| Why do some people achieve mastery? |
|
|
|
| Written by Sciurus | |
| Sunday, 07 May 2006 | |
|
In "A star is made", the New York Times discusses the reason, why people become good at something. The article describes results from a new study on an old topic: talent vs. practice using elite soccer players as example. The majority of "good" soccer players is born in the first three months of the year. The simple conclusion from this fact would be that the birthdate determines the chances to play professional soccer. The study by Anders Ericsson, a psychology professor at Florida State University, however, comes to a different conclusion: Practice is more important than raw talent. From the viewpoint of the chess beginner who wants to learn play chess, the
most interesting part of the study is, that the way practice is done also
matters. Training methods that give immediate feedback are considered as
most effective. What is the consequence for chess training? Studying
tactics by solving tactical puzzles, should be good because feedback is
provided after every tactics problem. But what about playing chess? The
study results make me wonder, if correspondence chess is really good for learning chess strategy. Learning strategic thinking surely requires more than just
looking at one combination like in tactical problems. Playing many complete games is necessary to acquire
chess strategy skills and the ability to correctly evaluate chess positions.
In Comments (2)
![]() ...
written by RoostH, March 28, 2008
Based on this article, how much you play
OTB and how much correspondence one? Thanks Write comment
|
|
| Last Updated ( Monday, 14 August 2006 ) |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|





correspondence chess
Play chess in style - 