You have published a 100 Repertoire for White (which I am studying now), a 100 Repertoire against 1.e4 and now you are going to publish a 100 Repertoire against 1.d4. If someone wanted to learn from your opening courses, one would need to spend twice as much time studying openings for Black than openings for White. (If someone chooses other, bigger opening courses, it would usually mean anyway this 1:2 ratio.)
By "twice as much time" I mean continued commitment rather than one time effort: you need to repeat variations, play through master games originating from these variations, etc.
But does it make sense to have repertoire for Black twice as big, if we consider the efficiency of our study time? Given that we will have both White and Black in roughly 50% of our games? (I am not saying it doesn't make sense -- I simply don't know what to think about it).
One might argue that positions we are getting against 1.e4 are completely different than those we are getting against 1.d4 (which could be similar to those against 1.Nf3 and 1.c4). But similarly, when playing 1.e4 as White, we are getting completely different positions against 1. ... e5, Sicilian, Caro-Kann, French etc.
Shouldn't it be a 200 Repertoire for White, and 2 x 100 Repertoires for Black :)? (Or 100 for White and 2 x 50 for Black.)
I wonder what are your thoughts, given your expertise in both chess and data science :).
"As a result, for most players, the opening is a phase you play, not a phase you memorize"
I agree even more that you might say there. I would push this further. The full opposite of line imitation learing in all its forms (drilling or rote input or space repetition), that we need even to be blank slate playing there (even forcing fake "errors", and make errors as early as possible to start building that "play" nor recall stance there. I get and I did at my patzer scale of ambition in chess winning task (kidding a bit), do that crutch learning strategy to be able to actually play sojme chess beyond getting fool mated in opening phase (exagerating for clarity, but maybe opposite results), but I find at my age I have no more energy or time left, and I am still curious about the logic of openings. I find that relying on past history of others experience might have been helpful, but now it seems like an incuriosity about the opening. I am jealous of the older players that did not have any theory... and had to live through opening phases are true inventors of they moves (play) rather than having to pinch nose until deep enough for some "play" quality of live chess, new chess. pinching nose is when one relies on knowledge, and not "play" to win. That is why I play with opening explorer. .so I can play.. but even then, I realize that I need to make fake problems extra curiostiy about fools mate to find the stimulation or spend enough subconscious exposure to that type of configuration, where I should rely on inert never experienced as play chess knowledge. Maybe I am fooling myself. but I am tired of doing moves just to win, that I could not discover.. For me the explicit chess knowledge from openings, while necessary, can become a hinderence. It leaves me with my hunger.
<<Look, I think most people know this already: memorizing long lines is unlikely to help you in real games, because most of your opponents won’t play into them.>>
Bought your 1.Nf3 course and learned this the hard way. Besides the "60% win-rate with White" statistical selling point was based on faulty analysis too.
Never buying an opening book/course again. Power to those who buy these products.
Reporting from the field. :). Interesting proposition, sharing that explicitly. Feels like data.
Also, the field diversity seems to force a big picture introduction that needs to look wide.
words fail me, as ever, but I am finding the initial perspective point satisfying and personally needed more than (or more than only) the best way to play them. A more practical point of view of the lifelong individual looking to learn ahead, that timescale, that such diverse player level outlook allows you to share as take home. I appreciate that level.
I think this realization of the very time dependency or sustainability of learnable from exposure to rexposure (memory) in relation to the single deep line depth (or any kind, it could be engine line from anywhere too) is a good point to bring.
I find this applies to buried learnable in full games study tradition of books as well. the time it takes to focus back on the same type of board issues (ideas), that might need more experience intensification as a specific muscle to hone, in balance of the many other muscle improvement, for some contained duration, before going back to ensemble all muscle testing, is something precious, limited resource, daily, weekly, or monthly. depending on the whole budget of mental energy one is putting. but chess is not a one day task to learn.. yet that is how we have to progress through. long haul objective, day level learning, but also iterative (or repeated exposure learning), need to be able to create timely dense enough proximitiy of learnable exposure, to be able to learn it wisely with best generalization and best level of applicability belief. Sorry if this iteration of what I think is still not doing the communication intent. but i keep trying. here borrwing from muscular dependent sports that need long haul training and specificicity. and time periods to work and strenghten one muscle that might be weaker in normal performance, and more needed in target objective performance, but that only full performance testing as sole method of exposuire of training would never bring to the level needed for that muscle. does this work. about practical notions of performance not being enough for theory of learning.. that we can use non-practical challenges.. mini-games and such. and your idea of convened intial positions for intensity exposure means shorter full games going back more often per learnable unit time (for biological learner) back to the same board problem, and that is more likely to make for better long term memory of the flexible kind anyway. on of those takes might land.. I hope..
associative learning needs temporal proxiimity of associable learnjable. kind of very basic psychology.
I haven't learned a new Black Opening against 1.d4 for ages, but you've got me tempted here!! Congrats on the course!
Hi Nate,
You have published a 100 Repertoire for White (which I am studying now), a 100 Repertoire against 1.e4 and now you are going to publish a 100 Repertoire against 1.d4. If someone wanted to learn from your opening courses, one would need to spend twice as much time studying openings for Black than openings for White. (If someone chooses other, bigger opening courses, it would usually mean anyway this 1:2 ratio.)
By "twice as much time" I mean continued commitment rather than one time effort: you need to repeat variations, play through master games originating from these variations, etc.
But does it make sense to have repertoire for Black twice as big, if we consider the efficiency of our study time? Given that we will have both White and Black in roughly 50% of our games? (I am not saying it doesn't make sense -- I simply don't know what to think about it).
One might argue that positions we are getting against 1.e4 are completely different than those we are getting against 1.d4 (which could be similar to those against 1.Nf3 and 1.c4). But similarly, when playing 1.e4 as White, we are getting completely different positions against 1. ... e5, Sicilian, Caro-Kann, French etc.
Shouldn't it be a 200 Repertoire for White, and 2 x 100 Repertoires for Black :)? (Or 100 for White and 2 x 50 for Black.)
I wonder what are your thoughts, given your expertise in both chess and data science :).
Thanks,
Michał
Is it coming out today?
It's delayed - not Chessable's fault, I got sick and wasn't able to finish the recordings.
quote:
"As a result, for most players, the opening is a phase you play, not a phase you memorize"
I agree even more that you might say there. I would push this further. The full opposite of line imitation learing in all its forms (drilling or rote input or space repetition), that we need even to be blank slate playing there (even forcing fake "errors", and make errors as early as possible to start building that "play" nor recall stance there. I get and I did at my patzer scale of ambition in chess winning task (kidding a bit), do that crutch learning strategy to be able to actually play sojme chess beyond getting fool mated in opening phase (exagerating for clarity, but maybe opposite results), but I find at my age I have no more energy or time left, and I am still curious about the logic of openings. I find that relying on past history of others experience might have been helpful, but now it seems like an incuriosity about the opening. I am jealous of the older players that did not have any theory... and had to live through opening phases are true inventors of they moves (play) rather than having to pinch nose until deep enough for some "play" quality of live chess, new chess. pinching nose is when one relies on knowledge, and not "play" to win. That is why I play with opening explorer. .so I can play.. but even then, I realize that I need to make fake problems extra curiostiy about fools mate to find the stimulation or spend enough subconscious exposure to that type of configuration, where I should rely on inert never experienced as play chess knowledge. Maybe I am fooling myself. but I am tired of doing moves just to win, that I could not discover.. For me the explicit chess knowledge from openings, while necessary, can become a hinderence. It leaves me with my hunger.
<<Look, I think most people know this already: memorizing long lines is unlikely to help you in real games, because most of your opponents won’t play into them.>>
Bought your 1.Nf3 course and learned this the hard way. Besides the "60% win-rate with White" statistical selling point was based on faulty analysis too.
Never buying an opening book/course again. Power to those who buy these products.
Some opening study is helpful if done well.
Reporting from the field. :). Interesting proposition, sharing that explicitly. Feels like data.
Also, the field diversity seems to force a big picture introduction that needs to look wide.
words fail me, as ever, but I am finding the initial perspective point satisfying and personally needed more than (or more than only) the best way to play them. A more practical point of view of the lifelong individual looking to learn ahead, that timescale, that such diverse player level outlook allows you to share as take home. I appreciate that level.
I think this realization of the very time dependency or sustainability of learnable from exposure to rexposure (memory) in relation to the single deep line depth (or any kind, it could be engine line from anywhere too) is a good point to bring.
I find this applies to buried learnable in full games study tradition of books as well. the time it takes to focus back on the same type of board issues (ideas), that might need more experience intensification as a specific muscle to hone, in balance of the many other muscle improvement, for some contained duration, before going back to ensemble all muscle testing, is something precious, limited resource, daily, weekly, or monthly. depending on the whole budget of mental energy one is putting. but chess is not a one day task to learn.. yet that is how we have to progress through. long haul objective, day level learning, but also iterative (or repeated exposure learning), need to be able to create timely dense enough proximitiy of learnable exposure, to be able to learn it wisely with best generalization and best level of applicability belief. Sorry if this iteration of what I think is still not doing the communication intent. but i keep trying. here borrwing from muscular dependent sports that need long haul training and specificicity. and time periods to work and strenghten one muscle that might be weaker in normal performance, and more needed in target objective performance, but that only full performance testing as sole method of exposuire of training would never bring to the level needed for that muscle. does this work. about practical notions of performance not being enough for theory of learning.. that we can use non-practical challenges.. mini-games and such. and your idea of convened intial positions for intensity exposure means shorter full games going back more often per learnable unit time (for biological learner) back to the same board problem, and that is more likely to make for better long term memory of the flexible kind anyway. on of those takes might land.. I hope..
associative learning needs temporal proxiimity of associable learnjable. kind of very basic psychology.