Eggheads, solution-focus a panacea, and conformity

First, thanks to Liquid Egg Product (LEP) for awarding me the coveted and rare Worthless Blogger Award. The owner of LEP sucks, but his mascot rules! He and chessloser are like the tag team of funny in the world of chess blogging. And that's saying...ummm...well I guess it's not saying much, but it's saying something! I'll be putting the award on my sidebar soon.

OK, on to even more fun. Zweiblumen posted an interesting comment on my previous post:

[A] while back you mentioned that when doing tactics you are spending less time on the problem and more time on the solution....[T]his seems very similar to the constant struggle between looking over your games without a computer vs the temptation to just ask fritz right away. All indications point to the idea that one should wait as long as possible to consult the machine...

Thanks for the comment, Zweiblumen.

First, for those who don't know what Zeiblumen is talking about, the original post on the solution-oriented method I am using is here. I've expanded on, revised, discussed the method further over multiple posts here, here, and here.

I originally developed the technique to help me finish these damned Circles faster. Given that goal, it is undoubtedly working (as discussed in those posts above). I just wish I had started with it earlier: learning this set of 1300 problems would have taken me half as long! My understanding of the positions using solution-focus is uncompromised. I haven't simply acquired the moves, but also learned principles, explanations, key pieces. I am convinced that, if the goal is to understand what to do in a position, this method is great.

Note the solution-focused approach is not passive: you don't just look at the solution and go on. In fact, I found it much more intellectually demanding than the stare-for-ten-minutes method. It forced me to actively generate explanations for every move in the solution, explanations for why certain other moves didn't work, involved visualizing the entire solution from start to finish without moving a piece, etc.. It was tough. The first time through, anyway. After that it got much much easier because I remembered a lot about each problem.

However, the method is not for practicing calculation, practicing a thought process, etc.. It is mainly for enhancing the memory of how to play in a given position. Perhaps that is not what someone is after when going over their own games.

However, why shouldn't that be their goal? I'm not convinced a similar method wouldn't be good for studying my own games. Let Fritz show you the move (after you briefly think about it), and then think very hard about why it is the best move, using the method.

It's like going over the game with a super-GM coach, but he won't explain the moves to you, only show you what you should have played. This reticent and annoying coach makes you explain the move. If you want to learn from your mistakes, this method seems great. This is a postmortem technique that couldn't even exist 20 years ago. Computers have revolutionized chess, and the repercussions for chess training are unclear.

It could also be useful for going over master games: cover and guess, but don't cover too long; guess quickly and then spend tons of time interrogating the solution. Then you will be more likely to really understand and know how to handle similar positions in the future.

It's a panacea!!! :)

I like the following video. It is a psychological study of conformity (a little cheesy, but a classic study):

I'm not sure how it is relevant....Perhaps breaking free from tradition, breaking free from what everyone says is right, might be useful for renegade chess improvers. I'm not a renegade, as after all I'm in the cult de la Maza. :) Perhaps conformity is most prevalent in people's judgments of what openings are good.

Of course, the tendency of humans to conform is the kind of thing that crackpot pseudo-scientists like to point out, too. Evolution, for instance, has been clearly refuted, but everyone is just genuflecting to the scientific priesthood of atheistic evolutionists. So, beware. You can be a nonconformist and still be completely wrong. But be careful of groupthink all the same.