Chess is a game for the training of Commanders, of Generals, of decision makers. So I have used the GM as the arbitrary line to illustrate the limits of just technical.
Nevertheless, technical is an important anchor in chess. Reliable technical evaluation. And here we have another stumbling block. Reminder from "question to technical analysts". Here.
The experience of this blog exposes our so called "technical" analysts, that cannot examine evidence with objectivity. This is a major flaw. Without objective technical input, we cannot plan our development. And without that we cannot get long term sponsors.
This fact gives rise to the speculation that somehow our chess environment can damage healthy questioning National Juniors, here, to damaged adults that are able to contort their minds to an amazing degree in the defence of indefensible and ludicrous positions. So our Juniors are deprived of their experience despite the "heavy investment" the chess community has put in the seniors.
I place a caveat here. There are some loud objections from whom I suspect are low level players who have never competed at high levels and so I can comprehend their lack of understanding. But quite honestly I expected more from our IM's.
I have given my evaluation as honestly as I can because I feel that in order for us to turn things around instead of more whinning or finger pointing, we need to face our reality. We have many things right but we also have critical flaws. These must be addressed for resolution. I also sincerely do not have any personal axes to grind. I have moved past that now. I hope my evaluations to date will be helpful in getting us our own GM.
Thank you for your time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment