I thought I was the only one that ever felt that way. It was many years ago when ICC was the only place to play online, and I was exactly the same. I could play bots, but not people. Losing to a bot was one thing, but another person? No way! I ended up writing about the online chess experience for some class I was taking at the time. I think that what's finally did it for me. And since that time, I basically accept losing, failure, as a part of the process of learning and growing in all areas of life. Some years later I played in OTB tournaments. These would be weekend events where a game could last 4 hours, and you'd play two or even three in a day. It could be pretty grueling. And of course, you have to accept your losses. It's an amazing experience to be an adult and lose to a child or teenager. But yes that's happened to me more than once. I'll also add that it's amazing to win an OTB tournament. Once I played in a large weekend tournament, six games over three days. I was in the under 2000 section (my rating was in the 1600s), and for some reason, I simple could not lose. Even in games where I would have a losing position, I would still manager to win, or in one case draw. I was bullet proof, and it was such a wonderful feeling -- felt like I was walking ten feet off the ground. The only tournament where I've ever won a cash prize, too. So, anyway, go for it. Don't let your fear of losing stop you from trying in any area of life.
I don't understand the Golden Record. Even assuming other advanced civilizations, "there’s an infinitesimally small chance that the Golden Record will be picked up."[0] So, at some (considerable?) cost and time, something meaningless and ineffective (from the perspective of its ostensible purpose, communicating with alien civilizations) was undertaken. So what was the point? Why was it done? Note, I'm not questioning sending out probes, gathering data, space exploration, etc.
I've watched the interview a couple of times. I did not see that his tone or vocabulary were over her head. However, I would like to know what you're referring to. Could you give one or two examples please?
Probably not. The question is, what does the prepositional phrase modify: "largest" or "built." You took it to modify "built." There's no syntactical requirement that it modify one or the other, that I'm aware of. The choice must be based on meaning and interpretation. Few, if any, can take over a century to build anything, so modifying "largest" is more reasonable.
Very little was said about the type of exercise they were doing. I'd guess that most of it was "cardio." Would they have different results if they were involved in more specifically muscle building exercises, i.e, weight lifting (and with adequate rest)?
I've been following McGuff's Body By Science protocol for the past 6 months and I believe that with increased muscle my overall health is improving much more than would have resulted from typical long and slow cardio.
Interesting. I read in Body By Science (McGuff) that drinking two liters of ice water a day will force your body to burn an additional 125 calories to maintain core temperature.
I know that since I've been following the weight-lifting protocol advocated by McGuff that my ability (and desire!) to sleep without covers, and skip wearing a coat in cooler weather, has increased.
I have no idea why this article is so popular. It claims to show the way to get better at chess by the doing the following: 1. Study the opening, 2. Study the middlegame, 3. Study the endgame, 4. Study your own games, 5. Study master games, 6. Play OTB, 7. Study tactics, 8. Use "psychology," meaning, don't be afraid and never give up. Along the way a few books and other recommendations are thrown in.
This is all rather trivial stuff.
While, I don't disagree with everything that the author says, I think that it should be acknowledged that his claim is pretty much unfounded. There are those who have not done any (or all, or much) of these things and their rating is above 1800, and there are those who have done all of these things and their rating never comes close to 1800.
Beyond that the author does not seem to be aware of the well-known debate on this subject.
There are at least, broadly, two views on chess improvement. One side, as represented by Silman and Aagaard, argues that chess "meta-knowledge" is key. A player must first look at the characteristics of the positions (e.g., understand Silman's imbalances), and with this understanding, and only then, can a suitable move be found. This group usually advocates a "thinking process" as well. The other side, as represented by Watson and Hendriks, argues that it is only the moves themselves that are important, and the correct move in many cases contradicts the "rules" of strategic analysis. For this group, only "concrete analysis" of a position (i.e., looking at the moves without prejudice) has any possibility of leading to a good move. In this "concrete analysis" group, at least Hendriks (if I understand him correctly) argues that in a tournament situation where there are significant time restrictions, and experimentally moving the pieces is not allowed, only knowing the position itself, or similar types of positions, can help the player find the correct move.
So, we have the "meta-knowledge" group advocating the learning of strategic and tactical ideas, and then applying that knowledge to a given position with proper thinking technique. Accordingly, this group believes that if you want to improve your chess, you need to learn more strategic and tactical ideas, applied with an improved thinking technique.
And we have the "concrete analysis" group advocating the learning of the correct move in specific positions. Accordingly, this group believes that if you want to get better at chess, then you must learn many hundreds, even thousands, of positions.
The truth is probably somewhere between the two extremes. My own experience is that as far as tournament OTB play is concerned, I have benefited more from the concrete analysis approach than anything else.
Michael L. Jones discusses the teaching out loud technique in, The Overnight Student (1990)[1]. He says that in high school he was a B and C student, and in college his first semester GPA was 1.9. The next semester he failed every class. He was expelled. When allowed to re-enroll he again got all F's. A few years later he tried again with success. He credits teaching out loud as the technique that made him an A student.
I feel for you. In our house computer games, like Minecraft, began to consume all our children's (12 and under) time and attention --- they wanted to do absolutely nothing else. So, we made a rule, no computer games, except on what my wife and I called "Technology Tuesdays." At first the going was really tough, but it seems to have worked. The children now enjoying playing computer games on Tuesday (which turns out to be only a few hours after school on Tuesday), but are back to pursuing other interests the rest of the time.
On the other hand, for truly educational content, like Khan Academy, they have unlimited access.
I've played tournament chess for a few years. In fact, I'll be playing in a chess tournament this weekend. I've lost lot of games. The effect, I think, has been an increased ability to handle failure, rejection, and frustration in other areas of life. How one gets better at chess is a subject of intense interest among chess players. Of course, one has to learn opening principles, positional ideas, endgame technique, tactics, and more. However, I think there is also a psychological change that must happen. A transformation in how one views the game. Generally, I think it happens this way. A tournament player eventually realizes that the game is (most likely) a theoretical draw. Nobody can win a game by force. Every loss is the result of your own mistakes. Coming to that realization the chess player stops trying to force wins from unclear positions, stops mentally calculating long and wild variations that eat up time on the clock, and in truth will never appear on the board (and are full of errors anyway), and instead begins to focus on his opponents (perhaps subtle) errors. He begins to accumulate small advantages. In short, he lets the other player beat himself. Of course, it's all easier said than done.
Congratulations on getting the book written and on Amazon. I hope to follow in your footsteps in the coming year.
Like you, I'm fascinated by story structure, the hero's journey, and the mono-myth. And I've struggled with creating something less than flat characters.
I've read the Snowflake method, and parts of it definitely work for me. Another book that I highly value is Dwight Swain's Technique's of the Selling Writing. This was one of the first books that I read on writing fiction, and I still think it's one of the best. I would also recommend Baboulene's, The Story Book, for it's discussion on subtext.
Unfortunately for me, the focus on technique left me not only with flat characters but also a severe case of writer's block. However, I may have found a solution to both problems in John Dufresne's Is Life Like This? Dufresne advocates a more organic, even serendipitous, approach to story creation. For him at least, the results can be wonderful (read his Love Warps the Mind a Little, or his short stories in Johnny Too Bad), and for me, it's got me writing (finally!) and seeing my characters as something more than just cardboard cutouts. Like anything else, it's not for everybody, and YMMV.