Thursday, July 20, 2006

CTS and Mastering Chess

Well, I haven't been doing so hot on CTS lately. Trying to get every problem right isn't helping my percentage or my rating. Something needs to change. It's frustrating that neither are improving, you would think that I would at least be able to improve the percentage, but I can't.

On another note, I think that CTS is highly beneficial to chess skill. As Tempo has theorized and experienced himself, it makes a difference. And now, a new article in the August Scientific American confirms what tempo has been saying. The article states that "much of the chess master's advantage over the novice derives from the first few seconds of thought." Thus, CTS would train you to spot things quickly in a position and to store lots of positions in your long-term memory. Again, just like tempo thought. Just thought that I would bring that up.

Also of interest to all of us amateur chess players, it has become evident (again, according to the article) that there is no such thing as innate talent, only hard work can get you to the level of chess expertise that you desire. There is a so-called 10-year rule that says that it takes "approximately a decade of heavy labor to master any field." That means that you constantly have to challenge yourself and fight the instinct to settle into a groove of moderate ability.

I thought that I would also mention that the article talks about chunking, as in groups of information. One theory is that chess masters are able to store thousands of chunks of information, like the fianchetto position in a certain opening, for example, and know intuitively about that aspect of the position. The thousands of chunks that the masters have allows them to memorize positions in under 10 seconds when presented to them for the first time. A novice, which doesn't have nearly as many "chunks," thus has a harder time with setting up the position perfectly after 10 seconds.

I thought that this would be of interest to everyone. :)

Update:
Well, I recovered from my little dip in both rating and success rate at CTS. I am back up to 1565 and have got my success rate up to 59.1% from 57%. It's getting hard to change it. :)

Another Update:
I just passed tempo on the CTS rankings! But then again, I won't be getting even close to 1600 like he did. Also just discovered the message board there. I'm liking CTS more and more! :)

6 Comments:

At 4:25 PM, Blogger Temposchlucker said...

I just passed tempo on the CTS rankings!

3 reactions come to mind. Since I can't choose, I give you all 3 so you can choose which one you like most.

A. The friendly reaction: Glad I can make you happy!

B. The mediocre reaction: competition in chess study is not wise since it hinders the best way to study. For instance now I'm experimenting with different kinds of systems. Which make my rating drop ofcourse. Would I accept your challenge, I must forget my experiments.

C. The harsh reaction: I can't accept that you have passed me untill your successrate is 81%, which is equal to mine:)

 
At 4:39 PM, Blogger generalkaia said...

very true tempo. of course i was keeping that in mind. nevertheless, it feels good. what sort of experiments are you up to? and does the main content of my post hold any interest for you?

 
At 12:08 AM, Blogger transformation said...

i am 100% certain of this comment:::

greetings.

if you have only done 1661 problems at chess.emrald.net at 59.1%, then you might want to slow down. now, your rating evidences superior understanding at chess, so let me trod gently, pls.

i was 1420 or so at 1500 problems, at 76% or so. i made a resolute decision to play for quality there. i pushed it to 81% at 10,000. it took a long, long time. now im 14250 at 83.341%, and soon ill again be 83.450 so expressed as 83.5%. i play for percentages only there.

last night my RD at closure or log off was 16.0. i well understand low RD = high commitment.

if you do 8339 problems, at 85%, you will be there. maybe forget the 59% and if the rating need fall, let it fall. IMHO.

decide, do you want to be like Tempo, or SpaceCowboy, or Trallala, or Wormwood in % success, or do 88,000 problems fast, and learn what. if Cylk--and i dont mean at all to disrespect such a great effort, but it must be asked--has done 88,672 at only 63%, and ONLY 1532 ELO, then it begs the question, what did he or she learn? to what effect? to miss 3/8ths of all problems???? does one brag for so many attempts, or maybe it is a loss to do so much and repeat the same mistakes and not learn?

tempo on the other hand has learned CTS well, and i intend to follow close by.

dktransform at chess.emrald and here transformation, here...

thanks, david

 
At 12:42 AM, Blogger transformation said...

ive added you to my sidebar. gotta run, CTS craze time. thank you. dk

 
At 2:41 AM, Blogger transformation said...

just warmed up with CT-Art 3.0 then migrated to chess.emrald.net.

i felt like i was having a really BAD session there, but then recovered. ive been up EVERY night this week, so time for a break. my only day off for 11 days tomorrow, so time to rest!

first twenty at CTS tonight:
1/19=20 in my parlance is 1 fail, 19 success, then totals twenty.

then the next ten:
2/8=10 is eight failed. not great, but not too far off my required 83.5% run rate to stay, as i like to say is my alogrthm, to stay => then my % success. ok.

then the HORROR SHOW:
i failed ONE. then a success. then another FAILED. in the sequence, thats 3/1=4 or 0.25 for that one tiny juncture. the sorrow of an otherwise great session. so by then i was 5/38=43 or 5 failed, 38 success totals 43.

then sweet odes to joy, recovery time, the brain is humming:
1/16=17. ONE failed on problem 41.

so thats:
6/44=50. puts me 83.4507. shows as 83.5 in detailed view. but to get it to "print" (wall street term for how a trade is finalized for "day end") as 84% in the overall view for "Tacticians", i need 83.501.

for example, recently, spacecowboy went up an integer as he prints rounded up, etc. a most impressive, was it, 88%. very smart fellow. very smart.

so my point? im not overjoyed at six wrong out of fifty.

in a real OBP game, six bad moves in a real game is a loss. 38 moves is an average game, so amortising or pro-rata, thats four bad moves by then.

trying for a zen like state of hum, where the brain hits every problem, or as Lao Tzu says of the men of old crossing ice, so deliberately.

youve seen GM's live at a tournement. they take a single piece and they put it THERE. often with aplomb.

warm regards, david

 
At 12:33 AM, Blogger Temposchlucker said...

The article agrees on a scientific basis with 3 of the main issues I'm advocating for long:

Importance of first seconds of thought.
10 years of heavy labor instead of innate talent.
Theory of chunks.

Do I still have to say "ofcourse!" :)

The reason that they agree with me might be that I have consulted science in the first place when I formulated these issues. What do you think?:)

About the experiments I'm doing at CTS I will probably make a post when I'm ready.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home