3 ms·
There's nothing implied about tacit knowledge being knowledge that you don't know others don't have. For instance in chess mastery, one is fully aware that you
by somenameforme 2mo ago
There's nothing implied about tacit knowledge being knowledge that you don't know others don't have. For instance in chess mastery, one is fully aware that you simply see the board in a different way. It's not like you're aloof of your own 'advantage', but then in lessons you work to gradually, step by step, instill such in the student. Some of the most successful teachers are those who themselves learned the game a bit later than average, enabling them to draw more heavily on their own path. For instance Mark Dvoretsky only earned the IM title when he was 28!
- watt3rpig 2mo ago28? You make it sound like he was 90!
- somenameforme 2mo agohaha, well his methods, that live on after he's gone, are a big part of the reason people are now making GM at 12. It's unclear whether these sort of players will do as good a job at handing down their knowledge though. Think about how little you remember, in much detail at least, about stuff before you were 12 - and now imagine you were already master strength by then, let alone a grandmaster. I'm a later starter and can still vividly remember when I barely knew how the pieces moved, and I think that gives me a huge edge over most players in terms of teaching.