> 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.
Projecting? Everything about both of your comments (above) suggest you fit this model perfectly.
In the opening of the article the author says:
> many people mentioned that they enjoyed playing chess but quit because of the sheer time commitment it took to get “good” at chess
So it's obviously not aimed at someone of your (supposed) skill level, but at others here who may be casual players. No need to be so nasty.
You've completed missed what I'm saying. I'm saying the best teachers for brand new chess players are those humans who specialize in rapidly training new chess players. The people who should write books on chess training are the people who have been doing it for 20+ years and actually have some authority. These people DO write books but apparently they're less interesting than some 19 year old posting his completely untested, unrefined, invalidated hunches. It's low quality content in a field where there is a LOT of high quality content.
If the article was targeted at expert chess players I wouldn't have said anything. Because expert chess players don't need to be told that there are better experts than 19 year old newbies. The fact that the article is targeted at beginners is what motivated me to speak up--beginners might not realize just how much quality information is out there and that they don't need to settle for the afternoon musings of a newbie.
Projecting? Everything about both of your comments (above) suggest you fit this model perfectly.
In the opening of the article the author says:
> many people mentioned that they enjoyed playing chess but quit because of the sheer time commitment it took to get “good” at chess
So it's obviously not aimed at someone of your (supposed) skill level, but at others here who may be casual players. No need to be so nasty.