Since when did we start demanding background checks on people that publish free tutorials on the internet?
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.
Does HN operate on a kindness and friendliness economy? If some blogspam hack writes in a very kind tone but peddles complete unauthoritative bullshit should we coddle him so as to not hurt his feelings? All he because he wrote with "kindness".
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.
Blog spam is for generating ad revenue or gaining attention for a product. This guy isn't selling anything, and there aren't any ads on his site(at least none that I see on my iPad).
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?
>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.
So on one hand you are criticising a 19-year old for attempting to add value to peoples' lives without asking for anything in return, because you feel his efforts are insufficient, yet you yourself are actively refusing to bring anything worthwhile to the table.
>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.
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"?
I actually agree that a GM is not necessarily the best teacher. But there are people with decades of TEACHING experience, and they are the best teachers.
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.
It's more likely to do with the extremely rude and aggressive approach you have taken, while not giving any examples of actual problems with what he has written.
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.
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.
Well, as you are someone who has found their way onto this forum, I must assume you:
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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 :)
