Although I first saw this article on FireyRook's site, I shall link the primary source to all of you in case you missed it. The article on openings was written by WGM Natalia Pogonina. She may not be the best female player around (we all know who that is), but she is still a WGM. If you wish to know more about Natalia, here is the wikipedia link.
This is how a professional thinks about an opening, as opposed to a mind coach who does not play chess.
In the article, you will find tips on how to study openings, what is the purpose of preparing openings and what are the factors that should influence one's choice of openings.
Hopefully, some of us can find this information more useful than others. Click here to check it out.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Of Real Estate and Chess
What does real estate have to do with chess? Almost nothing. In one of the books written by real estate investment guru, Robert Kiyosaki, it asked the blunt and rhetorical question, "Would you consult your stock broker when you want to invest in real estate?".
What does your stock broker really know about real estate? True, they can both be seen as investment vehicles, but they are totally different in nature and in form. Even the philosophy and analysis involved is completely different. Without going too far astray, I suppose many of you can already guess the point I am trying to make. While chess is a game that applies the mind, I would not consult a mind coach on chess. Just like I would NEVER consult a stock broker on real estate.
The mind coach sees that the only reason anyone disagrees with him is that they are scared. He speaks like God, the all-knowing, the omniscient, because he can see all the facts, and everyone else can't. Many readers have pointed out that I often criticize negatively without pointing out any positive contribution towards chess. I do not make suggestions to help people improve. As I have explained umpteen times, my purpose is to expose the frauds that exist in the chess arena. By hook or by crook, the evil forces shall perish. That is the only way chess can move forward in Malaysia. That is the way of the Ninja.
Nonetheless, in my effort to reform, I shall give my two cents worth about thinking in chess, just to satisfy my feeling of insecurity. Just in case people are starting to think that I do not talk about chess because I play less chess than Raymond Siew and an anteater combined. Maybe I am just imagining my fears.
John Wong has already dealt with what technical evaluation is and what not, so I will not go into further detail in that. He does have some really good book recommendations and if you're interested, do visit his site.
The mind coach suggests looking at the chess board with a still mind. What this means is to shut out emotion because it supposedly clouds your judgement. Is this really true? I am a huge advocate of winning via external forces. Of course, it is already a given that one's technical must first be strong. Using external forces include using things other than pure chess skills to gain the edge. I talked about this before. One can even use the playing hall environment to win. In a tight battle, every single bit of edge counts. Just like Sun Tzu would choose to fight a battle with the glare in his enemy's eyes.
But besides that, one can also use emotions to win the game. Even the mind coach himself has talked about this before. He talked about the importance of confidence. Is that not an emotion? A sure sign of someone who does not know what he is talking about is the high frequency of his contradictions. Confidence allows one to trust his judgement, which consequently allows one to follow through with his plans, even though he cannot see the end of his calculation. Some people attribute this to intuition.
Remember the Kasparov-Anand match in 1995? After Kasparov lost Game 9, he went berserk and channelled his "frustration/anger/revenge mode" into his chess and unleashed a novelty in Game 10 that shocked Anand to the core. Kasparov was even slamming the doors of the playing hall after making every move in a few seconds without thinking, just to mess with Anand's head. In fact, this affected Anand so badly that he did not recover in the match. Anand went on to lose Games 10, 11, 13, and 14. The match was over by then. In this case, Kasparov used emotions to his advantage. This goes on to show that whether you like it or not, emotions exist in the game of chess (among humans of course). It is up to us to use them to our advantage.
If you remove the emotional component from chess, then it is just like two computers playing. In fact, I can even argue that, if one can play his best chess by removing emotions, then chess must be dominated by computers. How then, can humans defeat computers? Some claim it is the human judgement. But where does this judgement come from? Most certainly, humans cannot outcalculate computers. Positional judgement arises from a human's ability to "feel" how good a particular position is. It is not something that one "sees" on the board. Maybe this is the antithesis to "imagined fears". It is "imagined courage". Seeing something that is not really there?
So, the takeaway from this post is that, emotions are very much a part of chess. Use it to your advantage. The Great Kasparov has shown that you can even control your opponent's emotions. That is a mark of a true strategist, something Sun Tzu would have been proud of.
P/S: Do not consult your stock broker about real estate. Also, it would be unwise to consult your real estate agent about stock investment.
What does your stock broker really know about real estate? True, they can both be seen as investment vehicles, but they are totally different in nature and in form. Even the philosophy and analysis involved is completely different. Without going too far astray, I suppose many of you can already guess the point I am trying to make. While chess is a game that applies the mind, I would not consult a mind coach on chess. Just like I would NEVER consult a stock broker on real estate.
The mind coach sees that the only reason anyone disagrees with him is that they are scared. He speaks like God, the all-knowing, the omniscient, because he can see all the facts, and everyone else can't. Many readers have pointed out that I often criticize negatively without pointing out any positive contribution towards chess. I do not make suggestions to help people improve. As I have explained umpteen times, my purpose is to expose the frauds that exist in the chess arena. By hook or by crook, the evil forces shall perish. That is the only way chess can move forward in Malaysia. That is the way of the Ninja.
Nonetheless, in my effort to reform, I shall give my two cents worth about thinking in chess, just to satisfy my feeling of insecurity. Just in case people are starting to think that I do not talk about chess because I play less chess than Raymond Siew and an anteater combined. Maybe I am just imagining my fears.
John Wong has already dealt with what technical evaluation is and what not, so I will not go into further detail in that. He does have some really good book recommendations and if you're interested, do visit his site.
The mind coach suggests looking at the chess board with a still mind. What this means is to shut out emotion because it supposedly clouds your judgement. Is this really true? I am a huge advocate of winning via external forces. Of course, it is already a given that one's technical must first be strong. Using external forces include using things other than pure chess skills to gain the edge. I talked about this before. One can even use the playing hall environment to win. In a tight battle, every single bit of edge counts. Just like Sun Tzu would choose to fight a battle with the glare in his enemy's eyes.
But besides that, one can also use emotions to win the game. Even the mind coach himself has talked about this before. He talked about the importance of confidence. Is that not an emotion? A sure sign of someone who does not know what he is talking about is the high frequency of his contradictions. Confidence allows one to trust his judgement, which consequently allows one to follow through with his plans, even though he cannot see the end of his calculation. Some people attribute this to intuition.
Remember the Kasparov-Anand match in 1995? After Kasparov lost Game 9, he went berserk and channelled his "frustration/anger/revenge mode" into his chess and unleashed a novelty in Game 10 that shocked Anand to the core. Kasparov was even slamming the doors of the playing hall after making every move in a few seconds without thinking, just to mess with Anand's head. In fact, this affected Anand so badly that he did not recover in the match. Anand went on to lose Games 10, 11, 13, and 14. The match was over by then. In this case, Kasparov used emotions to his advantage. This goes on to show that whether you like it or not, emotions exist in the game of chess (among humans of course). It is up to us to use them to our advantage.
If you remove the emotional component from chess, then it is just like two computers playing. In fact, I can even argue that, if one can play his best chess by removing emotions, then chess must be dominated by computers. How then, can humans defeat computers? Some claim it is the human judgement. But where does this judgement come from? Most certainly, humans cannot outcalculate computers. Positional judgement arises from a human's ability to "feel" how good a particular position is. It is not something that one "sees" on the board. Maybe this is the antithesis to "imagined fears". It is "imagined courage". Seeing something that is not really there?
So, the takeaway from this post is that, emotions are very much a part of chess. Use it to your advantage. The Great Kasparov has shown that you can even control your opponent's emotions. That is a mark of a true strategist, something Sun Tzu would have been proud of.
P/S: Do not consult your stock broker about real estate. Also, it would be unwise to consult your real estate agent about stock investment.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
A Good Joke
The greatest insultWhat does that say about you, indeed. The greatest insult you can give out, is when you insult yourself. Expounding thoughts and ideas but refusing to accept criticism. Then call the critics liars. Then commit the very same crimes you so willingly accuse your critics of. Hypocrisy is the greatest insult to your own intelligence. Here is one example:
Do you know that the greatest insult you can give someone is to tell them what to think? What is the underlying assumption? Why dont you just give them the facts and let them decide for themselves? Why do you need half truths, lies, rejection, innuendos etc? What does that say about you?
Chess is a game of immense beautyIn case you all fail to notice, the two articles quoted above are from the same author. In one article, he condemns people for telling others what to think. Then in another, he tells people exactly what to think.
And the beauty comes from its paradoxical nature. From the very fact that it has few variables it can display the tremendous creativity of its exponents. Some breath taking games are breath taking simply because of the ingenious solutions within those constraints (A fact? Half-truth? Innuendo? A battle of two personalities in a game of infinite possibilities has few variables?).
Chess is also a game of change because it very clearly demonstrates that the decision you make in the moment can have an astounding impact on the end result.
So the essence of the game itself refutes the arguments of the people who argues on the wrong side of nature vs nurture. The proponents of nature is blind to change (A fact? Half-truth? Innuendo? Nature doesn't change? Why must we only choose one? Why not part nature, part nurture? Best of both worlds?).
The beauty of chess is revealed when you can understand paradox; when you understand that its true nature is that it reveals who you are. There is not much technical and so the immense battle for the higher levels is the battle for the control of your mind (A fact? Half-truth? Innuendo? You must believe this, or else you are blind! Because it is a fact).
And so the real battle for excellence is the struggle not to be trumatised by the struggle itself. And so the need for clean competitions. And so the need for correct preparation.
The people who can only understand contradictions cannot see that. They cannot accept change and so they will deny the evidence even when it is presented directly in front of their eyes. And in doing so they will condemn themselves to staying stagnant and playing a low level of the game (You must think like this, or else you will always be blindfolded. This is what I am telling you to think).
This is self evident. This is demonstrated by chess. Look with a still mind and you will see (A fact? Half-truth? Innuendo?).
Why am I doing this? Well, as the title of the post suggests, it is purely for entertainment. You should not expect your chess to improve from reading this post. On the other hand, you MAY not worsen your chess skills by being selective with your reading. I suppose that is an improvement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)