Impossible Promises of Progress can be Harmful
Apr 10, 2024 8:43:24 GMT -5
Post by Radrook Admin on Apr 10, 2024 8:43:24 GMT -5
Impossible Promises of Progress can be Harmful
Just recently, on You Tube, I found this International Chess Master confidently claiming to have risen to a master level from an 800 rating in a year. He claimed no special talents. Described himself as just a regular Joe who discovered a very basic flaw that he claimed most players have, and which limits their progress.
Well, I watched as he calmly and confidently proceeded to reveal the reason why most of us cannot become masters. "Simple!" he exclaimed, "It involves choosing aggressive moves over defensive or developing ones, or moves that would influence an opponent's decisions rather than passive or developing ones which would leave an opponent's position unaffected."
Of course, I was overjoyed to hear this, since implementing his instructions seemed logical. Why had I not seen such obvious wisdom before? How could I have been so blind?
Yes, I had definitely been making the mistakes he had described. True, I had been unable to elevate myself to the master rating level. So with that hope in mind, I began applying his simple remedy, and waited with bated breath for the magical results that he had so confidently promised to kick in.
If a move seemed defensive, or prophylactic, I would reject it for another that would somehow force the opponent to react, exactly as he had advised. The point was to discombobulate the opponent in some manner. Strict chess rules of developing the pieces were to be evaluated within the context of this new approach, and given far lesser importance. Why develop my bishop to e2 when the c4 square is available? Why keep the knight on f3 when I could post it deep in enemy territory on e5. Why keep the queen at home, when I could send her hunting down a pawn and causing disruption in the opponent's second rank?
Result? Approx. 15 losses in a row, dropping my blitz rating form the middle 1700s to the middle1600s. Why? Well, because chess is simply too complex to be treated in such a simplistic fashion. Had he been purposefully lying? Not necessarily. Perhaps such an approach had indeed proven very useful to him, and so he assumed it would do the same for others. Unfortunately, that was simply an unwarranted assumption.
Instead, it seemed to throw a proverbial wrench into my games. Reminds me of the saying, if it works reasonably well, then don't try to fix it.
Well, I watched as he calmly and confidently proceeded to reveal the reason why most of us cannot become masters. "Simple!" he exclaimed, "It involves choosing aggressive moves over defensive or developing ones, or moves that would influence an opponent's decisions rather than passive or developing ones which would leave an opponent's position unaffected."
Of course, I was overjoyed to hear this, since implementing his instructions seemed logical. Why had I not seen such obvious wisdom before? How could I have been so blind?
Yes, I had definitely been making the mistakes he had described. True, I had been unable to elevate myself to the master rating level. So with that hope in mind, I began applying his simple remedy, and waited with bated breath for the magical results that he had so confidently promised to kick in.
If a move seemed defensive, or prophylactic, I would reject it for another that would somehow force the opponent to react, exactly as he had advised. The point was to discombobulate the opponent in some manner. Strict chess rules of developing the pieces were to be evaluated within the context of this new approach, and given far lesser importance. Why develop my bishop to e2 when the c4 square is available? Why keep the knight on f3 when I could post it deep in enemy territory on e5. Why keep the queen at home, when I could send her hunting down a pawn and causing disruption in the opponent's second rank?
Result? Approx. 15 losses in a row, dropping my blitz rating form the middle 1700s to the middle1600s. Why? Well, because chess is simply too complex to be treated in such a simplistic fashion. Had he been purposefully lying? Not necessarily. Perhaps such an approach had indeed proven very useful to him, and so he assumed it would do the same for others. Unfortunately, that was simply an unwarranted assumption.
Instead, it seemed to throw a proverbial wrench into my games. Reminds me of the saying, if it works reasonably well, then don't try to fix it.