Adjusting Difficulty for Optimal Chess Improvement

Why do I see NOEL NOEL NOEL NOEL NOEL NOEL advertising every f day on LiChess?! Drop it

Why do I see NOEL NOEL NOEL NOEL NOEL NOEL advertising every f day on LiChess?! Drop it
He is posting once a week. He learned this from a book. It is about effortless money and passive income. He made a product and people have trust in him. This is required for sales, now it Is only the marketing effort to advertise and be visible.
he can live well from this.

@BongoOve said in #2: > Why do I see NOEL NOEL NOEL NOEL NOEL NOEL advertising every f day on LiChess?! Drop it He is posting once a week. He learned this from a book. It is about effortless money and passive income. He made a product and people have trust in him. This is required for sales, now it Is only the marketing effort to advertise and be visible. he can live well from this.

erebdraug

My question is: if we aim at getting the 70% mark to move on to the next level, don't we risk missing on learning some fundamental skills or knowledge?

@NoelStuder I do have the opposite problem: sometimes I go through workbooks (like Step 1) aimed at beginners (I'm 1600 Lichess Rapid), but I still cannot get 90%, which frustrates me... So I keep at it... And waste precious study time... My question is: if we aim at getting the 70% mark to move on to the next level, don't we risk missing on learning some fundamental skills or knowledge?

Graque

@erebdraug said in #4:

@NoelStuder I do have the opposite problem: sometimes I go through workbooks (like Step 1) aimed at beginners (I'm 1600 Lichess Rapid), but I still cannot get 90%, which frustrates me... So I keep at it... And waste precious study time...

My question is: if we aim at getting the 70% mark to move on to the next level, don't we risk missing on learning some fundamental skills or knowledge?

Yes, good question. I also keep reviewing basic material, but I'm not sure it's a waste of time. If I'm only getting 70% right, that means that 1/3rd of the time I'm still missing something right? Why is the threshold 70% and not 90%?

At least when I was growing up, if you only got 70% right on a test in school, that meant you didn't know the material. (90% was considered good enough though.)

Also, for blitz, why is 1 minute the right time? In general you have less than 10 seconds per move. Maybe grandmasters know exactly when the "critical position" comes up and think for a minute on that, and autopilot on the rest of the game, but I can't do that.

@erebdraug said in #4: > @NoelStuder I do have the opposite problem: sometimes I go through workbooks (like Step 1) aimed at beginners (I'm 1600 Lichess Rapid), but I still cannot get 90%, which frustrates me... So I keep at it... And waste precious study time... > > My question is: if we aim at getting the 70% mark to move on to the next level, don't we risk missing on learning some fundamental skills or knowledge? Yes, good question. I also keep reviewing basic material, but I'm not sure it's a waste of time. If I'm only getting 70% right, that means that 1/3rd of the time I'm still missing something right? Why is the threshold 70% and not 90%? At least when I was growing up, if you only got 70% right on a test in school, that meant you didn't know the material. (90% was considered good enough though.) Also, for blitz, why is 1 minute the right time? In general you have less than 10 seconds per move. Maybe grandmasters know exactly when the "critical position" comes up and think for a minute on that, and autopilot on the rest of the game, but I can't do that.

edtrain edited

Есть тренировки с отягощением, специально для того, чтобы потом на соревнованиях было легче. Так и здесь. Если от трудной позиции получаешь удовольствие, пусть это даже будут 1 час или два, то это как работа с тяжелыми весами - нейроны прокачиваются максимально. Единственное условие - чтобы процесс доставлял удовольствие.
Но для обучения детей такой вариант не подходит, они не смогут получить удовольствие от таких тренировок.

Есть тренировки с отягощением, специально для того, чтобы потом на соревнованиях было легче. Так и здесь. Если от трудной позиции получаешь удовольствие, пусть это даже будут 1 час или два, то это как работа с тяжелыми весами - нейроны прокачиваются максимально. Единственное условие - чтобы процесс доставлял удовольствие. Но для обучения детей такой вариант не подходит, они не смогут получить удовольствие от таких тренировок.

dboing

edited

I wonder why though, there could not be a diverse regimen of chess activity. What ever time budget and performance goals (and for the forgotten folks just wanting to understand chess physics, on a stroll, mere understanding and chess problem solving or theory building at own individual scale not exclusively, but still, enjoying such freedom of play and study), there are ways to alternate brain activity types. The performance optimal difficulty band for learning might not be the same at different time scales of objectives, one can be building different types of skills at different visible rating rewards due dates (or even without needing that ever, see below).

The blog does that work about the time control, which is what I meant by making way, in giving some calibrating data points via a ROT on time spent for the one play performance mode only. But there are other time scales about improvement. I find those are missing from all the implicit and explicit theories of learning, because of some tunnel vision about the diversity of chess "improvement" goals. Too often assumed to be OTB, and tournament.

Chess does exist, even on lichess, outside of that, in the assumption I am pointing finger at. And any ladder (lost thought). Reading the FAQ on rating, I find it a bit "schizophrenic" in the natural language drift of its meaning (split) that lichess only refers to rating as the mean to actually implement what is the essential entry point of the blog, optimal difficulty band around own average "strength" for full game outcomes estimate, which the rating is. It is not a goal, in that statement. So what would be the goal of playing with rating. Some kind of more abstract improvement. Does it have to be the rating too. Can't it be actually only what lichess is saying it is?

If chess is big, one might want to keep exploring it, and get some sense of improvement that way, and never move on the rating, because they might not be focussing on the rating as the only measure of progress or advancement in knowledge in some intellectual pursuit. How many lichess users would feel some affinities which such view, I wonder...?!

So good blog, but still some kind of tunnel perpective implied w.r.t. lichess online all chess players and thinkers and whatever other chess people there might be all about serious or true chess practice and enjoyment.

Given the number of blogs from that perspective, I guess I should keep reminding of the wider chess perspective, while acknowledging the blog quality, given the constraints on reading material or expression material now in effect on lichess, for maybe a year now. I will find a polite cruising speed of reminding such things, I promise.

This was more elaborated than other things about the same thing. Thing is a mighty word. It appeals to common sense. And it turns out that common sense is possibly a component of the thing. Yet this blog made some way into dissecting the proposition. I wonder why though, there could not be a diverse regimen of chess activity. What ever time budget and performance goals (and for the forgotten folks just wanting to understand chess physics, on a stroll, mere understanding and chess problem solving or theory building at own individual scale not exclusively, but still, enjoying such freedom of play and study), there are ways to alternate brain activity types. The performance optimal difficulty band for learning might not be the same at different time scales of objectives, one can be building different types of skills at different visible rating rewards due dates (or even without needing that ever, see below). The blog does that work about the time control, which is what I meant by making way, in giving some calibrating data points via a ROT on time spent for the one play performance mode only. But there are other time scales about improvement. I find those are missing from all the implicit and explicit theories of learning, because of some tunnel vision about the diversity of chess "improvement" goals. Too often assumed to be OTB, and tournament. Chess does exist, even on lichess, outside of that, in the assumption I am pointing finger at. And any ladder (lost thought). Reading the FAQ on rating, I find it a bit "schizophrenic" in the natural language drift of its meaning (split) that lichess only refers to rating as the mean to actually implement what is the essential entry point of the blog, optimal difficulty band around own average "strength" for full game outcomes estimate, which the rating is. It is not a goal, in that statement. So what would be the goal of playing with rating. Some kind of more abstract improvement. Does it have to be the rating too. Can't it be actually only what lichess is saying it is? If chess is big, one might want to keep exploring it, and get some sense of improvement that way, and never move on the rating, because they might not be focussing on the rating as the only measure of progress or advancement in knowledge in some intellectual pursuit. How many lichess users would feel some affinities which such view, I wonder...?! So good blog, but still some kind of tunnel perpective implied w.r.t. lichess online all chess players and thinkers and whatever other chess people there might be all about serious or true chess practice and enjoyment. Given the number of blogs from that perspective, I guess I should keep reminding of the wider chess perspective, while acknowledging the blog quality, given the constraints on reading material or expression material now in effect on lichess, for maybe a year now. I will find a polite cruising speed of reminding such things, I promise.

Letpchess

Very good! I work with children and what you are describing is basically what we know as the Zone of proximal development... giving a child a task that is not so hard to be overwhelming and frustrating and not so easy to be boring and no challenge.... We want that task that is "just right" and pushes the child to learn that next things in small, manageable steps.

Thanks for your blog!

dboing

edited

@Letpchess said in #8:

Very good! I work with children and what you are describing is basically what we know as the Zone of proximal development... giving a child a task that is not so hard to be overwhelming and frustrating and not so easy to be boring and no challenge.... We want that task that is "just right" and pushes the child to learn that next things in small, manageable steps.

Thanks for your blog!

As a kid I think everything was a mystery. I had to study around it before diving into it. kind of stuck with me, as a complex goal (task?) of curiosity nature, how things work, what makes it go there or not, etc... But yes many non-linear factors make for characteristic optimal zones.. including scheduling and alternating tasks. and stretching the imagination of kids sometimes amidst the robot efficiency training. Might improve their autonomous exploration later.

Tasking a kid.. what, in a factory? kidding. or caricature of how it might look.

@Letpchess said in #8: > Very good! I work with children and what you are describing is basically what we know as the Zone of proximal development... giving a child a task that is not so hard to be overwhelming and frustrating and not so easy to be boring and no challenge.... We want that task that is "just right" and pushes the child to learn that next things in small, manageable steps. > > Thanks for your blog! As a kid I think everything was a mystery. I had to study around it before diving into it. kind of stuck with me, as a complex goal (task?) of curiosity nature, how things work, what makes it go there or not, etc... But yes many non-linear factors make for characteristic optimal zones.. including scheduling and alternating tasks. and stretching the imagination of kids sometimes amidst the robot efficiency training. Might improve their autonomous exploration later. Tasking a kid.. what, in a factory? kidding. or caricature of how it might look.

justme23

Advertising for Chess Students on a free chess site