Max Euwes "Positiespel en combinatiespel" (position- and combination play, I don't have the English language version) has only a little over 100 pages and is easy to understand (for a medium chess player). He has included a section about pawn structures which are important.
To the extent that Chessable has a theory of learning, it's a very impoverished one.
I believe Pillsbury was once challenged to remember a list of obscure words, starting Antiphlogistine, Madjesoomalops etc
Spaced repetition/recall seems perfect for this task where any meaning in the content is irrelevant.
A book will have, as you suggest, an implicit theory of learning, but I suspect will be richer than you give it credit for, perhaps having several on one page. I don't know if you know the book Winning Chess by Chernev and Reinfeld -- I suspect both authors would struggle to articulate a 'theory of learning' of the sort you seem to think is required, but what a great pair of teachers.
I know many books from Everyman which use the Socratic method, of presenting a question before giving an explanation.
Others engage with wit, colourful language, striking examples, slogans, scaffolded exercises etc. Implicit maybe but Ford save us all from learning opening lines by rote.
Good-quality verbal explanations in books can unlock a whole opening system for you, as can a good example.
The right book at the right time can produce a step-wise improvement -- I can remember two or three from my early playing days (Winning Chess Chernev/Reinfeld, Middle Game I & II Euwe/Kramer, Secrets of Practical Chess Nunn).
Perhaps the reason most books don't 'work' is because most books are not good books -- or not good for you at the time.
I believe Pillsbury was once challenged to remember a list of obscure words, starting Antiphlogistine, Madjesoomalops etc
Spaced repetition/recall seems perfect for this task where any meaning in the content is irrelevant.
A book will have, as you suggest, an implicit theory of learning, but I suspect will be richer than you give it credit for, perhaps having several on one page. I don't know if you know the book Winning Chess by Chernev and Reinfeld -- I suspect both authors would struggle to articulate a 'theory of learning' of the sort you seem to think is required, but what a great pair of teachers.
I know many books from Everyman which use the Socratic method, of presenting a question before giving an explanation.
Others engage with wit, colourful language, striking examples, slogans, scaffolded exercises etc. Implicit maybe but Ford save us all from learning opening lines by rote.
Good-quality verbal explanations in books can unlock a whole opening system for you, as can a good example.
The right book at the right time can produce a step-wise improvement -- I can remember two or three from my early playing days (Winning Chess Chernev/Reinfeld, Middle Game I & II Euwe/Kramer, Secrets of Practical Chess Nunn).
Perhaps the reason most books don't 'work' is because most books are not good books -- or not good for you at the time.
@DrDaveExeter said in #92:
> Spaced repetition/recall seems perfect for this task where any meaning in the content is irrelevant.
I agree with you. it seems not related to the difficulty or the size of the chunk decided as such by author.
Not aware within that context, or student progression. only session attendance timing. It might be a steady clock time management.
I think the remaining theory of learning is up to the author who make ordering and chunking choices (not patterns, yes patterns can be chunk in a bigger map of things to learn about, but chunk is just bite size, in natural language, it might have been drifting because of some older chess cognition papers to mean pattern, I think, just making sure).
The teach as I learned theory of learning, might have been the lowest energy mode, but I think individually coaches might have more to say about theories of learning, unless they don't get feedback, and are not working with how the students are evolving. I just mean that it ought to be driving some flexibility and data input into the coach communication system if not too many students that they become a blur ... I have no clue. Only my experience, that individual coaching seems acutely aware of my individual difficulties, and can't just keep going without my feedback. with very positive results I should say.. Perhaps not in performance as it is not my measure and I don't play enough without study mindset, but in understanding which I can introspect enough, being an adult with some theory of learning with myself as experimental data point, for many years in many contexts now ( maybe by virtue of having some particular environment quality dependence for effective learning.. one becomes more aware of what works for them , when the norm is not doing it well).
The number of examples depends on the quality of the definitions prior to any example. also the intrinsic complexity of a thing (although without the full knowledge of them in relation to the full experience of them, a priori, it is hard to distinguish if it is the words or explanatin or defintiion that is the source of difficult learning or the chess itself. I might have more to say in few years.
> Spaced repetition/recall seems perfect for this task where any meaning in the content is irrelevant.
I agree with you. it seems not related to the difficulty or the size of the chunk decided as such by author.
Not aware within that context, or student progression. only session attendance timing. It might be a steady clock time management.
I think the remaining theory of learning is up to the author who make ordering and chunking choices (not patterns, yes patterns can be chunk in a bigger map of things to learn about, but chunk is just bite size, in natural language, it might have been drifting because of some older chess cognition papers to mean pattern, I think, just making sure).
The teach as I learned theory of learning, might have been the lowest energy mode, but I think individually coaches might have more to say about theories of learning, unless they don't get feedback, and are not working with how the students are evolving. I just mean that it ought to be driving some flexibility and data input into the coach communication system if not too many students that they become a blur ... I have no clue. Only my experience, that individual coaching seems acutely aware of my individual difficulties, and can't just keep going without my feedback. with very positive results I should say.. Perhaps not in performance as it is not my measure and I don't play enough without study mindset, but in understanding which I can introspect enough, being an adult with some theory of learning with myself as experimental data point, for many years in many contexts now ( maybe by virtue of having some particular environment quality dependence for effective learning.. one becomes more aware of what works for them , when the norm is not doing it well).
The number of examples depends on the quality of the definitions prior to any example. also the intrinsic complexity of a thing (although without the full knowledge of them in relation to the full experience of them, a priori, it is hard to distinguish if it is the words or explanatin or defintiion that is the source of difficult learning or the chess itself. I might have more to say in few years.
"More compressed. You can read the same words faster than you can listen to them"
I disagree, I prefer watching yt on 2x speed, sometimes pausing on interesting positions.
I disagree, I prefer watching yt on 2x speed, sometimes pausing on interesting positions.
deranged article pls delete this thanks :)
@chris-tian said in #94:
> "More compressed. You can read the same words faster than you can listen to them"
>
> I disagree, I prefer watching yt on 2x speed, sometimes pausing on interesting positions.
I don't know where the quote was from. assuming comparing books and videos. I am not a fan on not really interactive videos.
but reading text is a constraint on input. The eye gaze vector bottleneck.. while in audio mode, the parallel input sense of hearing is put to work while eye keep on board. and since we are very efficient visually most of us, we can have the hardest linguistic task use the less parallel processing pathway itself of hearing (sound wave is appropriate for streaming language, slow, perhaps slower than some might read).
I think the reading text, is more about fast reading till you hit what fits your questions. which is impossible with videos. where you have to basically commit to listen from A to Z.. no clue about when it will be juicy for you.
So, not really the point of audio versus reading. I think chess is visual first and verbal ... not later but aside. Eye gaze is something to consider in any theory of learning. low level detail, but still necessary.
> "More compressed. You can read the same words faster than you can listen to them"
>
> I disagree, I prefer watching yt on 2x speed, sometimes pausing on interesting positions.
I don't know where the quote was from. assuming comparing books and videos. I am not a fan on not really interactive videos.
but reading text is a constraint on input. The eye gaze vector bottleneck.. while in audio mode, the parallel input sense of hearing is put to work while eye keep on board. and since we are very efficient visually most of us, we can have the hardest linguistic task use the less parallel processing pathway itself of hearing (sound wave is appropriate for streaming language, slow, perhaps slower than some might read).
I think the reading text, is more about fast reading till you hit what fits your questions. which is impossible with videos. where you have to basically commit to listen from A to Z.. no clue about when it will be juicy for you.
So, not really the point of audio versus reading. I think chess is visual first and verbal ... not later but aside. Eye gaze is something to consider in any theory of learning. low level detail, but still necessary.
Up to 2225 in bullet. Never read a book.
Yes ok, but Bullet is certainly different from a OTB match with 2 hours/40 moves...
A 100 m run is also different from a marathon, and different people do win in these disciplines.
For Bullet you don't need a good book, you need a good mouse. :)
A 100 m run is also different from a marathon, and different people do win in these disciplines.
For Bullet you don't need a good book, you need a good mouse. :)
books are the best way to dramatically improve your chess
<Comment deleted by user>