nyoke wrote on 11/05/09 at 13:10:48:


Coincidentally, was just looking similar things up for a paper when popped over here for a break.

Google: 'andragogy' (e.g. Knowles, 1984, 1990)
<versus pedagogy>

A citation (in German) of Nikolai Krogius (GM/psychologist/chess coach, writing about 50 years after Lasker) taking issue with Lasker is here:

http://www.chesstour.de/internetprojekt/schachwissenschaft/Emanuel_Lasker.pdf

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 11/02/09 at 14:30:49:

Again you're (intentionally?) missing the point. Nobody claimed 200 hours would make you a master. However it will get you at a good standing in the club (and the average in a club is about 1700 I suspect, so a 1900 is already quite above the average in a club). The key is that the quality and intensity of the training is very good. It is similar to tutoring kids who have a "math-blockade". If you do it well they will pass their exams with B's or maybe even A's. However it will require skill (usually by taking a far more hands-on approach than is suitable for a class) from your side and dedication from his. Same goes for chess. Let's take two 1600 players and one gets 100 hours with an IM, who can explain things, like Palliser to play games and analyse them and the other 1000 hours to do as he feels, the odds are that guy 1 will be much closer to 2000 than the other.

To use the language analogy, two weeks in Mongolia (total immersion) may give you some rudimentary knowledge of the language, but without some sort of structure you will not be able to understand anyone even after two weeks.

4 years (or even a few weeks) of targeted instruction will help prepare you for such an immersion. (The Foreign Language Institute provides an 8 week course with lessons every day and total immersion outside of class. This intensive course is considered the equivalent of two years of traditional instruction.)


Two weeks of immersion is more than 200 hours and even then you probably could not pass for a native speaker.   

Returning to chess, I'm pretty sure that we can agree that even a month of study with a world champion will not make even a great genius into a chess master. 

I do believe it is possible to learn the basics of chess in a couple of weeks, but that's hardly Lasker's premise. 

I don't buy the implied argument that chess in Lasker's day was so much simpler that all it would take to make master back then (or strong club player) was 200 hours of study.   

As I said earlier, I don't have any clue why we are spending so much time on a statement that nobody since Lasker has been able to prove and that flies in the face of our understanding of learning.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 10/31/09 at 18:03:42:


Directed study is the fastest way for an adult player to improve. The AMOUNT of study time can be small. Based on my personal experience, 70 hours (20 hours of lessons + 40 hours of homework) equals 300 points for the average player. 

Numbers on the order you're talking about (100,000) are not relevant for us because they are not practical. 

70 hours, or 200 hours is something we could all do (though it may take a few years).

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 10/31/09 at 18:03:42:

You're completely missing his point. He never said that anything close to 200 hours would make you anything remotely near his level. He said that he could get anybody, who is not a nitwit, up to the level of what we now call a strong club player. And that I dont find a wild statement at all.

One more question if you please. I like the tarrasch, schliemann and 2knights as black and I'm attempting to play an open rep as white with the King's Bishop's Gambit, exchange french and exchange caro what would you suggest against the sicilian? 

Thanks again for your continued thoughts, suggestions and input.