In my experience, the main goal of chess coaching and training was to teach you how to act like you were a computer. Any kind of "intuitive" play or even creative play was harshly criticized from a young age. The first goal was to memorize a massive amount of opening theory and what is known as 'book' knowledge. Once a student has a reasonable amount of book knowledge, then you move on to techniques to focus you on calculating quickly.

This hasn't been my experience at all. At what level do you believe that memorization of opening theory is the first goal? I've seen coaches state again and again that most players under 2000 (i.e., most tournament chess players) spend too much time memorizing opening theory, when they would get far more benefit from working on tactics and middlegame technique, playing through lots of master games, and playing more slow chess. This is what my coach has recommended to me (I'm only about 1700 ICC standard, probably much less than you), and I've heard it stated again and again that too much emphasis on opening theory is a serious problem for sub-2000 players.


Every chess player has to memorize opening theory or they can't make progress. I agree that this is often over-emphasized, generally because it's the easiest thing for a coach to assign. I do think opening theory is pretty fundamental because it is a constructive way to teach someone about controlling the center of the board and developing pieces, which need to be learned concurrently with tactics. The same errors that people fall into with over-emphasizing openings are also prone to occur when people over-emphasize solving chess puzzles or replaying GM ga... (read more)

[LINK] Daniel Pink talks about Motivation

by [anonymous] 1 min read22nd Sep 20118 comments


Little over a week ago my work watched this video for a "self-improvement" seminar.
I hadn't seen this linked anywhere on LW yet, and thought it might be relevant, given lukeprogs' article on motivation.