Very good the blog post
Good simple short number of guidelines.
They do sound reasonable. And perhaps also safe. It was good to read.. and ponder in relation to my own experience or past exposure to similar points.
I think the first one is very solid advice and is not only safe on average, it also can be argued from the mobility rules. One could use spatial reasoning and geometry to understand that in order to put some pressure in on the other, one might need some mobile ways there.. pawns, pieces should augment number of possible combinations of interactions. . how much can they do all in back rank. Even the possible nuances are understandable with accessible arguments.
I have personally some "difficulty" (let's say I allow testing or questioning 2 of your suggestions). I actually enjoy having such questions about such advice. They mean I have things to figure out, more fun to me than just applying known things and reaping some victories without the fun autonomous fun of having had some humble scale eureka. Frequent small ones. This is not meant to say they should not be used. This is more about using them, and adapting them to my personal humble discovery of chess (player and otherwise).
So when I hear about winning advice, I get itchy... doubt machine on.. find the zones of fog where there can be autonomous testing in either direction (there is a slow burning thrill to testing advice...). Actually , I do that all the time, anyway. even while playing, and about own ideas.. constant laboratory.
castling:
I might be finding myself often hesitating between taking the time to castle, and keeping on the development (or some short term tactical thing), I don't think there can be a blind advice that say castle as soon as possible, no matter what. so then.. a more refined set of board features, might help. for now. I guess it is left to pure random experience... I don't play enough games.. kind of on testing mode about this aspect in every game. (even with the opening explorer, I will spend time debating among the different choices during my games). I guess this mystery might last longer than others.. It is similar to my difficulty in estimating fast enough whether I should see my side as the defending side.. An evaluation of what is one the board problem (beyond material, of course).
pawn weaknesses.
On the pawn weakness. There is some evaluation work to do there, in order to be able to apply your advice. Isn't it that some pawn structure weakness can weigh in different direction depending on other things happening (short or long term, or even phase).. Of all the advices, I find this one having lots of room for position specific dependency. So, perhaps as an improving advice, it might be more useful and a "pay attention and learn about" pawn weakness or strengths. Some might be transient. too, figuring that out is something to work on.
It is possible that erring in all of those advices would itself reduce the amount of things to learn from won and lost games played under their application. counting on some bulk sound behavior, and figure in their "exceptions" later. I find my weakness is about using your pawn weakness avoidance.. in defining what are the many clues and contexts. I have learned about holes, but the also come, with chains, with the forward pawn being supported by the pawn pair itself.. a phalanx would have less holes, but would need some alternate mean of support.
I find the most likely to vary a lot with position information is that advice. I repeated myself. maybe to weigh more on this one. I find the castling difficulty (its timing) possibly more about fine tuning.. compared to my basically general positional evaluation weakness. This is my amateur curious of chess impression in relation to your blog. I appreciate the parsimony of the advice set.
They do sound reasonable. And perhaps also safe. It was good to read.. and ponder in relation to my own experience or past exposure to similar points.
I think the first one is very solid advice and is not only safe on average, it also can be argued from the mobility rules. One could use spatial reasoning and geometry to understand that in order to put some pressure in on the other, one might need some mobile ways there.. pawns, pieces should augment number of possible combinations of interactions. . how much can they do all in back rank. Even the possible nuances are understandable with accessible arguments.
I have personally some "difficulty" (let's say I allow testing or questioning 2 of your suggestions). I actually enjoy having such questions about such advice. They mean I have things to figure out, more fun to me than just applying known things and reaping some victories without the fun autonomous fun of having had some humble scale eureka. Frequent small ones. This is not meant to say they should not be used. This is more about using them, and adapting them to my personal humble discovery of chess (player and otherwise).
So when I hear about winning advice, I get itchy... doubt machine on.. find the zones of fog where there can be autonomous testing in either direction (there is a slow burning thrill to testing advice...). Actually , I do that all the time, anyway. even while playing, and about own ideas.. constant laboratory.
castling:
I might be finding myself often hesitating between taking the time to castle, and keeping on the development (or some short term tactical thing), I don't think there can be a blind advice that say castle as soon as possible, no matter what. so then.. a more refined set of board features, might help. for now. I guess it is left to pure random experience... I don't play enough games.. kind of on testing mode about this aspect in every game. (even with the opening explorer, I will spend time debating among the different choices during my games). I guess this mystery might last longer than others.. It is similar to my difficulty in estimating fast enough whether I should see my side as the defending side.. An evaluation of what is one the board problem (beyond material, of course).
pawn weaknesses.
On the pawn weakness. There is some evaluation work to do there, in order to be able to apply your advice. Isn't it that some pawn structure weakness can weigh in different direction depending on other things happening (short or long term, or even phase).. Of all the advices, I find this one having lots of room for position specific dependency. So, perhaps as an improving advice, it might be more useful and a "pay attention and learn about" pawn weakness or strengths. Some might be transient. too, figuring that out is something to work on.
It is possible that erring in all of those advices would itself reduce the amount of things to learn from won and lost games played under their application. counting on some bulk sound behavior, and figure in their "exceptions" later. I find my weakness is about using your pawn weakness avoidance.. in defining what are the many clues and contexts. I have learned about holes, but the also come, with chains, with the forward pawn being supported by the pawn pair itself.. a phalanx would have less holes, but would need some alternate mean of support.
I find the most likely to vary a lot with position information is that advice. I repeated myself. maybe to weigh more on this one. I find the castling difficulty (its timing) possibly more about fine tuning.. compared to my basically general positional evaluation weakness. This is my amateur curious of chess impression in relation to your blog. I appreciate the parsimony of the advice set.
@CheckRaiseMate
The article itself is clearly too easy for my level so I was mainly intrigued by the picture.
My initial thought was that it must be photoshopped as too well mapping the content of this article.
Then I noticed this level of photoshopping is too good for this article so it must be real picture after all.
Finally I recognized a young Bent Larsen as sitting there with the newspaper. He was always a rebel so his unorthodox behaviour doesn't surprise me.
After looking around at the internet I quickly found the picture confirming my thoughts: https://www.alamy.com/end-of-the-23rd-high-furnace-chess-tournament-at-beverwij-bent-larsen-sits-reading-the-newspaper-january-22-1961-chess-sports-the-netherlands-20th-century-press-agency-photo-news-to-remember-documentary-historic-photography-1945-1990-visual-stories-human-history-of-the-twentieth-century-capturing-moments-in-time-image429274644.html
However that site says there exists a license on that picture. Did you get that license as you risk a huge fine otherwise?
The article itself is clearly too easy for my level so I was mainly intrigued by the picture.
My initial thought was that it must be photoshopped as too well mapping the content of this article.
Then I noticed this level of photoshopping is too good for this article so it must be real picture after all.
Finally I recognized a young Bent Larsen as sitting there with the newspaper. He was always a rebel so his unorthodox behaviour doesn't surprise me.
After looking around at the internet I quickly found the picture confirming my thoughts: https://www.alamy.com/end-of-the-23rd-high-furnace-chess-tournament-at-beverwij-bent-larsen-sits-reading-the-newspaper-january-22-1961-chess-sports-the-netherlands-20th-century-press-agency-photo-news-to-remember-documentary-historic-photography-1945-1990-visual-stories-human-history-of-the-twentieth-century-capturing-moments-in-time-image429274644.html
However that site says there exists a license on that picture. Did you get that license as you risk a huge fine otherwise?
I'm not developing the bishop on c8, the board moves diagonally to the place where the bishop should be.
the moving mountain, I presume. I think there was a version of reinforcement learning where the chess board could move like on a mechanical rodeo bull.. it was called mu-zero. (it helps for first-person type of video games where the camera is following one person, and the environment keeps moving around on the FOV).
Who said motion has some relativity in it? Just don't go too fast, use your pawns as landmarks (or obstacles).
I think some of the rules appear obvious to apply to the knowers who already have an adjusted internal deformed map of chess (deformed=adjusted from lots of experience, not the 3D euclidian space anymore after so many year transforming it). I am using machine learning model of wet learning to build or suggest a model of learning in chess.
model of. What approximates what, when the approximation is getting better, which is the reality and which is its shadow on the wall (yep that old reference. I never really understood the take home of, since it can be flipped around at will).
back to point: so in making those advice, one may forget all those years of tuning, and not realize that under their rationalizations, they may have had a lot of dough massasing of what makes positions be similar or not to each other, so that saying pawn weakness, while at first naive glance of pure mobility, one could do pros and cons of many of the "features" included in those objects is using only logic and pre-chess geometry (with the actual rules of mobility, which we are good at generalizing, pre-chess, over the whole board). So in some way I am saying that some of those advice are robbing the beauty of discovering the information that has been morphed already in the knowers. I guess it is a thesis born of my subjectivity, in finding that some principles don't prevent the fun, and others just seem like average cuts just high enough to have better win rate.. where is the chess in that?
Do not hear this as a personal critique of the blog itself. Having narrowed down those to 4 does allow us to look at them and dissect them, no? I may have wrong assumption about who wants to discuss or not.
Who said motion has some relativity in it? Just don't go too fast, use your pawns as landmarks (or obstacles).
I think some of the rules appear obvious to apply to the knowers who already have an adjusted internal deformed map of chess (deformed=adjusted from lots of experience, not the 3D euclidian space anymore after so many year transforming it). I am using machine learning model of wet learning to build or suggest a model of learning in chess.
model of. What approximates what, when the approximation is getting better, which is the reality and which is its shadow on the wall (yep that old reference. I never really understood the take home of, since it can be flipped around at will).
back to point: so in making those advice, one may forget all those years of tuning, and not realize that under their rationalizations, they may have had a lot of dough massasing of what makes positions be similar or not to each other, so that saying pawn weakness, while at first naive glance of pure mobility, one could do pros and cons of many of the "features" included in those objects is using only logic and pre-chess geometry (with the actual rules of mobility, which we are good at generalizing, pre-chess, over the whole board). So in some way I am saying that some of those advice are robbing the beauty of discovering the information that has been morphed already in the knowers. I guess it is a thesis born of my subjectivity, in finding that some principles don't prevent the fun, and others just seem like average cuts just high enough to have better win rate.. where is the chess in that?
Do not hear this as a personal critique of the blog itself. Having narrowed down those to 4 does allow us to look at them and dissect them, no? I may have wrong assumption about who wants to discuss or not.
The idea that older players didn't know they could violate the rules occasionally is madness.
Your use of the word "rules" is completely inadequate. To break the rules you'd have to castle through check, capture your own pieces or fail to take en passant, for example.
What you mean is "general principles". Words have a meaning and they should be used correctly. By calling the general principles of chess "rules" you only confuse people that don't know any better.
What you mean is "general principles". Words have a meaning and they should be used correctly. By calling the general principles of chess "rules" you only confuse people that don't know any better.
I think perhaps you forgot to mention a fifth "rule" that was taught to me long ago, control the center. He who controls the center can attack outward in any direction while his opponent can only snipe inward. It's the same general principle as using interior lines on a battlefield, forcing your opponent's forces to travel greater distances to attack the same location.
@RockDog100 said in #8:
>
I think stating in advance that there would be few of them, does allow using terms that actually many people use with varying degree of shared precision. But in context, if we could have access to some chess theory Rosetta stone that speaks visual thinking inside the brain, we might all have understood properly. I would say that I was understanding the intent as being guidelines, and would give a probably wide audience intended blog the room to use effective synonyms.
But I do agree with you, there might be some hierarchies of concepts (or more generally, and I don't really know how to write it, so I would not trigger some linguistic alarm, ill advised it would be, so, with this warning: set relations, not about your alarming, about using math. in-inline, more, I think.
But I think a blogger has to assume a general audience, and given the diversity of meanings about rules, principles, guidelines, and other theorems (kidding) , we might understand opting for the most general. But to think of it. It might contaminated the reception of the advice. I guess my call for critical thinking priority in own play as testing, might be a reaction to the rule which might be received differently than sent by the blogger.
I agree principle understood as "in principle" not as superposition principle in some areas of physics. or superimposition of mobility sets definitions on input planes of A0 and LC0 input encoding to amount to full information set of keeping the chess core rules intact and deterministic at least there (and also at the other end of the games their outcome). That was advertisement for a related idea, but was not intended at beginning of sentence. it is just a good gamut of how words can fudge around, slip and leave us bunch in perplexity sometimes.
In fact, perhaps my other posts do stem from that connotation your are bringing heads up about. (sorry quirky English, it works not nice, but it might work). In that some of the 4 do not seem at same level of relationship with the finite mobility rules like development.. They might be more motivated by the first 4 main obstacles that one might probabilistically encounter when being the mountain trail of improvement. I manage to make another wall. was not intended. but ideas have control of my typing.. Also the input text box keeps same size, no matter how much I write.... (ha!).
>
I think stating in advance that there would be few of them, does allow using terms that actually many people use with varying degree of shared precision. But in context, if we could have access to some chess theory Rosetta stone that speaks visual thinking inside the brain, we might all have understood properly. I would say that I was understanding the intent as being guidelines, and would give a probably wide audience intended blog the room to use effective synonyms.
But I do agree with you, there might be some hierarchies of concepts (or more generally, and I don't really know how to write it, so I would not trigger some linguistic alarm, ill advised it would be, so, with this warning: set relations, not about your alarming, about using math. in-inline, more, I think.
But I think a blogger has to assume a general audience, and given the diversity of meanings about rules, principles, guidelines, and other theorems (kidding) , we might understand opting for the most general. But to think of it. It might contaminated the reception of the advice. I guess my call for critical thinking priority in own play as testing, might be a reaction to the rule which might be received differently than sent by the blogger.
I agree principle understood as "in principle" not as superposition principle in some areas of physics. or superimposition of mobility sets definitions on input planes of A0 and LC0 input encoding to amount to full information set of keeping the chess core rules intact and deterministic at least there (and also at the other end of the games their outcome). That was advertisement for a related idea, but was not intended at beginning of sentence. it is just a good gamut of how words can fudge around, slip and leave us bunch in perplexity sometimes.
In fact, perhaps my other posts do stem from that connotation your are bringing heads up about. (sorry quirky English, it works not nice, but it might work). In that some of the 4 do not seem at same level of relationship with the finite mobility rules like development.. They might be more motivated by the first 4 main obstacles that one might probabilistically encounter when being the mountain trail of improvement. I manage to make another wall. was not intended. but ideas have control of my typing.. Also the input text box keeps same size, no matter how much I write.... (ha!).