|
|
 Originally Posted by |~|ypermegachi
Originally Posted by bigspenda73
Originally Posted by sauce123
Originally Posted by breathweapon
Originally Posted by Ash256
I reckon it's a sign of being a good thinker if you can summarise your thought process in a few words, and it allows you to respond to as much as possible.
Quite often an advanced player will respond to a low-level post, the OP will go wtf? and the mid-level players will justify, which I reckon is a good system.
I personally think sauce does a great job, short answers but big detailed explanations/thought processes every couple of weeks or so, which is pretty awesome - you can't reply to every OP with an essay.
Also, I reckon any hugely long-winded post in response to a HH (not theory) is a sign of a messy incorrect thought process.
Even tho' I tend to fall on the side of the verbose, I disagree with this rationalization, because being able to truncate your thoughts into a sentence isn't the sign of being a "good thinker," its the sign of either not actually knowing why you do what you do or being unable to teach why you do what you do to some one who isn't as experienced as you.
I played Chess and taught it to inner city kids for years, and the two most important things in teaching Chess are A) not patronizing your players by simplifying and B) structuring your analysis from A to Z so they can understand the complexity. The amusing thing is, I've seen Grandmasters fail, and I mean fail miserably, at describing ideas to their students but succeed at communicating their ideas to other masters in a single word. If a Grandmaster tells me "isolated or backwards pawn," that communicates about a book's worth of information to me, but it's complete gibberish to you even if it's the right answer. His students followed his advice, and they were losing because of it. Not because it was the wrong answer, but because there was no reasoning, and it put them in a simple/difficult situation with less understanding of that position than their opponents.
Sometimes giving some one the right answer with out the right reasoning or no reasoning at all is more precarious than telling them nothing and letting them figure it out for themselves.
Being right isn't the same thing as being a good writer.
cool post
lol sauce just guoted this to up his WPP.
I myself have quoted this to make light of that fact and to up my WPP
if quotes actually increase post count there is a serious bug in the system. i don't think hand histories should count either cuz that's just cheating.
anyways, i'd like to reinforce here that it's better to teach someone to fish than to give them fish. expecting everyone to explain their thought process in great detail is like giving someone fish.
That makes no sense, how do you plan on "teaching some one how to fish" with one line posts? If you give some one your thought process, you aren't just giving them "fish," you're showing them how it's done instead of telling them how it's done.
The Socratic Method is for teachers that can't teach, and the Montessouri Method is for teachers that don't want to teach.
|
Reply With Quote