I have noticed something on chess-twitter and in the chesspunks community. It can feel as if there is a vigilante rating police who check if you have improved enough for you to be allowed to have a say. If you have not improved you should listen and rather not speak.
I think this is a sad development.
Everyone should be allowed to share their chess experience and ideas. That was the whole idea behind the chesspunks community, that chess amateurs could participate and share their thoughts about chess. Sometimes it is put forward as hurtful or damaging to listen to advice from amateurs.
Sure, there is plenty of bad advice and ideas out there, but I have also gotten advice from masters, who learned chess as a child, that was non-relatable to my situation.
The debate and arguments that arise when you share your ideas create value. If amateurs stop sharing their ideas and experiences on chess-twitter in fear of ridicule then we will lose a piece in the puzzle.
The model Avetik proposes would lead to an old authority-based system, where advice is passed down from the titleholders. While this model has its merits it is worth mentioning some downsides.
The knowledge passed down from the expert might be based on old knowledge from when the titleholder made their improvements many years ago, which might not be suitable for a complex or rapidly changing field such as chess.
The recent compression of the FIDE rating system shows that the old rating model is out of tune, which could suggest that the way chess players learn chess has changed.
Secondly, the top-down teaching model creates a passive role for the student, which doesn’t inspire critical thinking.
Recognizing the advantages and disadvantages of both models is in my eyes important. If we lean too much in either direction we might lose something.
I hope all can participate in a debate about chess improvement. Ideas should be challenged by arguments based on logic, evidence, and reasoning, not your entitlements.
There are people out there who have lost their connection to these values. Kramnik seems like one who feels entitled not to lose at blitz and has reached a wrong conclusion about how the chess.com accuracy rating works.
Some adult improvers might also have a problem facing reality when their training plans don’t give results, which can lead to some delusions.
You could ask them to elaborate on why they think that way. It often leads to a more constructive debate, even if it's not entirely sound what they are doing. Offer your insights and experience helpfully.
This way, more people can engage and participate in the chess community, leading to a richer, more inclusive space.
/Martin
Before you go, we are hosting GM RB Ramesh at The Chess Gym for a session about common calculation mistakes tomorrow. The session is at 4 PM CET if you want to join.
I'm a VERY low rated player, so I feel entitled to share what DOESN'T work! lol
Every chess improvment experiment is good if there are good foundations.