who is this guy and why should i take him seriously? he doesn't explain why his advice is worth a damn
But since you asked, he explains in this article that he was rated around 1800. He also clearly explains what that means. He then described a system he used to boost his rating by 600 points in 15 months. I'm impressed, but you aren't obligated to feel the same way. You also aren't obligated to take his advice. He gave it to us for free, and you returned his kindness with unnecessary hostility.
This isn't a nice lady smiling at you on the street and telling you about her knitting technique. This is fucking blogspam by a complete amateur who has self-proclaimed himself an expert on a topic that is already very well populated by ACTUAL authoritative experts.
If you don't like what he has to say, that's your perogative, but that doesn't make his article blog spam. The guy's been on HN for a year and a half and that's the first time he ever posted anything from his site. He likely just found out that a lot of HN members are interested in chess, and so he did what normal people have done with their hobbies for centuries, try to grow the community.
Instead of complaining, wouldn't it be more productive to take your own advice and post some of the resources that you found useful?
No. Pointing out the low quality of this article is pretty easy and helpful. It's not like the opportunity cost of my very simple (but powerful) criticism is precluding me from making my contributions to the world.
I think we should all spend a lot more time shooting down people who don't deserve attention.
I'm sure he's a nice guy. Maybe he's a great friend and sincerely loves his mom. If these things make you uncriticizable on HN, no wonder the place is full of trash.
P.S. It's blogspam because he's selling his book.
>I think we should all spend a lot more time shooting down people who don't deserve attention.
I agree. I hope its not lost on you that this is exactly what I've been doing.
No one is above intelligent criticism, but we have yet to see any of that from you.
This is a place for people that like to build things. Having a needlessly negative attitude isn't conducive to making that happen.
1. Are competent at reading. 2. Have visited, and used, the internet before.
Thus, the answer to your question, "Who is this guy" can be found on his WP site under the tab, 'About'. There, it states that he is:
1. Narula is a 19 year old sophomore at the University of Georgia studying Computer Science and Political Science and 2. Gautam has also written a book on chess and a few Android apps.
(a) Assume the author is very stupid and then tell him the very stupid and obvious answer.
(b) Interpret the question as rhetorical.
People who take (a) are the type of people who think they're smarter than everyone else, but who are actually, in fact, dumber. Usually they lack empathy, are undersocialized, and probably show on the autism spectrum.
People who take (b) are the type of people who correctly interpret the statement.
The correct interpretation of my rhetorical question is to read it as a commentary on authority. Is this 1800 rated 19 year old really the proper authority to learn how to play chess? Wouldn't a professional chess teacher with decades of experience and a higher rating than 1800 be the correct authority to instruct us on the best methods to learn chess? Yes. They would be. There are thousands of these teachers.
Instead of pushing blogspam by amateurs onto the frontpage, if HN really wants to know how to learn chess, HN should just link one of the dozens of much more reputable books on this topic.
As a chess player all I can do is roll my eyes when a 19 year old with an 1800 rating and very few (none?) years of chess teaching experience proclaims himself an expert and gets upvoted for it. It's just absurd.
> (a) Assume the author is very stupid and then tell him the very stupid and obvious answer.
> (b) Interpret the question as rhetorical.
> People who take (a) are the type of people who think they're smarter than everyone else, but who are actually, in fact, dumber. Usually they lack empathy, are undersocialized, and probably show on the autism spectrum.
> People who take (b) are the type of people who correctly interpret the statement.
It's funny; people have been telling me my whole life that observing when other people ask obvious questions makes me a huge jerk, and I should patiently give them the obvious answers they ask for.
But really, whoever has been giving you that advice is a dunce. I expect your being seen as a jerk has a lot more to do with how you negotiate people's feeling than how you interpret their statements. The people giving you that advice probably want you to stop being a jerk but can't quite articulate what they mean.
This is actually more interesting than whatever the fuck this thread was about. Hermeneutics is funnnn.
I agree he doesn't have much cred by the way, and his method is nothing new or special. But I think his advice is generally sound for an uneducated player who wants to improve.
So my comment is more clearly saying, "This essay would be stronger if you used evidence or authority of some kind to back up the assertions you are making." This is actually a polite way of saying "You don't know what you're talking about and shouldn't be proclaiming yourself an expert on this topic."
Projecting? Everything about both of your comments (above) suggest you fit this model perfectly.
In the opening of the article the author says:
> many people mentioned that they enjoyed playing chess but quit because of the sheer time commitment it took to get “good” at chess
So it's obviously not aimed at someone of your (supposed) skill level, but at others here who may be casual players. No need to be so nasty.
If the article was targeted at expert chess players I wouldn't have said anything. Because expert chess players don't need to be told that there are better experts than 19 year old newbies. The fact that the article is targeted at beginners is what motivated me to speak up--beginners might not realize just how much quality information is out there and that they don't need to settle for the afternoon musings of a newbie.
Did you miss that?
As for your question:
> Is this 1800 rated 19 year old really the proper authority to learn how to play chess? Wouldn't a professional chess teacher with decades of experience and a higher rating than 1800 be the correct authority to instruct us on the best methods to learn chess?
My answer to that would be "I don't know". It depends on the material. I have more than enough times seen situations from my own fields of expertise where "professionals" with decades of experience have been shown up by relative beginners to be prepared to blindly accept an appeal to authority. Especially when you are not backing it up with any examples of why you believe his article is not good enough to be suitable to his stated audience.
> HN should just link one of the dozens of much more reputable books on this topic.
So give us a name, or a link, rather than spout vitriol.
That's not bad at all. I think he's perfectly entitled to give advice to beginners. They don't really need it coming from a GM, for the same reason why primary school students don't need to be taught by academic professors.
Your notion that chess teachers need "decades of experience" or else they are not the "correct authority to instruct us on the best methods to learn chess" is rather silly. How are they supposed to ever obtain this experience then, while they are not yet fit to teach anyone and according to you should shut up? :)
Also, would you recommend against going to a doctor who doesn't yet have "decades of experience"?
He's certainly within his rights to go around saying you should listen to him. Just like every other useless self-help blogger is.
The fact that my calling out his authority and credibility seems to rile up so many people says something about the crowd here. The crowd here is anti-intellectual, anti-credential, anti-experience, and anti-expertise. The crowd seems to be a lot of overpuffed young men who read Paul Graham essays and feel superior to others... for no reason.
a) Not being the best doesn't mean you're not good enough
b) In his piece he actually recommends young chess players to learn from numerous books authored by accomplished and highly experienced chess teachers such as Seirawan or Silman.
Which part of his advice exactly would you call out as useless?
"The fact that my calling out his authority and credibility seems to rile up so many people says something about the crowd here. The crowd here is anti-intellectual, anti-credential, anti-experience, and anti-expertise"
You yourself did not back up your criticism with any credentials (we don't know who you are and why we should pay attention to your objections), not to mention that you didn't even point out any particular flaws in the article. Thus your comments (as of now) have no expertise value by your own standards.
That you're doing so from an entirely new account, and so either have no track record here or have chosen not to post under your usual account also doesn't exactly point in your favour, as "calling people out" for lack of authority and credibility while doing nothing to establish your own certainly does tend to rile people up.
I'm sure I am not the only one who is left questioning your motives more so than the authority of the poster.