined things... one ought to keep some uncertainty going from very early on, and nobody is to blame but 1D language itself trying to cover a 2D (at least) reality.

I am working on reading it. I read the introduction. I like this topic of field terminology "appropriation" of natural language in order to discern the field objects they just figured out to be important. There is a subtle sub-topic: we use natural language words in more restricted meaning (sets, if liking to think of meaning to word or word to meaning relations), where because of natural language familiarity, we think, at first or even repeated compatible exposure, that we are talking about the same thing on the board, but are not really. As long as the various positions where the word was used might have been compatible for both the teacher (book or person) and the learner (person) with their respective different meanings, such mutually sliding meanings can persist for a long time across experience. I will try to find that out as i read more chunks.. later. In short, it is about pure chess concepts that make sense on the board and to the venerable authors and then hastily then being put into their own words, and a full cohort of chess enthusiast historically picking that up. I would not assume that all the words are well defined, but would try to find the real concepts behind the words myself per each author. I am not sure every author even have the same nomenclature for same chess objects for all objects. So I would not blame your previous self completely. There is some vague room, obligatorily i think.. between well defined and example defined things... one ought to keep some uncertainty going from very early on, and nobody is to blame but 1D language itself trying to cover a 2D (at least) reality.
<Comment deleted by user>

And a lot of the time all we need is knowledge that the idea itself exists to get started.

Yes I agree. Pointing to existence and letting guided experience cern and discern the ideas. Rather than hoping to understand each community chosen word exactly, as many of those might be hiding lots of experience already.

It is more like have a piece of mind looking out for this and this and this and maybe that too. but figure out on your own how they might work altogether. (that is rarely meant the object of presentation). It is the "consider" more than the "know".

Then rely on own rational and exploring abilities on the board. Having a relaxed attitude at the start with the words pointing to the things, might make for less tortuous and confusing evolution in dialog with experience. But maybe have misunderstandings is also part of the advancment, being able to recognize them. Good blog topic about stance to digest the books.

> And a lot of the time all we need is knowledge that the idea itself exists to get started. Yes I agree. Pointing to existence and letting guided experience cern and discern the ideas. Rather than hoping to understand each community chosen word exactly, as many of those might be hiding lots of experience already. It is more like have a piece of mind looking out for this and this and this and maybe that too. but figure out on your own how they might work altogether. (that is rarely meant the object of presentation). It is the "consider" more than the "know". Then rely on own rational and exploring abilities on the board. Having a relaxed attitude at the start with the words pointing to the things, might make for less tortuous and confusing evolution in dialog with experience. But maybe have misunderstandings is also part of the advancment, being able to recognize them. Good blog topic about stance to digest the books.

I think it is difficult for experts to go back to the toddler mindset. I am not sure that the native speaking to native was always the intent in everybook where that seems to be the case.. Becoming conscious of what has become subconscious (perhaps for some reasons of performance), might not be easy. It is easier to be self-aware as adult of the learning paths when on the ignorant (learner) side of the barrier given some new concept.

I think it is difficult for experts to go back to the toddler mindset. I am not sure that the native speaking to native was always the intent in everybook where that seems to be the case.. Becoming conscious of what has become subconscious (perhaps for some reasons of performance), might not be easy. It is easier to be self-aware as adult of the learning paths when on the ignorant (learner) side of the barrier given some new concept.

I'm friends with the monster that's under my bed

I'm friends with the monster that's under my bed

I meant to the pre-expert mindset. Accessing and verbalizing about own current subconscious processes needs work. and it might be superfluous to the high achiever in chess. might even be detrimental. "toddler mindset" was borrowed from the successful analogy that the blogger used and referred to in this blog to a previous blog. Shortcut. As i often elaborate too much. Even this explanation here, can spill over into nuances. longer shortcut.

remembering when we were ignorant of something now obvious, is a difficult task when time has gone under the bridges. It might be feasible, I think some of those books, probably later ones that had some predecessors to build upon, and targeting adult newcomers who could read, come from such efforts. Probably at first such things had to be worked hard even for oneself. Pioneering chess theory from own experience, taking the time to write it and share with community must have a been a pre-requisite. Which might be in favor of blog hypothesis that it was native speakers talking to native speakers (in pioneering cases, likely talking to self first).

One thing that is likely more widespread (about being able to talk to "toddlers") is that coaches and teachers have had to work on that, in the course of their practice. But it is not automatic from being expert. In many fields that sort of difference exist.. and even within one person about various aspects of the expertise probably numerous skill components. Not all as expertly digested as others.. why we love chess.. right?

I might be completely wrong as well. just that the blog made sense to me, and I have heard others sharing a similar point of view..

Testing argument: let's try to use Kotov 5 centers and Soltis (updated by Rios?) pawn structures (or formations, or whatever if misusing those words). I don't know of each authors intent and relative chronology of publication, but these are clearly concepts that have different accessibility with respect to experience. Not about logic, or ability to understand concepts, but concepts worded with in one case little assumption on top of chess mobility rules, and the other experience with plans or plan types not spelled out. one is more dissecting and has more portable and wider audience definitions in associating pawn thing definitions to specific mentioned plan definitions. The other rely on a critical amount of game experience where the few categories might suffice as things to remember as players, the rest being assumed to fall off from those things, guess how, subconsciously or intuitively.. while in the more recent presentation of more numerous board objects there is more mileage to be had as learners and discovered of the concepts... too much?

I meant to the pre-expert mindset. Accessing and verbalizing about own current subconscious processes needs work. and it might be superfluous to the high achiever in chess. might even be detrimental. "toddler mindset" was borrowed from the successful analogy that the blogger used and referred to in this blog to a previous blog. Shortcut. As i often elaborate too much. Even this explanation here, can spill over into nuances. longer shortcut. remembering when we were ignorant of something now obvious, is a difficult task when time has gone under the bridges. It might be feasible, I think some of those books, probably later ones that had some predecessors to build upon, and targeting adult newcomers who could read, come from such efforts. Probably at first such things had to be worked hard even for oneself. Pioneering chess theory from own experience, taking the time to write it and share with community must have a been a pre-requisite. Which might be in favor of blog hypothesis that it was native speakers talking to native speakers (in pioneering cases, likely talking to self first). One thing that is likely more widespread (about being able to talk to "toddlers") is that coaches and teachers have had to work on that, in the course of their practice. But it is not automatic from being expert. In many fields that sort of difference exist.. and even within one person about various aspects of the expertise probably numerous skill components. Not all as expertly digested as others.. why we love chess.. right? I might be completely wrong as well. just that the blog made sense to me, and I have heard others sharing a similar point of view.. Testing argument: let's try to use Kotov 5 centers and Soltis (updated by Rios?) pawn structures (or formations, or whatever if misusing those words). I don't know of each authors intent and relative chronology of publication, but these are clearly concepts that have different accessibility with respect to experience. Not about logic, or ability to understand concepts, but concepts worded with in one case little assumption on top of chess mobility rules, and the other experience with plans or plan types not spelled out. one is more dissecting and has more portable and wider audience definitions in associating pawn thing definitions to specific mentioned plan definitions. The other rely on a critical amount of game experience where the few categories might suffice as things to remember as players, the rest being assumed to fall off from those things, guess how, subconsciously or intuitively.. while in the more recent presentation of more numerous board objects there is more mileage to be had as learners and discovered of the concepts... too much?