3 ms·
Some years ago, I taught an after-school chess club at my son's middle school. Now, I'm no sort of decent chess player at all, but I know the rules, and I know
by beat 8y ago
Some years ago, I taught an after-school chess club at my son's middle school. Now, I'm no sort of decent chess player at all, but I know the rules, and I know a little.
For the first day of class, I sent around a questionnaire, asking students to rate themselves as beginning, intermediate, or advanced. All of them, except my son, rated themselves as intermediate or advanced. I then played all of them at the same time, and won all of those games.
And I suck.
This really is a complicated question, though. First, perspective. Are you describing yourself, or someone else? Is there any sort of a formal rating system? (For example, a Bachelor of Science degree is a formal rating system.)
Take the guitarist example. Every guitarist I know, no matter how good (and I know professionals) is quite limited in what they can play. Neil Young can't play classical. Classical players can't play Neil Young, either! They might be able to get the notes right - by ear, even - but they'll lack feel, expressiveness, and tone. Measuring guitar, or many other forms of art, in terms of technique can be blindingly wrong. What's good guitar technique? Playing fast? Knowing a lot of scales? Piffle. Good guitarists can express what they want to express. Period. That's my measure.
So you see why I have a problem with the idea of "convey information accurately". I think it's philosophically wrong.
- Nadya 8y agoThere are many grey areas when not using a 'formal' rating system (eg: college degree). But the formal system is rigged in that it isn't available to everyone - and is heavily biased towards those with the right pedigree or luck. Not to say nobody gets into college through hard work, just that it's skewed. I feel most people are able to identify a good guitarist whether or not they like the music the guitarist plays. Even when the guitarist only plays with 1 string [0]. >For the first day of class, I sent around a questionnaire, asking students to rate themselves as beginning, intermediate, or advanced. I blame your questionnaire for not defining the levels of play or being granular enough (1-10 scale). With those options I would assume "beginner" means "doesn't know how a knight can move across the board or the difference between a rook and a bishop", a 1 on a 10 scale. For example, I'm a "novice" chess player for sure - but not a "beginner" (some people may use these terms interchangeably), a 2 or 3 on a 10 scale. Assuming the students in the club knew the rules of Chess - it's not a surprise nobody answered "beginner"! [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8H-67ILaqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8H-67ILaqc
- beat 8y agoOne of my favorite books on guitar theory, The Advancing Guitarist by Mick Goodrick, has a whole section called "The Science of the Unitar", about learning to play on just one string, as a way of thinking of the guitar differently. To use your analogy, it doesn't take long in a conversation to tell if the person you're speaking with is well educated or not.