5 ms·

who is this guy and why should i take him seriously? he doesn't explain why his advice is worth a damn

NathanthePie 13y ago
Well, as you are someone who has found their way onto this forum, I must assume you: 1. Are competent at reading. 2. Have visited, and used, the internet before. Thus, the answer to your question, "Who is this guy" can be found on his WP site under the tab, 'About'. There, it states that he is: 1. Narula is a 19 year old sophomore at the University of Georgia studying Computer Science and Political Science and 2. Gautam has also written a book on chess and a few Android apps.
- EdwigePelagia 13y ago
  When someone asks an obvious question, the interpreter of the question has two paths to choose. (a) Assume the author is very stupid and then tell him the very stupid and obvious answer. (b) Interpret the question as rhetorical. People who take (a) are the type of people who think they're smarter than everyone else, but who are actually, in fact, dumber. Usually they lack empathy, are undersocialized, and probably show on the autism spectrum. People who take (b) are the type of people who correctly interpret the statement. The correct interpretation of my rhetorical question is to read it as a commentary on authority. Is this 1800 rated 19 year old really the proper authority to learn how to play chess? Wouldn't a professional chess teacher with decades of experience and a higher rating than 1800 be the correct authority to instruct us on the best methods to learn chess? Yes. They would be. There are thousands of these teachers. Instead of pushing blogspam by amateurs onto the frontpage, if HN really wants to know how to learn chess, HN should just link one of the dozens of much more reputable books on this topic. As a chess player all I can do is roll my eyes when a 19 year old with an 1800 rating and very few (none?) years of chess teaching experience proclaims himself an expert and gets upvoted for it. It's just absurd.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    > When someone asks an obvious question, the interpreter of the question has two paths to choose. > (a) Assume the author is very stupid and then tell him the very stupid and obvious answer. > (b) Interpret the question as rhetorical. > People who take (a) are the type of people who think they're smarter than everyone else, but who are actually, in fact, dumber. Usually they lack empathy, are undersocialized, and probably show on the autism spectrum. > People who take (b) are the type of people who correctly interpret the statement. It's funny; people have been telling me my whole life that observing when other people ask obvious questions makes me a huge jerk, and I should patiently give them the obvious answers they ask for.
    - EdwigePelagia 13y ago
      It's actually a very interesting problem. It depends entirely on the person and the extent to which they are conscious of the multitudinous implications of their statements. But really, whoever has been giving you that advice is a dunce. I expect your being seen as a jerk has a lot more to do with how you negotiate people's feeling than how you interpret their statements. The people giving you that advice probably want you to stop being a jerk but can't quite articulate what they mean. This is actually more interesting than whatever the fuck this thread was about. Hermeneutics is funnnn.
  - adamconroy 13y ago
    Your reply sounds a bit fishy. Your second sentence "he doesn't explain why his advice is worth a damn" is inconsistent with a rhetorical question. I agree he doesn't have much cred by the way, and his method is nothing new or special. But I think his advice is generally sound for an uneducated player who wants to improve.
    - EdwigePelagia 13y ago
      I actually phrased my comment in the style of a marker who is marking some academic work, like an essay. The norm here is to address your points to the content of the paper itself and not appeal to outside information. So my comment is more clearly saying, "This essay would be stronger if you used evidence or authority of some kind to back up the assertions you are making." This is actually a polite way of saying "You don't know what you're talking about and shouldn't be proclaiming yourself an expert on this topic."
phaus 13y ago
Since when did we start demanding background checks on people that publish free tutorials on the internet? But since you asked, he explains in this article that he was rated around 1800. He also clearly explains what that means. He then described a system he used to boost his rating by 600 points in 15 months. I'm impressed, but you aren't obligated to feel the same way. You also aren't obligated to take his advice. He gave it to us for free, and you returned his kindness with unnecessary hostility.
- EdwigePelagia 13y ago
  Does HN operate on a kindness and friendliness economy? If some blogspam hack writes in a very kind tone but peddles complete unauthoritative bullshit should we coddle him so as to not hurt his feelings? All he because he wrote with "kindness". This isn't a nice lady smiling at you on the street and telling you about her knitting technique. This is fucking blogspam by a complete amateur who has self-proclaimed himself an expert on a topic that is already very well populated by ACTUAL authoritative experts.
  - phaus 13y ago
    Blog spam is for generating ad revenue or gaining attention for a product. This guy isn't selling anything, and there aren't any ads on his site(at least none that I see on my iPad). If you don't like what he has to say, that's your perogative, but that doesn't make his article blog spam. The guy's been on HN for a year and a half and that's the first time he ever posted anything from his site. He likely just found out that a lot of HN members are interested in chess, and so he did what normal people have done with their hobbies for centuries, try to grow the community. Instead of complaining, wouldn't it be more productive to take your own advice and post some of the resources that you found useful?
    - EdwigePelagia 13y ago
      >Instead of complaining, wouldn't it be more productive to take your own advice and post some of the resources that you found useful? No. Pointing out the low quality of this article is pretty easy and helpful. It's not like the opportunity cost of my very simple (but powerful) criticism is precluding me from making my contributions to the world. I think we should all spend a lot more time shooting down people who don't deserve attention. I'm sure he's a nice guy. Maybe he's a great friend and sincerely loves his mom. If these things make you uncriticizable on HN, no wonder the place is full of trash. P.S. It's blogspam because he's selling his book.
V-2 13y ago
He seems to be a Class A player: http://chess-db.com/public/pinfo.jsp?id=3012928544 http://chess-db.com/public/pinfo.jsp?id=3012928544 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#United_States_Chess_Federation_ratings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#United_States... Also have a look at: http://www.amazon.com/Chess-For-Novice-Player-Beginning/dp/0984547800/ http://www.amazon.com/Chess-For-Novice-Player-Beginning/dp/0... (Eidtorial Reviews / About the Author) That's not bad at all. I think he's perfectly entitled to give advice to beginners. They don't really need it coming from a GM, for the same reason why primary school students don't need to be taught by academic professors. Your notion that chess teachers need "decades of experience" or else they are not the "correct authority to instruct us on the best methods to learn chess" is rather silly. How are they supposed to ever obtain this experience then, while they are not yet fit to teach anyone and according to you should shut up? :) Also, would you recommend against going to a doctor who doesn't yet have "decades of experience"?
- EdwigePelagia 13y ago
  I actually agree that a GM is not necessarily the best teacher. But there are people with decades of TEACHING experience, and they are the best teachers. He's certainly within his rights to go around saying you should listen to him. Just like every other useless self-help blogger is. The fact that my calling out his authority and credibility seems to rile up so many people says something about the crowd here. The crowd here is anti-intellectual, anti-credential, anti-experience, and anti-expertise. The crowd seems to be a lot of overpuffed young men who read Paul Graham essays and feel superior to others... for no reason.
  - V-2 13y ago
    Of course these are the BEST teachers, but a) Not being the best doesn't mean you're not good enough b) In his piece he actually recommends young chess players to learn from numerous books authored by accomplished and highly experienced chess teachers such as Seirawan or Silman. Which part of his advice exactly would you call out as useless? "The fact that my calling out his authority and credibility seems to rile up so many people says something about the crowd here. The crowd here is anti-intellectual, anti-credential, anti-experience, and anti-expertise" You yourself did not back up your criticism with any credentials (we don't know who you are and why we should pay attention to your objections), not to mention that you didn't even point out any particular flaws in the article. Thus your comments (as of now) have no expertise value by your own standards.

Well, as you are someone who has found their way onto this forum, I must assume you: 1. Are competent at reading. 2. Have visited, and used, the internet before. Thus, the answer to your question, "Who is this guy" can be found on his WP site under the tab, 'About'. There, it states that he is: 1. Narula is a 19 year old sophomore at the University of Georgia studying Computer Science and Political Science and 2. Gautam has also written a book on chess and a few Android apps.

EdwigePelagia 13y ago
When someone asks an obvious question, the interpreter of the question has two paths to choose. (a) Assume the author is very stupid and then tell him the very stupid and obvious answer. (b) Interpret the question as rhetorical. People who take (a) are the type of people who think they're smarter than everyone else, but who are actually, in fact, dumber. Usually they lack empathy, are undersocialized, and probably show on the autism spectrum. People who take (b) are the type of people who correctly interpret the statement. The correct interpretation of my rhetorical question is to read it as a commentary on authority. Is this 1800 rated 19 year old really the proper authority to learn how to play chess? Wouldn't a professional chess teacher with decades of experience and a higher rating than 1800 be the correct authority to instruct us on the best methods to learn chess? Yes. They would be. There are thousands of these teachers. Instead of pushing blogspam by amateurs onto the frontpage, if HN really wants to know how to learn chess, HN should just link one of the dozens of much more reputable books on this topic. As a chess player all I can do is roll my eyes when a 19 year old with an 1800 rating and very few (none?) years of chess teaching experience proclaims himself an expert and gets upvoted for it. It's just absurd.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  > When someone asks an obvious question, the interpreter of the question has two paths to choose. > (a) Assume the author is very stupid and then tell him the very stupid and obvious answer. > (b) Interpret the question as rhetorical. > People who take (a) are the type of people who think they're smarter than everyone else, but who are actually, in fact, dumber. Usually they lack empathy, are undersocialized, and probably show on the autism spectrum. > People who take (b) are the type of people who correctly interpret the statement. It's funny; people have been telling me my whole life that observing when other people ask obvious questions makes me a huge jerk, and I should patiently give them the obvious answers they ask for.
  - EdwigePelagia 13y ago
    It's actually a very interesting problem. It depends entirely on the person and the extent to which they are conscious of the multitudinous implications of their statements. But really, whoever has been giving you that advice is a dunce. I expect your being seen as a jerk has a lot more to do with how you negotiate people's feeling than how you interpret their statements. The people giving you that advice probably want you to stop being a jerk but can't quite articulate what they mean. This is actually more interesting than whatever the fuck this thread was about. Hermeneutics is funnnn.
- adamconroy 13y ago
  Your reply sounds a bit fishy. Your second sentence "he doesn't explain why his advice is worth a damn" is inconsistent with a rhetorical question. I agree he doesn't have much cred by the way, and his method is nothing new or special. But I think his advice is generally sound for an uneducated player who wants to improve.
  - EdwigePelagia 13y ago
    I actually phrased my comment in the style of a marker who is marking some academic work, like an essay. The norm here is to address your points to the content of the paper itself and not appeal to outside information. So my comment is more clearly saying, "This essay would be stronger if you used evidence or authority of some kind to back up the assertions you are making." This is actually a polite way of saying "You don't know what you're talking about and shouldn't be proclaiming yourself an expert on this topic."

phaus 13y ago

Since when did we start demanding background checks on people that publish free tutorials on the internet? But since you asked, he explains in this article that he was rated around 1800. He also clearly explains what that means. He then described a system he used to boost his rating by 600 points in 15 months. I'm impressed, but you aren't obligated to feel the same way. You also aren't obligated to take his advice. He gave it to us for free, and you returned his kindness with unnecessary hostility.

EdwigePelagia 13y ago
Does HN operate on a kindness and friendliness economy? If some blogspam hack writes in a very kind tone but peddles complete unauthoritative bullshit should we coddle him so as to not hurt his feelings? All he because he wrote with "kindness". This isn't a nice lady smiling at you on the street and telling you about her knitting technique. This is fucking blogspam by a complete amateur who has self-proclaimed himself an expert on a topic that is already very well populated by ACTUAL authoritative experts.
- phaus 13y ago
  Blog spam is for generating ad revenue or gaining attention for a product. This guy isn't selling anything, and there aren't any ads on his site(at least none that I see on my iPad). If you don't like what he has to say, that's your perogative, but that doesn't make his article blog spam. The guy's been on HN for a year and a half and that's the first time he ever posted anything from his site. He likely just found out that a lot of HN members are interested in chess, and so he did what normal people have done with their hobbies for centuries, try to grow the community. Instead of complaining, wouldn't it be more productive to take your own advice and post some of the resources that you found useful?
  - EdwigePelagia 13y ago
    >Instead of complaining, wouldn't it be more productive to take your own advice and post some of the resources that you found useful? No. Pointing out the low quality of this article is pretty easy and helpful. It's not like the opportunity cost of my very simple (but powerful) criticism is precluding me from making my contributions to the world. I think we should all spend a lot more time shooting down people who don't deserve attention. I'm sure he's a nice guy. Maybe he's a great friend and sincerely loves his mom. If these things make you uncriticizable on HN, no wonder the place is full of trash. P.S. It's blogspam because he's selling his book.

V-2 13y ago

He seems to be a Class A player: http://chess-db.com/public/pinfo.jsp?id=3012928544 http://chess-db.com/public/pinfo.jsp?id=3012928544 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#United_States_Chess_Federation_ratings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#United_States... Also have a look at: http://www.amazon.com/Chess-For-Novice-Player-Beginning/dp/0984547800/ http://www.amazon.com/Chess-For-Novice-Player-Beginning/dp/0... (Eidtorial Reviews / About the Author) That's not bad at all. I think he's perfectly entitled to give advice to beginners. They don't really need it coming from a GM, for the same reason why primary school students don't need to be taught by academic professors. Your notion that chess teachers need "decades of experience" or else they are not the "correct authority to instruct us on the best methods to learn chess" is rather silly. How are they supposed to ever obtain this experience then, while they are not yet fit to teach anyone and according to you should shut up? :) Also, would you recommend against going to a doctor who doesn't yet have "decades of experience"?

EdwigePelagia 13y ago
I actually agree that a GM is not necessarily the best teacher. But there are people with decades of TEACHING experience, and they are the best teachers. He's certainly within his rights to go around saying you should listen to him. Just like every other useless self-help blogger is. The fact that my calling out his authority and credibility seems to rile up so many people says something about the crowd here. The crowd here is anti-intellectual, anti-credential, anti-experience, and anti-expertise. The crowd seems to be a lot of overpuffed young men who read Paul Graham essays and feel superior to others... for no reason.
- V-2 13y ago
  Of course these are the BEST teachers, but a) Not being the best doesn't mean you're not good enough b) In his piece he actually recommends young chess players to learn from numerous books authored by accomplished and highly experienced chess teachers such as Seirawan or Silman. Which part of his advice exactly would you call out as useless? "The fact that my calling out his authority and credibility seems to rile up so many people says something about the crowd here. The crowd here is anti-intellectual, anti-credential, anti-experience, and anti-expertise" You yourself did not back up your criticism with any credentials (we don't know who you are and why we should pay attention to your objections), not to mention that you didn't even point out any particular flaws in the article. Thus your comments (as of now) have no expertise value by your own standards.