It appears the Socratic method will reveal the underlying truth.. or will it only produce wisdom in attempting to do so?
Is there really any definitive answer?
I like the philosophical dissection so far it strikes me as a little superfluous.
Is there really any definitive answer?
I like the philosophical dissection so far it strikes me as a little superfluous.
it's always interesting to see new ideas coming on this controversial topic. As you mentioned, with the lack of a scientific ground, chess culture has been unable to provide clear and efficient solution to the problem of chess improvement. Even scientific endeavors towards chess improvement - to my knowledge - generally end up with abstraction and vagueness instead of drawing practical or pragmatic conclusions.
Looking forward to know more about your system.
Looking forward to know more about your system.
Do you have your website version up soon?
I find the sectionning more structure for my kind of reading patterns (like not really having any, that I consciously could describe, yet, having such an interactive map helps me not get lost, internals links). chunks everywhere!
Also, I think you were right to wait, and I hope this is not you surrendering to some manifested impatience.
I agree with previous posts, but maybe that is not because there are not studies of more scientific methods, but their titles offer little promises. They might be too much of what the blog author refer to as 3rd person.
I do not think the philosophical dissection is superflous, not on the internet, unknown possible audience. Knowing what populates the authors basics or general thinking context, or how this proposition exercise is rooted, helps receiving what follows with a probably better framing of intent. As the words for a target of curiosity like chess which is not made of words itself, are usually what creates the vagueness when used as if they meant the same things for all experiences.
sometimes we do need to step out of assuming there is a common sense out there. And an expert has to be careful about that assumption, and therefore kudos if that is part of what I will keep reading. but please.. be patient blog author (not just about me). Do rely on your lefmots username flair to keep you in the lobby rotation visibility. (might be true, either lichess algo, or consultants, or the facts of chess improver eager for some clarity or was it comprehensiveness). I don,t care about your title, but it does not prevent me from appreciate this proposal. The content matters more than the jump start credibiility for me.
I find the sectionning more structure for my kind of reading patterns (like not really having any, that I consciously could describe, yet, having such an interactive map helps me not get lost, internals links). chunks everywhere!
Also, I think you were right to wait, and I hope this is not you surrendering to some manifested impatience.
I agree with previous posts, but maybe that is not because there are not studies of more scientific methods, but their titles offer little promises. They might be too much of what the blog author refer to as 3rd person.
I do not think the philosophical dissection is superflous, not on the internet, unknown possible audience. Knowing what populates the authors basics or general thinking context, or how this proposition exercise is rooted, helps receiving what follows with a probably better framing of intent. As the words for a target of curiosity like chess which is not made of words itself, are usually what creates the vagueness when used as if they meant the same things for all experiences.
sometimes we do need to step out of assuming there is a common sense out there. And an expert has to be careful about that assumption, and therefore kudos if that is part of what I will keep reading. but please.. be patient blog author (not just about me). Do rely on your lefmots username flair to keep you in the lobby rotation visibility. (might be true, either lichess algo, or consultants, or the facts of chess improver eager for some clarity or was it comprehensiveness). I don,t care about your title, but it does not prevent me from appreciate this proposal. The content matters more than the jump start credibiility for me.
Vague and inconclusive yet again
@king-Monti said in #5:
> Vague and inconclusive yet again
On second thought, perhaps I should have presented all the information in one go, as the apparently foreign concept of a multi-part series seems to have introduced some suspense (at least enough to inspire your comment)!
Apologies for the extent to which I have "blue-balled" you, my friend :)
> Vague and inconclusive yet again
On second thought, perhaps I should have presented all the information in one go, as the apparently foreign concept of a multi-part series seems to have introduced some suspense (at least enough to inspire your comment)!
Apologies for the extent to which I have "blue-balled" you, my friend :)
There is one sentence I can really appreciate in the article: "But I digress".
I always thought that chess main attraction was that it was a game of reasoning (on the board, but then why not above it, among more than 2 players playing, since we can now do more than grunts of victories).
I are reading both the outlinked article first for the ample breathing (spatical) space, and the TOC. I find a lot of familiar reasoning as I am reading your presentation. I do not come from the same cloth, but I can find a common ground level. I appreciate you spacing out the elements, so that we can, in our diversity, from your transparency, pick and choose, and follow you in spite of our divergences.
It is harder to follow then too much uncommon sense disguise as common sense from the speaker narrow view of the world is hiding too much for us to do some common journeying with the speaker. But for now, from my completely non-competitive chess upbringing (except on the board, still part of ruleset), I just don't find a lot of divergence, once I understand where you are intending to go. I am now forward reading, and stopped at middle or artcile 2.
I also read the cheating interlude, I do enjoy your debating format, or how can I say, transparent emphasis of the argumentation knoweldge being food to that. Back to it for me. I have energy and time today.
I are reading both the outlinked article first for the ample breathing (spatical) space, and the TOC. I find a lot of familiar reasoning as I am reading your presentation. I do not come from the same cloth, but I can find a common ground level. I appreciate you spacing out the elements, so that we can, in our diversity, from your transparency, pick and choose, and follow you in spite of our divergences.
It is harder to follow then too much uncommon sense disguise as common sense from the speaker narrow view of the world is hiding too much for us to do some common journeying with the speaker. But for now, from my completely non-competitive chess upbringing (except on the board, still part of ruleset), I just don't find a lot of divergence, once I understand where you are intending to go. I am now forward reading, and stopped at middle or artcile 2.
I also read the cheating interlude, I do enjoy your debating format, or how can I say, transparent emphasis of the argumentation knoweldge being food to that. Back to it for me. I have energy and time today.
Chat bot do not digress, they converge to what all its inputs might have in common, and since they have to be desirable chatbots, they will prioritize your hidden (to yourself, sometimes) belief system. It might be reading under the lines of your own input. Well, being generative under the hood, they might have to let some steam ought, but, still in the direction of the convergence. I think the commercial-attention-grabbing (and possible influencing, who knows how much of that imperative is hard-wired in the programming constraints, ground assumptions even).
I am glad that the writer here is take the time required to look around.. It is not digression if one is seeking some depth of understanding, or solidity of language at a different time scale that one reader, used to a different format of expression might assume is the only possible constructive format. When I say our tools might be format our minds, it is the lack of diversity of their experience, the swarming on one type that might make us look like the remaining humans in the old "Wall-e" movie. Strong thumbs.
They might have needed machine clocked attention chunks, the same for all. but we would not be able to see that as observers.
I really hope the author is not swayed by impatient readers. Please people, this is not a typical one blog one improvement notch deal. Maybe I understand having felt the need to published article 3. For I too, might have been not sure where things were going, and whether I wanted to go on this journey of reading (it is demanding for me, to stop my imagination, to let others voices in, it usually does not happen, but I can do some pseudo-parallel with both sources).
Axiom 1. allows me to read forward now. I am writing this in case others of similar cloth than mine had the same hesitations. And also I like to experss myself on difficult things I am trying to grasp at. Hoping not being alone. And this series, is giving me hope.
(as a few others have been and will too.)
I am glad that the writer here is take the time required to look around.. It is not digression if one is seeking some depth of understanding, or solidity of language at a different time scale that one reader, used to a different format of expression might assume is the only possible constructive format. When I say our tools might be format our minds, it is the lack of diversity of their experience, the swarming on one type that might make us look like the remaining humans in the old "Wall-e" movie. Strong thumbs.
They might have needed machine clocked attention chunks, the same for all. but we would not be able to see that as observers.
I really hope the author is not swayed by impatient readers. Please people, this is not a typical one blog one improvement notch deal. Maybe I understand having felt the need to published article 3. For I too, might have been not sure where things were going, and whether I wanted to go on this journey of reading (it is demanding for me, to stop my imagination, to let others voices in, it usually does not happen, but I can do some pseudo-parallel with both sources).
Axiom 1. allows me to read forward now. I am writing this in case others of similar cloth than mine had the same hesitations. And also I like to experss myself on difficult things I am trying to grasp at. Hoping not being alone. And this series, is giving me hope.
(as a few others have been and will too.)
shallowness.
Perhaps the cumulative result of experience based (but also constrained) concept awareness emergence, might result when brought together to vagueness and shallownes when in obligatory 3rd person context of communication.
I am still having lots to learn, both on the board and about what cooperative shareable concepts have emerged (their ecosystem, perhaps). Having to figure out often what the hidden context might have been. But I would not say all vagueness or shallowness are of the same nature, intrinsic to the concepts themselves.
Just that the constraints of chess qualia of the board (unique sensory experience of individual), and the more influencing written versions of it, from high level, might be, with their lack of pre-established method of communication akin to the scientific method (which implies a shareable lexicon, and verification of common sensory experience (extended), for both theory generation and empirical testing parts, of that wheel).
I think the problem migh not have been the 3rd person discourse, but jumping to that, wihtout having establish a common context. Often giving the sense to some readers, that the author might be speaking to someone who might have already known the concepts of the words being introduced. While it might have been possible that the pioneers were doing their best at coining words for their qualia borne concepts, not having rules of 3rd person verifiabliity or common sensory experience basis, might have led to a propagation of semantic slippage, where authority hidden or implied argumentation would have replace the need for establishing some method.
I say, that the 3rd person was premature. And I am hoping that you will keep this direction of actual 3rp person, even if on the surface using your first person speech, as, paradoxically, more conducive to a future 3rd person view that might actually be useful for even your limited one person based axiom1. Which I support. For it might be the most feasible ground (hoping). It is clear that the subjective learning process has to become part of the language used (as an expert chess learner, and ignorant of a lot of it still, I can say that I find that being both the elephant in the room and the hidden room around the elephant).
I think coaching brings that awareness to the high-level players. Not their high-level playing.
Perhaps the cumulative result of experience based (but also constrained) concept awareness emergence, might result when brought together to vagueness and shallownes when in obligatory 3rd person context of communication.
I am still having lots to learn, both on the board and about what cooperative shareable concepts have emerged (their ecosystem, perhaps). Having to figure out often what the hidden context might have been. But I would not say all vagueness or shallowness are of the same nature, intrinsic to the concepts themselves.
Just that the constraints of chess qualia of the board (unique sensory experience of individual), and the more influencing written versions of it, from high level, might be, with their lack of pre-established method of communication akin to the scientific method (which implies a shareable lexicon, and verification of common sensory experience (extended), for both theory generation and empirical testing parts, of that wheel).
I think the problem migh not have been the 3rd person discourse, but jumping to that, wihtout having establish a common context. Often giving the sense to some readers, that the author might be speaking to someone who might have already known the concepts of the words being introduced. While it might have been possible that the pioneers were doing their best at coining words for their qualia borne concepts, not having rules of 3rd person verifiabliity or common sensory experience basis, might have led to a propagation of semantic slippage, where authority hidden or implied argumentation would have replace the need for establishing some method.
I say, that the 3rd person was premature. And I am hoping that you will keep this direction of actual 3rp person, even if on the surface using your first person speech, as, paradoxically, more conducive to a future 3rd person view that might actually be useful for even your limited one person based axiom1. Which I support. For it might be the most feasible ground (hoping). It is clear that the subjective learning process has to become part of the language used (as an expert chess learner, and ignorant of a lot of it still, I can say that I find that being both the elephant in the room and the hidden room around the elephant).
I think coaching brings that awareness to the high-level players. Not their high-level playing.