Hacker News Reader

> 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.

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.

You've completed missed what I'm saying. I'm saying the best teachers for brand new chess players are those humans who specialize in rapidly training new chess players. The people who should write books on chess training are the people who have been doing it for 20+ years and actually have some authority. These people DO write books but apparently they're less interesting than some 19 year old posting his completely untested, unrefined, invalidated hunches. It's low quality content in a field where there is a LOT of high quality content.

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.

And if you had of replied with the tone you used here, it might have come off a lot better than it did.

A reasonable way of addressing this, would have been for you to write a short comment describing what you believe to be better resources, with links, and leave the nastiness out of it. Or a short blog post, and submit it.

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.

Your reply sounds a bit fishy. Your second sentence "he doesn't explain why his advice is worth a damn" is inconsistent with a rhetorical question.

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.

I actually phrased my comment in the style of a marker who is marking some academic work, like an essay. The norm here is to address your points to the content of the paper itself and not appeal to outside information.

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."

> When someone asks an obvious question, the interpreter of the question has two paths to choose.

> (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.

It's actually a very interesting problem. It depends entirely on the person and the extent to which they are conscious of the multitudinous implications of their statements.

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.

Well, my impression is that NathanthePie's answer was rhetorical, too - in other words, interpretation (a) was chosen deliberately and with full awareness of what you actually meant, for no other reason than rhetorical effect :)

Did you miss that?