Where the buck stops?

[MJMcCready]

It's not a false antithesis but who do you think can teach you more about your own games, you or someoneo else; namely a coach or a trainer? Do be a good egg and explain why. With my thinking cap on - to use one of R.G. Collingwood's terms me certain me is the one. Because methinks me can learn from my own mistakes progressively rather than on an ad hoc. What say you?

All thoughts welcome...

[Nick Ivell]

I think that all education is ultimately self-education; the best a coach can do is save you time.

[Ian Thompson]

It's not a false antithesis but who do you think can teach you more about your own games, you or someoneo else; namely a coach or a trainer? Do be a good egg and explain why. With my thinking cap on - to use one of R.G. Collingwood's terms me certain me is the one. Because methinks me can learn from my own mistakes progressively rather than on an ad hoc. What say you?

All thoughts welcome...

Anyone other than you is likely to be helpful. They'll likely think of moves you didn't consider. That can be useful even if it turns out the move is no good. Just realising it was worth a look might help you improve.

[MJMcCready]

Perhaps if you are incapable of learnign from your own misgivings yes.

[Francis Fields]

The errors in my game are all my own!

[Joey Stewart]

I tend to think that if you are the sort of player willing to look critically at improving your own play then the answer is actually both - it's likely the biggest obstacle to progress in chess, overcoming your own ego

[Geoff Chandler]

This quote comes to mind;

"The student can learn more in ten hours of properly tutored instruction than in 10 years of trial and error" - Emanuel Lasker.

Then the debate switches to what is 'properly tutored instruction' The often quoted off the cuff advice is playing over your games with a computer - you might as well ask Alexa.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Computers are very good at showing you where there were tactical opportunities, both for you and your opponent.

[Geoff Chandler]

Computers are very good at showing you where there were tactical opportunities, both for you and your opponent.

Hi Jack,

Only if they are 100% sound. If they are tucked away at a lower evaluation it will not show them. The user has to nudge, force the computer to look at their idea and that is the rub. The user might not be an experienced player or good enough to spot the idea.

Nor will it offer or point out tactical ideas or explain how to go about spotting them.
‘properly tutored instruction’ is having a good human going over a game

C. O’Donnell - J. Rudd, Crawley 2016 (White to play)
I had the last few moves of this game in front of my kids quite a while back

6rk/3q1p1p/p2PnPpQ/3N4/p7/8/1r4PP/R3R1K1 w - - 0 30

White played 30.Re3 but a computer will not show what the threat is. instead it will offer a handful of moves to stop the threat.
You would say right away ‘threatening 31.Qxh7+ and mate next move.
But if a player fails to spot the idea, and it is not being shown it they would have missed it and figured after 30.Re3 g5 (escape square) Black was planning Nf4 to open the g-file v g2.

I think I would then have played 31.Ne7 covering the flight square - You played 31.Rae1.
Ahh yes. Much better. Qxh7+has been seen and Black is alert to it. But now lurking is Qg7+ ideas. Cunning.
Computers do not do cunning.

And here (A beautiful combo BTW)

The computer is not going go near what you played. 32. Re4 even though behind it
is a wonderful idea. Hold the d5 Knight and keep Qg7+ trick alive.

6rk/1q3p1p/p2PnP1Q/3NR1p1/p7/8/1r4PP/4R1K1 b - - 0 32

Then Black played 32...Nf4? (possibly time trouble but again that is something else a computer never takes into consideration) Black has missed completely the Qg7+ idea They were looking at 33. Nxf4 intending 33...gxf4 which looks winning - it is, if White did not have 34 Qg7+

Instead Jack ignored the f4 Knight and played 33.Qg7+ anyway.

33. Qg7+ Rxg7 34. Re8+ Rg8 35. Rxg8+ Kxg8 36. Re8 Checkmate.

32...Rb1 was the move. If Black had played that or a number of other moves only Jack or Conor O'Donnell could have told you about Qg7+ and mate hidden in there.
The chances are after 32..Rb1 Jack would have lost. The computer would have been happy with that and weaker players tend to look at only the result. The tactical ideas would never have been shown to them.

A computer would have to be nudged to play a plausible blunder. (32...Nf4?) And again less experienced players cannot see or judge plausible blunders.
To get any good out of a computer, and they have their place and play a major role, a player has to be of a certain strength.

[Nick Ivell]

Nf4 was a terrible move, but I suppose Qg7 was an easy idea to miss.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Nick,

32,,,Nf4 does have a time trouble feel about it, but as you say Qg7+ is easy to miss. Especially if you have spotted and thwarted the Qxh7+ idea. (an old adage of mine, they will spot the first trap, relax and miss the second one.)

6rk/1q3p1p/p2P1P1Q/3NR1p1/p4n2/8/1r4PP/4R1K1 w - - 4 33

33.Nxf4 gxf4 and White still has Qg7+ If not then White is lost. Black would have checked although the e5 Rook can reach the h-file the Qxh7+ idea does not work. And it is easy to think Qxh7+ is the only threat. The last thing you will be thinking is that d1 Rook is going to mate you. TBPH I may have gone for 32...Nf4 myself. Though when I saw Jack's Rad1 instead of my Ne7 I was spotting Qg7+ ideas.

However spotting it as Black with a Queen and that g8 Rook x-raying g2 coupled with the b2 Rook...a grovelling move like 33.Rb1 is not me and I'd have been fed up looking at Jack's shots. (one thing a computer can possibly teach me is patience.) The more I look the more I'm convinced I too would have played 32...Nf4. Kudos to Conor for allowing the mate OTB. I would have done that as well.

[John Townsend]

The quote which Geoff Chandler (above) attributed to Emanuel Lasker was by Edward Lasker, as shown by Edward Winter's C.N. 10356:

https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/win ... l#CN_10356

[Nick Ivell]

Edward: less distinguished than Emanuel, but full of good quotes.

[Geoff Chandler]

Yes Edward, I read years ago it was wrongly attributed to Emanuel and got everything twisted. I deliberately put in Emanuel because of this. I should have just said 'Lasker' There is no doubt about it my 73 year old brain is packing up. (was it ever packed correctly?)