Humane Chess

If anyone were to ask me "Why is chess fun?" I would ask back "Why should it not be?" And I would listen to the millions of 'reasons' why it's boring, a waste of time and even a social pyramid scam that relies on "tricks and memorization", in which the results are predefined. After which I would simply tell such person that "well, it is one's decision to think so, but our opinions are not the truth." The fun of chess, of course, arises from that very freedom to think however you want, which generates a creative stimulus and sense of responsibility that is not found in many other games. In it there is no luck or contradiction, only the law of truth. Among other arguments that give chess its recreational and entertaining character, are that: It is a game for everyone. Regardless of gender, age, culture, religious and/or political philosophy, chess can be seen as a universal game in which battles always end righteously. It is...

It is not uncommon for one to worry about the time it will take to gain experience in some field of professional activity. And there being the theory that approximately ten thousand hours are needed, for example, to reach a more or less competent performance in things like artistic drawing, athletics and music, it may be that any expectation of a favorable result is dissipated considering how distant it sounds to achieve such a goal. The ideal, however, would be to develop an apprenticeship that emphasizes the quality of the hours invested rather than their quantity. After all, there is no limit to knowledge, and in a certain sense, one never stops learning something new, regardless of the field of activity in question. Consistency of training, in any discipline, is an objective nuance of criteria that contributes to emphasize the concentration applied in appropriate methodical approaches, and dismiss unrealistic expectations of immediate results. It is what is known as deliberate p...

To cultivate a sensitive understanding of the fundamentals that make up a rational discipline, it makes sense that it is essential to work methodically , applying in a harmonious way the processes and instructional resources that provide clarity to our ideas. However, the uncertainty of not knowing what purpose many of these ideas correspond to, lies in the perspective ( conceptual or systemic ) from which the themes covered in such methodology may be developed. To train at chess one must not ignore the nuances that contribute to forge one’s thinking and adapt it to the variable conditions of one or another situation cannot be ignored , in order to actually know how to guide our ideas wisely. Reasoning that is reflected in those cognitive schemes that provide transparent feedback on a subject of study, for example, when playing a game of chess one brings to mind a specific analysis technique: the hierarchical structures that organize our ideas can be considered systemic; in contrast ...

There are many things about chess that are easier said than done. In this sense, it could be said that it is not difficult to play chess. But to train on it… it really is , and to cultivate a practical approach to it, no words are needed. Undoubtedly, it is necessary to work with pragmatism and common sense, leaving aside the chimerical idealisms and the suggestions of the pseudo-culture of indulgent easy-ism. If something could be considered the most difficult thing about chess, in any case, it is learning to separate from individual criteria those ideas of what one would like to do, from what one really needs doing , in correspondence with the situations that arise spontaneously when playing it. Something that goes beyond stylistic preferences or accumulated knowledge about some positional scheme or combinative pattern. Being the principle of thinking clarity that transcends the paradigms of superficiality and provides chess elements of art, sport and science. Prioritizing...

Surely one of the most disconcerting frivolous paradigms about chess is that it involves " a lot of information to memorize ". A preconception that might discourage not a few people from learning a healthy way to develop their creativity and flexibility of thought. That however, as 'obvious' as it may sound, is not true. How, then, could strong players make their moves at fast paces of play, in which they have very little time to think, let alone wring out of their memory the endless streams of patterns and positions they have studied at the moment? It often seems that they don't even think to make their moves. And I mean good moves. Such an intuitive dexterity for flowing with the tactics and strategy of the game must arise from something more than just rote memorization of rules, variations, patterns, etc.… "To know a thousand things, know one well." Musashi Miyamoto What is true is that chess involves a lot of information to process ... and in this se...

Often much of the time spent trying to perfect a skill is dissipated in ambiguous practices that have no long-term educational value. Particularly if one is self-taught, a beginner, and does not have the support of a reliable mentor to guide their interest in developing this or that skill. In the game of chess, for example, the wide variety of technical and conceptual nuances involved cannot be ignored, despite the simplicity of its configuration and the rules that govern it. Therefore, when approaching the study of its intricacies, it is possible that, as it is popularly said, "one cannot see the forest for the trees". In other words, the abundant principles and rules of chess can mislead the player from the simple objective of making a good move. Which, to be honest, can happen to anyone (regardless of their level of experience), but the preparation and clarity of thought that each one may develop regarding the subject would certainly reduce the tendency to make mistakes an...