Try this analogy. You are a non swimmer and have never been in a swimming pool in your life. You go through this lesson on how to float in water with diagrams, theories etc. Then you are thrown into the pool. The deep end. The instructor is shouting relax, relax!
Relax and you will float, struggle and you drown.
In Aikido, you are also asked to relax when you are being attacked. Now the question is how do you train the mind to do what you know is right, counter instinctive and life saving?
Or do we just focus on the technical? Not enough right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sorry Raymond but your analogy of a un-trained swimmer or trained panicking swimmer is a poor one when it comes to chess.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, losing a chess game is not a life or death situation.
Secondly,it is precisely the training that will save a trained swimmer to remain calm, as he knows what to do in such a situation but will just have to stay calm to remember what to do. On the other hand, the untrained swimmer will panick and will have NOTHING to fall back on to save him EXCEPT struggle like crazy causing him to sink further.
So yes, FOCUS on the TECHNICAL to save your life.
On the other hand, I can also use a biased analogy.
ReplyDeleteSuppose you don't know CPR and you watch a man drop unconscious from a heart attack. If you did know CPR, you can save his life. If you don't, shout and get help. If you panick and do nothing, the man dies.
So either way, YOU MUST KNOW WHAT TO DO.
That's why knowledge is important. Have that first. Then talk about whether you have the brains to use it.
Thank you for your comment John but you have missed the point. Read again. I said a non swimmer. The point in a nutshell is emotional intelligence ie impulse control. The entire basis of this blog is around that topic. Fear shuts down the mind, anxiety etc plays tricks on the mind. Under intense pressure the mind cannot remember the technical. You have stated previously that you believe in the law of the jungle to bring up our kids. Here we substantially differ. I believe in incubating and teaching skills surrounding emotional control together with technical. And only when the sapling is strong enough do I increase the exposure.
ReplyDeleteRaymond,
ReplyDeleteThink you have missed mine.
If its an untrained swimmer, asking him to relax will not save him if he doesn't know why. He will still drown.
As for the law of the jungle, what I meant was the fittest shall survive and move on. Those who do not make the mark will have to make way. It is nature's way of selecting who can and who can't. Sure, we can help teach emotioal control but it is still up to the individual to apply it (if he can apply it in time). Here IQ plays a part - Kasparov has managed to learn from his mistakes and adapt to Karpov's style in his match against Karpov in 1984 to avoid catastrophic defeat and prevail. Remember that he has an IQ of over 180. Can't say the same for everyone else. He was of course technically superior but needed to learn to control his emotions. For those yet to achieve this, then I really wonder what emotional control can help if they have no ideas on how to save their game?
I was trying to illustrate the difficulty of emotional control under pressure. The fact that you cannot remember your technical under the intense pressure of competition. And if you read my work on the inner child on the RHS, you will also see the effects of trauma at a young age. It is not only about IQ. Many potential strong players are destroyed by "bad" trainers and coaches. I have wrote on this many times. You seem eager to defend a point but you need to read in context. I hope you also take this in the correct spirit. Before you can teach you first need to know how to learn. Dont let your past conclusions blind you. Open your mind and your eyes.
ReplyDeleteNote also that IQ is a gift of nature and so cannot be changed. Emotional intelligence can be taught. So we should teach what can be taught. Technical is a smaller component of that. Actually EQ trumps IQ. Many strong players self destruct while many more have their potentials curbed by unknowing trainers. Just look at our education system as an example. Many bright boys and girls there. What happened to them? Now look back from your experience and think of how many that could have made it but did not because of this neglect.
ReplyDeleteRaymond,
ReplyDeleteI do not downplay the importance of EQ or emotional control. As a coach, I often have to face it when my students tell me that they can't beat someone just because their opponent's rating is higher. So it is just as real for me to manage my student's inadequacies emotionally. However, I always tell them that they must face it alone, try to tell themself that if they cannot win, then they should play and ask how the opponent can beat them if they are careful and not make obvious mistakes. I can repeat that 1000 times but each time it is really up to the maturity of the student to grasp the concept.
So what I am saying is FIRST THINGS FIRST - equipt the student with the technical knowledge to boost his confidence first. Then if that is still inadequate, work on the others. No aspect of training should be over-emphasised. They are all important.
I have in my course of work seen many youths whose chess careers were shortened due to trainers recommending "One size fits all" approaches regardless of the student's strengths and weaknesses in his/her character and chess preferences. Often they try to make their students a pale copy of themselves. When trainers fail to understand and take these factors into consideration, then they will fail to bring the best out of the student.
Perhaps you should read the book "Chess Instructor 2009" to understand chess training a little better before downplaying the importance of technical training.
I see you have brought up a new point. Yes I agree that many trainers only know how to teach their pet lines and not what the student's personality or style dictates. Actually you may have better traction if you can also demonstrate that you can also learn rather than resorting to condecension and referring to someone elses work as an authority. That will speak more of who you are.
ReplyDeleteAlso if you take the trouble to read rather than just wanting to make a point, you will see that I have not underplayed technical. That is all our trainers think about. Rather I am trying to raise more awareness on EQ among other things. And before you say you also recognise EQ may I point out that you cannot say that and also advocate the law of the jungle. Clearly you have more to workout there. So do that to improve yourself. Do not use this space to self promote. It is not working. Try instead to engage and contribute.
Raymond,
ReplyDeleteYou are speaking in riddles, which is why I guess it is difficult to comprehend you.
You are saying that EQ comes on top of technical knowledge in the grooming of a GM talent, I say that technical knowledge comes first. No matter how we are going to present our points, neither will be convinced.
So the law of the jungle dictates. You use your method and try to make a GM, I shall observe with all objectivity and wish you well. My experience with CTEP, though a small training event, has convinced me that Malaysia does have the necessary talent but not all have done the necessary technical homework to move to the top as compared to the Chinese, the Vietnamese. The results speak for themselves. It is not by sitting under the tree that we get answers for chess. We need to practice, to play, to make mistakes and learn from them and try try again to improve.
Let me say for the last time what I mean by the law of the Jungle. The fittest who can endure the hardships of failure, frustration of repeated attempts, the anguish of having always made the last mistake in a game, will learn and trive. Failure without realisation of one's faults and self-criticism ends up nowhere but just "perfecting one's mistakes".
The reason why I am quoting Kasparov or the renowned trainers in Chess Instructor 2009 is that they are the best there is and if you say that we should not learn from the best, then I really do not know who should we emulate.
No I am not taking this the wrong way, just that I wish to inform you that I am not condescending in my remarks as I sincerely wish that you too can accept others' opinion and not be clouded by your negative experiences with the Malaysian Chess authorities. We are after all dealing with the player in question, not the system or the environment.
Actually you have brought up points I agree with but perhaps its the way you present your information.
ReplyDeleteAs to the point of EQ being on top of technical I come from the premise of do no damage. Not many will make it to GM but at the very least many can learn alot from chess to make them better people. But only so long as we do not damage them along the way by having them sacrificed on the altar of the bruised egos of those that didnt make it.
With that premise, you'll see that technical is not King. Also without good emotional intelligence the technical will have limited use. So lets look at the equation again. Take away the technical and we still have good functioning human beings that may go on to excel somewhere else having picked up insights from chess. Damage them and you have a technically trained person that will not be able to contribute positively in society anymore. Now do you see why EQ is on top of technical?
This is the old argument of nature vs nurture. Your claim is that it doesnt matter what the environment is. I beg to differ. The evidence before my eyes is that many strong players/ or potential strong players do not make it because of the environment. Again I ask you to open your eyes and consider what I said about the education system, about what has been said about trauma to young kids who cannot defend themselves. If you do not realise this then you may inadvertently cause the same problem.
ReplyDeleteRaymond,
ReplyDeleteYou are wandering outside the scope of discussion.
I am not talking about the education system. I am talking about the relevance of EQ in being a GM. Please stay within the scope.
I did not say that the environment does not play a part - see my comments on your later posts. Problems with the environment need to be solved too, but first things first. Let's see the potential talent and what they have done to help themselves. Have they been studying the game for hours a day like some of the players I know? Have they been keep themselves fit for long hours of competition? Can they truly look into the mirror and say that they have done their utmost to improve themselves? If they have and still not succeed, then let's look at other factors and solve it one at a time.
Otherwise, let's be content with grooming a bunch of above-average players and a vibrant chess scene where the presence of a GM does not really matter.
Singapore has been content for years with having 8 IMs since 1967 (from Tan Lian Ann till Daniel Fernandez). Nothing wrong there as I find many players of my generation still passionate about chess till this day. They are all successful in their own right and though they are not active in the game, they are wonderful people willing to give back to chess when duty calls.
I met up with many likewise players in KL when playing in the Merdeka Rapid Team tournament, now coaches and seniors. We share nice stories and exchange greetings. Will things be even better with a GM? Our Singapore GMs are in HongKong and Shenzhen.How do they contribute to chess in Singapore, I really don't know.
Does Malaysia need to follow Singapore's example, simply for keeping up with the Jones's?
It is obvious you know little about goal setting but I hope you are not implying that we cannot think for ourselves and need to copy Singapore?
ReplyDelete