@nadjarostowa said in #2:
> I don't think it would be useful. Besides being a complete visual mess, it would take away any incentive to remember those things at all.
>
> It isn't really difficult to learn the squares; and if you want to learn faster, then switch the coordinates off...
Way to go. Theory of learning inertia. Chess should not be a memory game, but even if it is (and it has become a while ago), well there is something called learning needed to happen. And the frontal difficulty waste of brain imposed by this tradition precept I hear often that one does not need a third wheel, or set of scaffolds even, or how are they going to race like pros, or imitate the pros even?
Yes, how is it so unconceivable, that one might generalize from with-scaffold to without-scaffold ever?
what happens when somebody becomes proficient at chess that they lose total memory. .or where they really learning my magic spontaneous training?
One cannot simply use personal experience to declare, "If I've done it, so can everyone else." However, one can use their experience to illustrate that there is at least one individual for whom a specific step did not require a random journey through the vast game of chess to become easy, after learning all they encountered along the way (or perhaps it was a matter of specializing in a repertoire first). (copiloted, more readable, but less fun to write).
Copilotoed bloop: One can use own experience to declare: there exist at least one person, for whom, it was difficult (copilot might not like the it as it might refer to some unknown string scope, that a human, with emotional guide from the previous tone, would have known to keep high on attention, as it might be the gist of the argued point).
That person, would not have had the possibly forgotten long random walk through big chess, that, in spite of that frontal complex fog of big chess, would eventually have found it "not that difficult" (copilot does not know how to ramble, or emphasize by iterating, over the core content, with synonyms to make sure, it is the nuance that gets through from that cloud of iterates, rather than the spurious specific sloppy meaning that only one iteration can carry). And finally in parenthesis, I wrote, in the essence of : or was it reduced random-walk through répertoire specialization. I admit, I have syntax problems, but somehow, fixing that, copilot killed that author.
