Problem is, computers are fast becoming better than humans at board games.
Much better then, to teach them how to program a machine with artificial intelligence. Wouldn't you say?
On 13/05/2016 07:02, frederick wrote:
Problem is, computers are fast becoming better than humans at board
games.
The point isn't to beat the opposition.
It's claimed that chess trains the mind to focus. The op claims board
games can teach "psychological tenacity".
On 13/05/16 10:18, DVH wrote:
On 13/05/2016 07:02, frederick wrote:
Problem is, computers are fast becoming better than humans at board
games.
The point isn't to beat the opposition.
Is that your excuse?
It's claimed that chess trains the mind to focus. The op claims board
games can teach "psychological tenacity".
It's also claimed that chess is rendered a huge waste of time, now that computers can do the same job better.
No point in playing a rigged game.
Problem is, computers are fast becoming better than humans at board games.
Much better then, to teach them how to program a machine with artificial intelligence. Wouldn't you say?
On 13/05/2016 08:02, frederick wrote:
Problem is, computers are fast becoming better than humans at board
games.
Much better then, to teach them how to program a machine with artificial
intelligence. Wouldn't you say?
I don't understand the argument. It is fun to play board games, it
stimulates the intellect, and teaches kids to become mature individuals.
If kids were to be taught board games, such as chess, then they would
acquire psychological tenacity, and learn that it is only you yourself
who is responsible for the situation.
It is fun to play board games, it
stimulates the intellect, and teaches kids to become mature individuals.
For your reference, records indicate that
M Winther <mwi9@swipnet.se> wrote:
It is fun to play board games, it
stimulates the intellect, and teaches kids to become mature individuals.
Have you ever even played chess? 90% of the game is knowing the bland database of opening moves that result in an advantage if the other
player hasn’t also gone through the drudgery of their rote memorization. The most immature people I met were the ones in chess club who thought
they were hot shit just because some new player didn’t know about the
quick checkmates.
On 13/05/16 12:09, M Winther wrote:
On 13/05/2016 08:02, frederick wrote:
Problem is, computers are fast becoming better than humans at board
games.
Much better then, to teach them how to program a machine with artificial >>> intelligence. Wouldn't you say?
I don't understand the argument. It is fun to play board games, it
stimulates the intellect, and teaches kids to become mature individuals.
I can see the social aspect of board games, indeed, in this sense they
can be fun.
But really, it's a poor challenge of intellect, as machines are better
at them than humans.
Perhaps they should focus and work on the things that make humans human,
that can't be easily replicated, rather than messing about in the
classroom with board games and other things that are equally as useless.
And before you say it's the same as saying they shouldn't teach numeracy because we have calculators or some such ... numeracy without a
calculator is generally needed skill, unlike board games, which have no
real purpose apart from entertainment.
(Heck, they may as well 'teach'
people to play the playstation.)
So yes, let them play board games, but only if they are educational
board games, else leave them out of any sort of 'learning' time.
Really though, what I'd like the education system to do is help people
think for themselves. But that's unlikely to happen with
algorithmic-style tests from the age of 7.
Pupils should be taught how to design and make things.
When I was at
school,
we were always told what we should be doing rather than to think
for ourselves. In science, we never tested any of our own hypothesises.
In technology, we never got to build our own things. In computing/IT we
never got to write our own computer programs. In art, we were heavily restricted to the medium.
In English, it was rare that we would sit and
do any creative writing, that is, without being told what to write
about. And in maths, we would never learn how to create mathematical theories.
Instead, education nowadays, is simply a case of skimming over the
syllabus last minute and reading past papers.
And it's really a shame
it's got to that. It certainly puts people off any future learning.
On 13/05/2016 19:19, Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
M Winther <mwi9@swipnet.se> wrote:
It is fun to play board games, it
stimulates the intellect, and teaches kids to become mature individuals.
Have you ever even played chess? 90% of the game is knowing the bland
database of opening moves that result in an advantage if the other
player hasnt also gone through the drudgery of their rote memorization.
The most immature people I met were the ones in chess club who thought
they were hot shit just because some new player didnt know about the
quick checkmates.
I am a master class chess player. It is totally wrong that it's all
about memorization. It is mostly calculative ability that decides the
outcome of a game of chess. The second most important thing is the
ability to make up intelligent plans. The game teaches you to take >responsibility the your soldiers on the chess board, and it compels you
to face defeat in a mature way. Playing chess is learning for life.
But really, it's a poor challenge of intellect, as machines are better
at them than humans.
Instead, education nowadays, is simply a case of skimming over the
syllabus last minute and reading past papers.
No it's not.
And it's really a shame
it's got to that. It certainly puts people off any future learning.
No it doesn't.
In rec.games.misc DVH <dvh@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
Instead, education nowadays, is simply a case of skimming over the
syllabus last minute and reading past papers.
No it's not.
I'd say that depends on the country or educative system you are
talking about.
Systems in which pupils are trained to solve a subset of problems that
are always solved in the same way are a thing. They teach people to
memorize a method for each "classic" problem and call it a day.
Pupils protesting test results because an exercise didn't conform to
the magic formula practiced in class, even if the generic content of
the subject is sufficient for solving it, are also a thing.
And it's really a shame
it's got to that. It certainly puts people off any future learning.
No it doesn't.
It doesn't by itself, but it is a contributing factor.
Pupils that know that Lesson 1 lasts for 2 weeks, and know that means
that they are going to solve the same problem over and over and over
again for those two weeks, may get bored very quikly due to monotony
and creative thinking.
On 13/05/2016 19:19, Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
M Winther <mwi9@swipnet.se> wrote:
It is fun to play board games, it
stimulates the intellect, and teaches kids to become mature individuals.
Have you ever even played chess? 90% of the game is knowing the bland database of opening moves that result in an advantage if the other
player hasn’t also gone through the drudgery of their rote memorization. The most immature people I met were the ones in chess club who thought
they were hot shit just because some new player didn’t know about the quick checkmates.
I am a master class chess player.
It is totally wrong that it's all
about memorization. It is mostly calculative ability that decides the
outcome of a game of chess. The second most important thing is the
ability to make up intelligent plans.
The game teaches you to take
responsibility the your soldiers on the chess board, and it compels you
to face defeat in a mature way. Playing chess is learning for life.
On 13/05/2016 13:34, frederick wrote:
On 13/05/16 12:09, M Winther wrote:
On 13/05/2016 08:02, frederick wrote:
Problem is, computers are fast becoming better than humans at board
games.
Much better then, to teach them how to program a machine with
artificial
intelligence. Wouldn't you say?
I don't understand the argument. It is fun to play board games, it
stimulates the intellect, and teaches kids to become mature individuals.
I can see the social aspect of board games, indeed, in this sense they
can be fun.
But really, it's a poor challenge of intellect, as machines are better
at them than humans.
Perhaps they should focus and work on the things that make humans human,
that can't be easily replicated, rather than messing about in the
classroom with board games and other things that are equally as useless.
And before you say it's the same as saying they shouldn't teach numeracy
because we have calculators or some such ... numeracy without a
calculator is generally needed skill, unlike board games, which have no
real purpose apart from entertainment.
You're still missing the point.
The claim is that games help people mature. The op suggests they
encourage "tenacity", and others suggest they improve focus.
(Heck, they may as well 'teach'
people to play the playstation.)
Some video games are indeed useful. They "teach" reasoning and other
skills.
So yes, let them play board games, but only if they are educational
board games, else leave them out of any sort of 'learning' time.
They didn't play board games in your day, eh, fred?
And what was good enough for you is good enough for them.
Really though, what I'd like the education system to do is help people
think for themselves. But that's unlikely to happen with
algorithmic-style tests from the age of 7.
Pupils should be taught how to design and make things.
They are. There's even a GCSE in it.
When I was at
school,
Here we go...
we were always told what we should be doing rather than to think
for ourselves. In science, we never tested any of our own hypothesises.
In technology, we never got to build our own things. In computing/IT we
never got to write our own computer programs. In art, we were heavily
restricted to the medium.
Which medium?
In English, it was rare that we would sit and
do any creative writing, that is, without being told what to write
about. And in maths, we would never learn how to create mathematical
theories.
Instead, education nowadays, is simply a case of skimming over the
syllabus last minute and reading past papers.
No it's not.
And it's really a shame
it's got to that. It certainly puts people off any future learning.
No it doesn't.
On 13/05/2016 19:50, Richard Falken wrote:
Systems in which pupils are trained to solve a subset of problems that
are always solved in the same way are a thing. They teach people to
memorize a method for each "classic" problem and call it a day.
How would you change that?
On 13/05/16 18:14, DVH wrote:
On 13/05/2016 13:34, frederick wrote:
On 13/05/16 12:09, M Winther wrote:
On 13/05/2016 08:02, frederick wrote:
Problem is, computers are fast becoming better than humans at board
games.
Much better then, to teach them how to program a machine with
artificial
intelligence. Wouldn't you say?
I don't understand the argument. It is fun to play board games, it
stimulates the intellect, and teaches kids to become mature
individuals.
I can see the social aspect of board games, indeed, in this sense they
can be fun.
But really, it's a poor challenge of intellect, as machines are better
at them than humans.
Perhaps they should focus and work on the things that make humans human, >>> that can't be easily replicated, rather than messing about in the
classroom with board games and other things that are equally as useless. >>>
And before you say it's the same as saying they shouldn't teach numeracy >>> because we have calculators or some such ... numeracy without a
calculator is generally needed skill, unlike board games, which have no
real purpose apart from entertainment.
You're still missing the point.
The claim is that games help people mature. The op suggests they
encourage "tenacity", and others suggest they improve focus.
Games do not help people mature.
(Heck, they may as well 'teach'
people to play the playstation.)
Some video games are indeed useful. They "teach" reasoning and other
skills.
What a great education you must have had! LOL.
So yes, let them play board games, but only if they are educational
board games, else leave them out of any sort of 'learning' time.
They didn't play board games in your day, eh, fred?
And what was good enough for you is good enough for them.
We played board games during the hours we weren't learning.
Really though, what I'd like the education system to do is help people
think for themselves. But that's unlikely to happen with
algorithmic-style tests from the age of 7.
Pupils should be taught how to design and make things.
They are. There's even a GCSE in it.
But that GCSE is algorithmically tested and taught to be very dull as a result.
When I was at
school,
Here we go...
we were always told what we should be doing rather than to think
for ourselves. In science, we never tested any of our own hypothesises.
In technology, we never got to build our own things. In computing/IT we
never got to write our own computer programs. In art, we were heavily
restricted to the medium.
Which medium?
Which ever we were told to use.
In English, it was rare that we would sit and
do any creative writing, that is, without being told what to write
about. And in maths, we would never learn how to create mathematical
theories.
Instead, education nowadays, is simply a case of skimming over the
syllabus last minute and reading past papers.
No it's not.
Yes, it is!
And it's really a shame
it's got to that. It certainly puts people off any future learning.
No it doesn't.
Oh yes it does!
Have you ever even played chess? 90% of the game is knowing the bland database of opening moves that result in an advantage if the other
player hasn’t also gone through the drudgery of their rote memorization.
On 13/05/16 18:19, Doc O'Leary wrote:
[to MW:]
Have you ever even played chess? 90% of the game is knowing the bland database of opening moves that result in an advantage if the other
player hasn’t also gone through the drudgery of their rote memorization.
It is true that there are players, even quite strong players,
who believe that. But they are wrong. It is also true that at the
very highest levels, one of the principal differences between players
can be the opening preparation. But this is not "knowing the bland database", it is researching opening lines and making discoveries in
them, especially in opening lines that you may expect the opponent
to play. It's those players who create the "database".
It's not interestingly different from the practice and
preparation that all professional sportsmen carry out, trying to
improve your own game and also studying the opposition to spot [if
possible] their weaknesses.
Several of the *very* strongest players are noted for *not* specialising in the opening. Rather, they apply general principles
in order to reach playable positions [even at a slight disadvantage]
with the idea of outplaying the opponent in the other phases of the
game. Of course, you don't get to be world champion without being
expert in every phase of the game, but that's a different matter.
what was suggested was that chess aide concentration and
focus...which it most clearly does...
people enjoy it...or are you a socialist?
For your reference, records indicate that
abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
what was suggested was that chess aide concentration and
focus...which it most clearly does...
Does it? Better than other activities? Im still waiting for anyone
to point to a scientific study that demonstrates what you claim is so
clear.
people enjoy it...or are you a socialist?
*Some* people enjoy it. So, yes, Im a socialist in that Id like the >community to determine how they best learn. To impose something like
chess on them, especially when you have no evidence it will result in
the outcomes you suggest, smacks more of fascism.
For your reference, records indicate that
Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/16 18:19, Doc O'Leary wrote:
[to MW:]
Have you ever even played chess? 90% of the game is knowing the blandIt is true that there are players, even quite strong players,
database of opening moves that result in an advantage if the other
player hasnt also gone through the drudgery of their rote memorization. >>
who believe that. But they are wrong. It is also true that at the
very highest levels, one of the principal differences between players
can be the opening preparation. But this is not "knowing the bland
database", it is researching opening lines and making discoveries in
them, especially in opening lines that you may expect the opponent
to play. It's those players who create the "database".
Completely irrelevant in a school setting. The purpose of a lesson
*should* be to learn something beyond the immediate activity. If all
youre teaching kids is to think like another person (i.e., theory of
mind), I see no reason why a deep dive into the intricacies of chess is >needed for that.
It's not interestingly different from the practice and
preparation that all professional sportsmen carry out, trying to
improve your own game and also studying the opposition to spot [if
possible] their weaknesses.
I agree. But, as I said, people who play sports arent generally known
for their dizzying intellects. So it is questionable what value there
is in forcing a specific task on a student to learn that lesson. Far
better would be some personalized curriculum that uses their *preferred* >activity (chess or football or whatever) as the context for the thing
youre looking to teach.
Several of the *very* strongest players are noted for *not*
specialising in the opening. Rather, they apply general principles
in order to reach playable positions [even at a slight disadvantage]
with the idea of outplaying the opponent in the other phases of the
game. Of course, you don't get to be world champion without being
expert in every phase of the game, but that's a different matter.
I say its the *only* matter worth discussing. Is the aim to turn
students into chess players (world-class or otherwise) or is it to teach
them principles that are mind-expanding and/or useful in the real world? >Because if its just to score them at chess then it *will* come with a
lot of tedious opening move analysis and other, even more specialized
study that has very little value beyond the board.
On 17/05/16 19:57, abelard wrote:
not creativity...there are now many twelve year olds who can take
apart oldies who would once have been gifted amateurs
merely by virtue of their book learning
There are certainly a handful of gifted 12yos who can take
apart oldies of, say, county standard. I don't know of any who do
that "merely", even primarily, "by virtue of their book learning".
They do it by tactical awareness, speed of thought, and concentrated
attention to the game, often amounting to obsession [despite which
they are often surprisingly well balanced, with many interests other
than chess]. Personally, when I find promising youngsters, I look
for creativity. Those with it go far -- if they don't give up when
exams and hormones cut in --, those without it never progress. Book
learning comes later.
On Tue, 17 May 2016 16:22:48 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
It is true that there are players, even quite strong players,Completely irrelevant in a school setting.
who believe that. But they are wrong. It is also true that at the
very highest levels, one of the principal differences between players
can be the opening preparation. But this is not "knowing the bland
database", it is researching opening lines and making discoveries in
them, especially in opening lines that you may expect the opponent
to play. It's those players who create the "database".
The purpose of a lesson
*should* be to learn something beyond the immediate activity. If all
you’re teaching kids is to think like another person (i.e., theory of
mind),
I see no reason why a deep dive into the intricacies of chess is
needed for that.
what was suggested was that chess aide concentration and
focus...which it most clearly does...
not creativity...there are now many twelve year olds who can take
apart oldies who would once have been gifted amateurs
merely by virtue of their book learning
Of course, you don't get to be world champion without beingI say it’s the *only* matter worth discussing. Is the aim to turn
expert in every phase of the game, but that's a different matter.
students into chess players (world-class or otherwise) or is it to teach
them principles that are mind-expanding and/or useful in the real world?
Because if it’s just to score them at chess then it *will* come with a
lot of tedious opening move analysis
and other, even more specialized
study that has very little value beyond the board.
*Some* people enjoy it. So, yes, I'm a socialist in that I'd like the community to determine how they best learn. To impose something like
chess on them, especially when you have no evidence it will result in
the outcomes you suggest, smacks more of fascism.
In rec.games.misc Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
*Some* people enjoy it. So, yes, I'm a socialist in that I'd like the community to determine how they best learn. To impose something like
chess on them, especially when you have no evidence it will result in
the outcomes you suggest, smacks more of fascism.
Fascism is an ideological subset of State socialism, so claiming that something smacks more of fascism than of socialism is a logical contradiction.
It is usually
argued that an economy managed by a military junta cannot be considered socialist because it is not democratic and/or distributed, but it is my opinion that as long as you have the authority that makes decisions
manage or determine how strategic goods and services must be
distributed, with the justification of redistribution of wealth, you are talking about socialism.
Many modern fascist describe themselves as Socialist Patriots or Right
Wing Socialist because of this.
There is no logical ground to claim that letting "society" decide what
is your best way to learn will not result in some authoritarian
taking on education.
Long story short: tags are rather pointless when it comes to politics,
so stick to the thread - boardgames and education - rather than tag the
point of view of the posters with political names. It is just too messy
and leads nowhere.
For your reference, records indicate that
Richard Falken <richardfalken@richard-falken.com> wrote:
In rec.games.misc Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
*Some* people enjoy it. So, yes, I'm a socialist in that I'd like the
community to determine how they best learn. To impose something like
chess on them, especially when you have no evidence it will result in
the outcomes you suggest, smacks more of fascism.
Fascism is an ideological subset of State socialism, so claiming that
something smacks more of fascism than of socialism is a logical
contradiction.
You clearly dont know much about political systems,
including the
difference between their *means* and their *ends*. But, by all means,
do go through all the Wikipedia articles on socialism and let me know
when you make the connection to the subset that is fascism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism
you try concentrating in 4 hour sessions where the slightest
inattention and you lose
if you actually don't want to learn, who is stopping you
reading comics...
or playing tiddly-winks
On 17/05/16 19:57, abelard wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 16:22:48 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Completely irrelevant in a school setting.
But relevant to your characterisation of chess as "90% ...
knowing the bland database of opening moves". If you had said "5%",
you would be nearer the mark. If you don't understand what chess
*is*, then your opinions on its value, in school or elsewhere, are
somewhat devalued.
I see no reason why a deep dive into the intricacies of chess is
needed for that.
I don't believe that a "deep dive" into chess is on the
cards. For a start, there are too few teachers capable of it.
"Knights of the South Bronx" [qv] is based on a true story.
Locally, I have some good friends who are taking chess into local
slums, and believe they are having some success in getting young
people off the streets, away from crime [esp drugs and guns], and
into education and career prospects.
Because if it’s just to score them at chess then it *will* come with a >> lot of tedious opening move analysis
Even if it was for that purpose, it would be stupid to spend
much time on "opening move analysis". You can be taken "out of book"
on move 2 even in high-level games; it's much more likely on playing
fellow beginners. You need to know more general principles, so that
you can play good moves in unfamiliar positions. Otherwise, clued-up opponents will deliberately take you into such positions.
and other, even more specialized
study that has very little value beyond the board.
There is rather more truth to this. But even so the processes
by which you learn specialised techniques often transfer to other disciplines.
On Wed, 18 May 2016 16:48:23 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
what was suggested was that chess aide concentration and
focus...which it most clearly does...
Does it? Better than other activities? Im still waiting for anyone
to point to a scientific study that demonstrates what you claim is so
clear.
not the point...
you try concentrating in 4 hour sessions where the slightest
inattention and you lose
For your reference, records indicate that
abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
you try concentrating in 4 hour sessions where the slightest
inattention and you lose
Sounds like loads of fun. Im sure there is no better way to teach
children, and theyll all be lining up for your grueling lessons.
Your success is assured!
if you actually don't want to learn, who is stopping you
reading comics...
or playing tiddly-winks
Generally a teacher who is more qualified to do the job than you.
On 18/05/2016 18:23, abelard wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 16:48:23 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
<droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
what was suggested was that chess aide concentration and
focus...which it most clearly does...
Does it? Better than other activities? Im still waiting for anyone
to point to a scientific study that demonstrates what you claim is so
clear.
not the point...
you try concentrating in 4 hour sessions where the slightest
inattention and you lose
Is that evidence that chess teaches focus and concentration?
In rec.games.misc Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
*Some* people enjoy it. So, yes, I'm a socialist in that I'd like the
community to determine how they best learn. To impose something like
chess on them, especially when you have no evidence it will result in
the outcomes you suggest, smacks more of fascism.
Fascism is an ideological subset of State socialism
On Fri, 13 May 2016 19:44:28 +0200, M Winther <mwi9@swipnet.se> wrote:
On 13/05/2016 19:19, Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
M Winther <mwi9@swipnet.se> wrote:
It is fun to play board games, itHave you ever even played chess? 90% of the game is knowing the bland
stimulates the intellect, and teaches kids to become mature individuals. >>>
database of opening moves that result in an advantage if the other
player hasnt also gone through the drudgery of their rote memorization. >>> The most immature people I met were the ones in chess club who thought
they were hot shit just because some new player didnt know about the
quick checkmates.
I am a master class chess player. It is totally wrong that it's all
about memorization. It is mostly calculative ability that decides the
outcome of a game of chess. The second most important thing is the
ability to make up intelligent plans. The game teaches you to take
responsibility the your soldiers on the chess board, and it compels you
to face defeat in a mature way. Playing chess is learning for life.
i asked an international chess master(not a common or garden one like
you claim that you are) how he differed from a top class player..
he told me it was mainly a matter of memory...
For your reference, records indicate that
M Winther <mwi9@swipnet.se> wrote:
If kids were to be taught board games, such as chess, then they would
acquire psychological tenacity, and learn that it is only you yourself
who is responsible for the situation.
Do you have any scientific studies backing up that position? What
about the kids who are bored by board games?
Richard Falken <richardfalken@richard-falken.com> wrote:
In rec.games.misc Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
*Some* people enjoy it. So, yes, I'm a socialist in that I'd like the
community to determine how they best learn. To impose something like
chess on them, especially when you have no evidence it will result in
the outcomes you suggest, smacks more of fascism.
Fascism is an ideological subset of State socialism
Another graduate from the Abelard School of Political Debate, who thinks
that 'fascism' is a synonym for 'political system with which I disagree'.
On Thu, 19 May 2016 23:09:29 +0100, DVH <dvh@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2016 18:23, abelard wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 16:48:23 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
<droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
what was suggested was that chess aide concentration and
focus...which it most clearly does...
Does it? Better than other activities? Im still waiting for anyone
to point to a scientific study that demonstrates what you claim is so
clear.
not the point...
you try concentrating in 4 hour sessions where the slightest
inattention and you lose
Is that evidence that chess teaches focus and concentration?
it's evidence you will lose if you don't have or develop focus
and concentration...
you will also lose if you don't study...
every person is different...
motivation also mediates your behaviour...
try focusing your questions more effectively!
what evidence is there that learning to read teaches you to read?
On 13/05/2016 19:50, abelard wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 19:44:28 +0200, M Winther <mwi9@swipnet.se> wrote:
On 13/05/2016 19:19, Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
M Winther <mwi9@swipnet.se> wrote:
It is fun to play board games, itHave you ever even played chess? 90% of the game is knowing the bland >>>> database of opening moves that result in an advantage if the other
stimulates the intellect, and teaches kids to become mature individuals. >>>>
player hasnt also gone through the drudgery of their rote memorization. >>>> The most immature people I met were the ones in chess club who thought >>>> they were hot shit just because some new player didnt know about the
quick checkmates.
I am a master class chess player. It is totally wrong that it's all
about memorization. It is mostly calculative ability that decides the
outcome of a game of chess. The second most important thing is the
ability to make up intelligent plans. The game teaches you to take
responsibility the your soldiers on the chess board, and it compels you
to face defeat in a mature way. Playing chess is learning for life.
i asked an international chess master(not a common or garden one like
you claim that you are) how he differed from a top class player..
he told me it was mainly a matter of memory...
That's rubbish, indeed. It is predominantly a matter of calculative
ability (that's why computer's are so strong). Next, it is the
capability to formulate good plans. Although memory plays an important
part in the opening, there are many strong club players who know very
little theory.
On Fri, 20 May 2016 00:11:09 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yitzhak@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Richard Falken <richardfalken@richard-falken.com> wrote:
In rec.games.misc Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
*Some* people enjoy it. So, yes, I'm a socialist in that I'd like the >>>> community to determine how they best learn. To impose something like
chess on them, especially when you have no evidence it will result in
the outcomes you suggest, smacks more of fascism.
Fascism is an ideological subset of State socialism
Another graduate from the Abelard School of Political Debate, who thinks >>that 'fascism' is a synonym for 'political system with which I disagree'.
no, that is the way in which your cult uses the term for rival
socialists... and many others...
On 19/05/2016 23:21, abelard wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2016 23:09:29 +0100, DVH <dvh@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2016 18:23, abelard wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 16:48:23 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
<droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
what was suggested was that chess aide concentration and
focus...which it most clearly does...
Does it? Better than other activities? Im still waiting for anyone >>>>> to point to a scientific study that demonstrates what you claim is so >>>>> clear.
not the point...
you try concentrating in 4 hour sessions where the slightest
inattention and you lose
Is that evidence that chess teaches focus and concentration?
it's evidence you will lose if you don't have or develop focus
and concentration...
Yes, but not evidence that learning chess teaches focus and concentration.
I'm looking for evidence of transfer of learning...
you will also lose if you don't study...
every person is different...
motivation also mediates your behaviour...
try focusing your questions more effectively!
what evidence is there that learning to read teaches you to read?
I don't follow that analogy.
abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 00:11:09 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
<yitzhak@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Richard Falken <richardfalken@richard-falken.com> wrote:
In rec.games.misc Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
*Some* people enjoy it. So, yes, I'm a socialist in that I'd like the >>>>> community to determine how they best learn. To impose something like >>>>> chess on them, especially when you have no evidence it will result in >>>>> the outcomes you suggest, smacks more of fascism.
Fascism is an ideological subset of State socialism
Another graduate from the Abelard School of Political Debate, who thinks >>>that 'fascism' is a synonym for 'political system with which I disagree'.
no, that is the way in which your cult uses the term for rival
socialists... and many others...
I don't have a 'cult', Filth. Unlike you, who worships before the altar of >'the market'.
On Fri, 20 May 2016 06:43:02 +0200, M Winther <mwi9@swipnet.se> wrote:
i asked an international chess master(not a common or garden one likeThat's rubbish, indeed.
you claim that you are) how he differed from a top class player..
he told me it was mainly a matter of memory...
It is predominantly a matter of calculative'theory' does not just mean memorising openings...
ability (that's why computer's are so strong). Next, it is the
capability to formulate good plans. Although memory plays an important
part in the opening, there are many strong club players who know very
little theory.
you are out of your depth....i see no point in extending
effort to respond to your uninformed blathering
read this
Thought and Choice in Chess
Adriann de Groot, Mouton De Gruyter,1978, 2nd ed., ISBN: 9027979146
after which time you may be able to talk more sense
You clearly don't know much about political systems, including the
difference between their *means* and their *ends*. But, by all means,
do go through all the Wikipedia articles on socialism and let me know
when you make the connection to the 'subset' that is fascism.
On 20/05/16 09:46, abelard wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 06:43:02 +0200, M Winther <mwi9@swipnet.se> wrote:
i asked an international chess master(not a common or garden one likeThat's rubbish, indeed.
you claim that you are) how he differed from a top class player.. >>>> he told me it was mainly a matter of memory...
It's possible that the nuanced English has escaped one or more
of the participants. ISTM that Abelard's respondent was claiming that
the difference between him [the IM] and [eg] Kasparov was memory. That
is different from a claim that the difference between IM's in general
and Kasparov is memory, and from a claim that decent chess is a matter
of memory. Thus, it seems to me that Abelard is generalising too far
from one IM, and Mats is dealing with it as a claim about chess.
It is predominantly a matter of calculative'theory' does not just mean memorising openings...
ability (that's why computer's are so strong). Next, it is the
capability to formulate good plans. Although memory plays an important
part in the opening, there are many strong club players who know very
little theory.
Indeed, but Mats's claim is nevertheless true. At least, for
any of the normal meanings of "theory".
you are out of your depth....i see no point in extending
effort to respond to your uninformed blathering
read this
Thought and Choice in Chess
Adriann de Groot, Mouton De Gruyter,1978, 2nd ed., ISBN: 9027979146
after which time you may be able to talk more sense
I don't always [or perhaps even often] agree with Mats, but he
is a decently strong player, and not uninformed. T&CiC is a big book,
rather out of date, and not uniformly highly regarded by psychologists.
It would help if you would indicate which parts of it you regard as
relevant to this debate.
On Fri, 20 May 2016 05:19:41 +0100, DVH <dvh@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2016 23:21, abelard wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2016 23:09:29 +0100, DVH <dvh@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2016 18:23, abelard wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 16:48:23 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
<droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
what was suggested was that chess aide concentration and
focus...which it most clearly does...
Does it? Better than other activities? Im still waiting for anyone >>>>>> to point to a scientific study that demonstrates what you claim is so >>>>>> clear.
not the point...
you try concentrating in 4 hour sessions where the slightest
inattention and you lose
Is that evidence that chess teaches focus and concentration?
it's evidence you will lose if you don't have or develop focus
and concentration...
Yes, but not evidence that learning chess teaches focus and concentration. >>
I'm looking for evidence of transfer of learning...
transfer of learning as a generality is regarded as a dubious
construct
but defining it is also difficult...
i only work through real world examples rather than through 'theories'
if you run a mile every day, it is highly probable that you will be
able to lift a heavier weight than a person who does not...
or go up stairs with less loss of breath...
is that 'transfer of learning'?
if you work in an office doing figures all day....and before this
you take an iq test which you can't finish...and after a year
in the office you take another equivalent iq test...with puzzle
sections usually involving some numbers...
it is very likely you will be able finish the iq test with plenty
of time to spare...
is that 'transfer of learning'?
if you are casually moseying through life without a care...
and then...
if you play chess for a year or two with motives to 'win' and
learn...you will be able to concentrate better at many other tasks
at the end of that period...
is that 'transfer of learning'...
even if the new task is studying brain surgery? i would expect
nothing less...
but what if you are not motivated to study brain surgery?
would the preclude 'transfer of learning'?
so...
if you are motivated...will you call that 'transfer of learning'
or if you can now concentrate more than before...will
you call that 'transfer of learning'?
or as chess is not brain surgery, will you say there is no
'transfer of learning because chess did not teach you
brain surgery?
or will you say there is 'transfer of learning' because
you can concentrate better?
you will also lose if you don't study...
every person is different...
motivation also mediates your behaviour...
try focusing your questions more effectively!
what evidence is there that learning to read teaches you to read?
I don't follow that analogy.
it talks to how you define 'learning'....
if there is zero 'transfer of learning'...how do you learn anything?
as a new born, you cannot distinguish shapes to much degree....
if you cannot distinguish shapes...how can you learn to read?
is the ability to distinguish shapes(more effectively) a case of
'transfer of learning' to reading?
Fascism is an ideological subset of State socialism
Another graduate from the Abelard School of Political Debate, who thinks
that 'fascism' is a synonym for 'political system with which I disagree'.
Y.
i asked an international chess master(not a common or garden one like >>>>> you claim that you are) how he differed from a top class player.. >>>>> he told me it was mainly a matter of memory...
[...]That's rubbish, indeed.
what he told me is not 'rubbish', it is 'evidence'
part of the problem revolves around the sloppy use of the term 'is'
but there is a limit to just how much nappy changing i am prepared
to do
meanwhile all generalisation is unsound...again, nappy changing...
or even to be labelled as 'pedantry'
there goes that term 'is' again...Indeed, but Mats's claim is nevertheless true. At least, forIt is predominantly a matter of calculative'theory' does not just mean memorising openings...
ability (that's why computer's are so strong). Next, it is the
capability to formulate good plans. Although memory plays an important >>>> part in the opening, there are many strong club players who know very
little theory.
any of the normal meanings of "theory".
and now you've appended 'true'....
anorak will next to be forgiven
you learn to 'formulate good plans' from the memories of past
experiences
[...] T&CiC is a big book,the ability of various levels of players to rebuild board positions
rather out of date, and not uniformly highly regarded by psychologists.
It would help if you would indicate which parts of it you regard as
relevant to this debate.
varies with their level of play... [...]
'regarded by psychologists' looks suspiciously like more of the
'highly regarded anonymous professor to me...
arguing from alleged authority is really not an impressive ploy...
On 13/05/2016 19:00, Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
M Winther <mwi9@swipnet.se> wrote:
If kids were to be taught board games, such as chess, then they would
acquire psychological tenacity, and learn that it is only you yourself
who is responsible for the situation.
Do you have any scientific studies backing up that position? What
about the kids who are bored by board games?
http://www.psmcd.net/otherfiles/BenefitsOfChessInEdScreen2.pdf
In rec.games.misc Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
You clearly don't know much about political systems, including the difference between their *means* and their *ends*. But, by all means,
do go through all the Wikipedia articles on socialism and let me know
when you make the connection to the 'subset' that is fascism.
I already explained the connection in my previous post.
"Socialism:[1] any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
On 20/05/16 11:24, abelard wrote:
i asked an international chess master(not a common or garden one like >>>>>> you claim that you are) how he differed from a top class player.. >>>>>> he told me it was mainly a matter of memory...
[Mats:]
[...]That's rubbish, indeed.
what he told me is not 'rubbish', it is 'evidence'
I think you see it as evidence of what one IM believes, while
Mats sees it as an implausible claim. If so, then you are [IMHO] both
right.
part of the problem revolves around the sloppy use of the term 'is'
Yet you used it four times in your previous and next two
sentences, at least as sloppily as Mats and I.
but there is a limit to just how much nappy changing i am prepared
to do
meanwhile all generalisation is unsound...again, nappy changing...
or even to be labelled as 'pedantry'
So "all generalisation is unsound" is itself unsound, which
leaves you somewhat short of a case.
there goes that term 'is' again...Indeed, but Mats's claim is nevertheless true. At least, forIt is predominantly a matter of calculative'theory' does not just mean memorising openings...
ability (that's why computer's are so strong). Next, it is the
capability to formulate good plans. Although memory plays an important >>>>> part in the opening, there are many strong club players who know very >>>>> little theory.
any of the normal meanings of "theory".
and now you've appended 'true'....
Yes; I have much personal experience of strong club players,
a decent proportion of whom have been exactly as Mats describes. They
have never read books on chess, taken lessons, swotted up openings,
they just play. Yes, they learn from experience; that is not the
usual meaning of knowing theory. Probably they could be much better
players if they worked at it; but it's their choice.
anorak will next to be forgiven
Go wash your mouth out.
you learn to 'formulate good plans' from the memories of past
experiences
You *may* so learn. Most people, for one reason or another,
never do. It's a difficult and rare skill, especially against the
clock.
[...] T&CiC is a big book,the ability of various levels of players to rebuild board positions
rather out of date, and not uniformly highly regarded by psychologists.
It would help if you would indicate which parts of it you regard as
relevant to this debate.
varies with their level of play... [...]
Ah. OK. Perhaps you could next explain why you think this
[undoubted] ability is relevant to this debate?
'regarded by psychologists' looks suspiciously like more of the
'highly regarded anonymous professor to me...
arguing from alleged authority is really not an impressive ploy...
Says Abelard, having quoted an anonymous IM and a noted
authority, used the sloppy word "is", and generalised shamelessly.
I rest my case, m'lud.
For your reference, records indicate that
No, you only gave a poorly understood take on how fascists often times
*try* to conceal their power grab under the guise of socialist aims.
That does not constitute a real connection. Again, start with Wikipedia until you understand the difference well enough.
"Socialism:[1] any of various economic and political theories advocating
collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of
production and distribution of goods"
Notice how that defines it as an *end*.
For your reference, records indicate that
Richard Falken <richardfalken@richard-falken.com> wrote:
In rec.games.misc Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
You clearly don't know much about political systems, including the
difference between their *means* and their *ends*. But, by all means,
do go through all the Wikipedia articles on socialism and let me know
when you make the connection to the 'subset' that is fascism.
I already explained the connection in my previous post.
No, you only gave a poorly understood take on how fascists often times
*try* to conceal their power grab under the guise of socialist aims.
That does not constitute a real connection. Again, start with Wikipedia >until you understand the difference well enough.
"Socialism:[1] any of various economic and political theories advocating
collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of
production and distribution of goods"
Notice how that defines it as an *end*. Fascism as the *means* to that
end is just about as irrelevant as focussing on democracy as the means,
as were seeing a bit with Bernie Sanders in the US (and as exists in
places like Nordic countries already). Socialism and fascism arent
related;
stop conflating the two and get back to talking about games
that have no established scientific connection with improved learning.
:-)
For your reference, records indicate that
M Winther <mwi9@swipnet.se> wrote:
On 13/05/2016 19:00, Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
M Winther <mwi9@swipnet.se> wrote:
If kids were to be taught board games, such as chess, then they would
acquire psychological tenacity, and learn that it is only you yourself >>>> who is responsible for the situation.
Do you have any scientific studies backing up that position? What
about the kids who are bored by board games?
http://www.psmcd.net/otherfiles/BenefitsOfChessInEdScreen2.pdf
Thanks for that, but the bias is all too evident in that collection. Cherry-picking pro-chess studies is poor science. Especially when
the comparison is not best made against a simplistic “non-chess”
control group, but *other* types of educational intervention that aim
to improve student outcomes. I have never argued that game activities
like chess have *no* merit, only that they should be fairly judged by
their *relative* results.
i don't care what mats 'sees'...i know he talks rot about iq...
you come from a world of very few books on theory...now there are libraries of it...
accessible to any 12 year old...and plenty of older people willing and
able to help the young...
i would expect the tendency for educated 12 year olds to rip old
fogies to be well advanced...it was well underway when i last
paid attention to it...
but maybe it is not yet as advanced as i would expect...
it is obviously a memory effect from seeing so many typical positionsthe ability of various levels of players to rebuild board positionsAh. OK. Perhaps you could next explain why you think this
varies with their level of play... [...]
[undoubted] ability is relevant to this debate?
a player of high ability has experience/memory of far more patterns
the im is(was) not anonymous...you would know him immediately'regarded by psychologists' looks suspiciously like more of theSays Abelard, having quoted an anonymous IM and a noted
'highly regarded anonymous professor to me...
arguing from alleged authority is really not an impressive ploy...
authority, used the sloppy word "is", and generalised shamelessly.
I rest my case, m'lud.
perhaps you think i am lying
repeat, it is evidence...you don't like it...your problem
In rec.games.misc Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
No, you only gave a poorly understood take on how fascists often times *try* to conceal their power grab under the guise of socialist aims.
That does not constitute a real connection. Again, start with Wikipedia until you understand the difference well enough.
Let's accept the following hipothesis as valid for the sake of argument: Fascist leaders are lying and they are promoting an ideology using
certain propaganda that does not match their real intentions. However, accepting that a significative number of fascist/nazi party members are promoting a certain set of ideas - socialization of strategic goods and services as means to make The Nation TM strong - while keeping a secret agenda that does not match that propaganda is way harder.
Even if Fascist leading personalities were holding these non-Socialist
hidden agendas, their followers - who would have bought these supposed
lies - would believe in the ideology promoted by this hipothetical propaganda. Hence, they would be believing in the Socialist component of
the ideology too. Since the leader/sympathizer ratio in a political
party is really small, we could conclude that a crushing number of the Fascists would believe in the Socialist component. Since the shape of an ideology is mostly defined by its practicioners, then the fact Fascist leaders are being fishy would not change the fact that the bulk of the followers are actual Conservative Socialists. Or Socialists Patriots. Or whatever they are calling themselves in each region.
"Socialism:[1] any of various economic and political theories advocating >> collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of
production and distribution of goods"
Notice how that defines it as an *end*.
I argue that it defines it as the means.
On 20/05/16 22:12, abelard wrote:
i don't care what mats 'sees'...i know he talks rot about iq...
Many people talk rot about bees in bonnets. It doesn't
follow that they talk rot about things they know tolerably well.
[...]
you come from a world of very few books on theory...now there are libraries of it...
The books of my youth may have been fewer, but they were
not few. Certainly more than I could ever have managed to read
through and absorb. Further, the standard was high. Today, you
can indeed find ten or a hundred times as many books [and videos];
but the great majority are utter rubbish. The only real advance is
that they almost all come with objective evidence from the computer
that the analysis is free of gross error. But computer analysis,
however useful in other contexts, is simply not a decent learning
tool. Not yet, anyway.
accessible to any 12 year old...and plenty of older people willing and
able to help the young...
The main thing that has changed in this regard since my
time is that children start several years earlier. Your 12yo
may well now have 5 years experience, not merely of knowing the
moves, but of serious tournament play, including against adults.
I have no impression at all that such a 12yo is any better than
my contemporaries were after 5 years; but we were more like 15
to 18. Whether any of this makes much difference by age 21 or
thereabouts is unclear. Almost all drop by the wayside.
i would expect the tendency for educated 12 year olds to rip old
fogies to be well advanced...it was well underway when i last
paid attention to it...
but maybe it is not yet as advanced as i would expect...
I don't think it's the phenomenon you have been claiming.
More like just the universal tendency for young people to take
over the world. The difference from, say, tennis, is that chess
is 12yos beating 70yos whereas tennis is 17yos beating 35yos,
and whereas politics is 45yos beating 80yos. It's not that the
youngsters know more theory or have more experience; it's that
they have a fresh approach, an intensity of purpose, a brash
certainty that carries them through, an ability to concentrate,
and physical fitness.
it is obviously a memory effect from seeing so many typical positionsthe ability of various levels of players to rebuild board positionsAh. OK. Perhaps you could next explain why you think this
varies with their level of play... [...]
[undoubted] ability is relevant to this debate?
It is less obvious to me. Personally, I find it very easy
to remember things that I understand, and [increasingly] difficult
to remember things I don't understand. Perhaps it isn't that the
GM has seen "so many typical positions" and is able to remember
them, but that he understands positions better than the amateur,
and so doesn't need to remember as much, either in general or in
order to rebuild coherent positions. When it comes to random
positions, he has no understanding of them, and so is no better
placed than the amateur to recall them.
a player of high ability has experience/memory of far more patterns
Or has experience/memory of the same number of patterns,
but has a far richer ability to interpret them.
That is certainly
the way it "feels" to me. Things I understand can be picked up
very quickly, by induction from a tiny set of examples; things
I don't are not picked up at all well even from many examples --
unless something eventually "clicks".
the im is(was) not anonymous...you would know him immediately'regarded by psychologists' looks suspiciously like more of theSays Abelard, having quoted an anonymous IM and a noted
'highly regarded anonymous professor to me...
arguing from alleged authority is really not an impressive ploy...
authority, used the sloppy word "is", and generalised shamelessly.
I rest my case, m'lud.
He is anonymous in this debate. I'm not suggesting that
you should name him, merely pointing out that you have been using
the ploys that you describe as unimpressive when used by others.
perhaps you think i am lying
No. I think you and Mats are, in this particular instance
and taking your statements at face value, both right; but at cross
purposes.
repeat, it is evidence...you don't like it...your problem
I'm quite neutral about the evidence; it's just not very
interesting except as one data point. An IM alleges that the main
difference between himself and Kasparov/Karpov/Fischer/Carlsen/...
is memory. I don't doubt his sincerity in that belief, but I
strongly suspect that he is kidding himself. Perhaps you could
ascertain his strength at correspondence chess [ideally from the
pre-computer era]? There, no memory is needed; you are allowed
to read books, take notes, and take several days to contemplate
your move. If he was correspondence world champion, or close to
it, then he has reasonable claims to an understanding of chess as
deep as the strongest over-the-board players.
I surmise, judging from your cerebral caliber, that you didn't play
board games as young.
Your political thinking seems exactly like the same flawed
"book moves" teaching that the promotion of chess could result in.
What are you talking about?
In rec.games.misc Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yitzhak@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Fascism is an ideological subset of State socialism
Another graduate from the Abelard School of Political Debate, who thinks
that 'fascism' is a synonym for 'political system with which I disagree'.
You are implying that I dislike Socialism
On Fri, 20 May 2016 10:03:33 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yitzhak@yahoo.fr> wrote:
abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 00:11:09 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
<yitzhak@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Richard Falken <richardfalken@richard-falken.com> wrote:
In rec.games.misc Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
*Some* people enjoy it. So, yes, I'm a socialist in that I'd like >>>>>> the community to determine how they best learn. To impose something >>>>>> like chess on them, especially when you have no evidence it will
result in the outcomes you suggest, smacks more of fascism.
Fascism is an ideological subset of State socialism
Another graduate from the Abelard School of Political Debate, who >>>>thinks that 'fascism' is a synonym for 'political system with which I >>>>disagree'.
no, that is the way in which your cult uses the term for rival
socialists... and many others...
I don't have a 'cult', Filth. Unlike you, who worships before the altar
of 'the market'.
one again you are forced into dishonesty....
abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 10:03:33 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
<yitzhak@yahoo.fr> wrote:
abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 00:11:09 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
<yitzhak@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Richard Falken <richardfalken@richard-falken.com> wrote:
In rec.games.misc Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
*Some* people enjoy it. So, yes, I'm a socialist in that I'd like >>>>>>> the community to determine how they best learn. To impose something >>>>>>> like chess on them, especially when you have no evidence it will >>>>>>> result in the outcomes you suggest, smacks more of fascism.
Fascism is an ideological subset of State socialism
Another graduate from the Abelard School of Political Debate, who >>>>>thinks that 'fascism' is a synonym for 'political system with which I >>>>>disagree'.
no, that is the way in which your cult uses the term for rival
socialists... and many others...
I don't have a 'cult', Filth. Unlike you, who worships before the altar >>>of 'the market'.
one again you are forced into dishonesty....
Forced?
*rofl*
You couldn't 'force' someone to take a shit, if they'd had their arse sewn
up for a week, you fucking dumbarse Tory cunt.
i tried to give you the benefit....
abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
i tried to give you the benefit....
I don't need 'benefit', Filth. Unlike you, I in fact didn't steal anything >that I own.
On 21/05/16 09:12, abelard wrote:
[...] But computer analysis,i don't know...computers do give you a sound educator to hand
however useful in other contexts, is simply not a decent learning
tool. Not yet, anyway.
day and night...
They give you access to a remorseless opponent, and to a
fair amount of database and printed material. They don't [yet]
do much by way of education.
again, not available to the fogies
If you mean not available 50-60 years ago, then agreed,
but it was the same for everyone, so neither helped nor hindered
the development of youngsters. If you mean not available today,
well, many of us fogies have the same degree of access as 12yos.
We may have clumsier fingers, but that scarcely matters for the
absorption of educational material.
those who learn a skill young tend to develop a good instinct...
consider language learning, those who learn later are rarely as
fluent...and of course they have less experience to draw upon
But I have an impression that attempts in the UK to teach
French/Spanish/Chinese to 7yos have not been uniformly successful.
There is a difference if immigrants are immersed in a language
and have good reason to learn it and use it in everyday life. In
such cases, you are right; 7yos learn to speak like a native,
17yos rarely lose their foreign accent. But there is no country
Chessia where 7yos are immersed in chess and have to use it to
survive; nor even TV channels where chess is "spoken", in the
way that Scandinavians [eg] learn English painlessly by watching >films/documentaries/dramas. So, of course, some 7yos become very
strong players, but most don't, and very few play into adulthood.
Executive summary: I'm not in any way averse to chess
being taught to 7yos or 12yos, and it may well aid concentration,
planning, whatever. But I don't expect it to create a generation
of super-GMs.
[...]
while wikipedia is full of toss, one useful area is it sometimes
quotes useful books which can then be accesses...usually easily..
there is no way you had such access in your young day!
Right. But old books on chess, however interesting, are
now obsolete, and new books are mostly rubbish.
[...]
seems somewhere along the line i am not reading just what difference
or quality you are suggesting as 'a' differentiator
Your IM is, apparently, suggesting that the reason why he is
not comparable with Carlsen is a matter of memory. It's possible.
But it's much more likely that Carlsen simply understands chess at
a far deeper level. We could test by seeing how good your player
is at forms of chess where access to books and notes is permitted.
He would no doubt be better, but it's statistically unlikely that
it would propel him into the world elite. There are several hundred
IMs, and no more than five who would be in the world top five no
matter what format is chosen!
For comparison, what would you make of a tennis player,
ranked, say 600th in the world or lower, who claims that he could
be a Wimbledon challenger if only he could serve better?
[...] But computer analysis,i don't know...computers do give you a sound educator to hand
however useful in other contexts, is simply not a decent learning
tool. Not yet, anyway.
day and night...
again, not available to the fogies
those who learn a skill young tend to develop a good instinct...
consider language learning, those who learn later are rarely as
fluent...and of course they have less experience to draw upon
while wikipedia is full of toss, one useful area is it sometimes
quotes useful books which can then be accesses...usually easily..
there is no way you had such access in your young day!
seems somewhere along the line i am not reading just what difference
or quality you are suggesting as 'a' differentiator
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 399 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 98:55:53 |
| Calls: | 8,363 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,162 |
| Messages: | 5,897,777 |