@Toscani said in #19:
> Here are additional considerations that build upon Franklin's original teachings, created by an AI assistant from Perplexity.
None of these suggestions make any sense (at least without some further explanation).
https://youtu.be/RgqHCFBXc1w?t=80
@hicetnunc said in #12:
> This book (written by an old-school GM) does a pretty good job of summarizing human chess wisdom :
>
> www.amazon.com/Wisest-Things-About-Chess-Batsford/dp/1906388008
Thanks for that. Does anyone disagree with the blog fact presentation and question about the state and validity of chess emerging principles or rules of thumbs? the way I seem to have understood it, if that is different?
That in chess, it does not compare with the equivalent wisedom of playing value called "proverbs" for shogi. That history of the game there might not have kept finding exceptions so it would not lose it proverbial resonance in the culture of that game. That chess has increasingly become a game of knowledge advantage pursuit about the increasing amount of exceptions that keep growing with amount of drawish lines (which I think it the culture knowledge when dust settles by the way).
What would a trap be. If not a deep line surprise that using the board information and applying wisedom accordingly would not see coming? without being stored as pre-game deep line knowledge. Which might be possible to do without understanding why they are working, just that it is known that they are. It seems to me that exception and traps are of the same nature..
If we all agree with that (without my added twists maybe), then is the discussion not about how those emerging rules were created and in what context. Trying to find what is wrong with them. Should we keep listing exceptions and we list deeper lines end branch novelties that survive after some surfing on them for some rating gain etc...
@hicetnunc said in #12:
> This book (written by an old-school GM) does a pretty good job of summarizing human chess wisdom :
>
> www.amazon.com/Wisest-Things-About-Chess-Batsford/dp/1906388008
I have heard of this and of other books (although again, I'm not here to advertise or sell anything). Perhaps what I need to do is what everyone else does... write an entire work (book, essay, blog post, etc.) for each saying, for example:
- Checkmate ends the game.
- The player with advantage must attack.
- Three pieces is a mate.
- Always check, it may be checkmate. (Don't do this.)
- Calculate wide, not deep.
- Chess isn't checkers.
... never mind that sayings are difficult to profit from, and even more difficult to persuade anyone of their use.
I recently heard a fun quote:
“The passed Pawn is a criminal, who should be kept under lock and key." - Aron Nimzowitsch
I was about to add that to the Lichess quotes database, when I found it already exists:
https://github.com/lichess-org/lila/blob/e5aac1b77ad99038df33e48a1e38281478edb973/modules/gathering/src/main/Quote.scala#L235-L238
great idea. on front page please. not from AI please.
also, if not agreeing with blog or my interpretation of it. Can we get specific beyond the prevoius blog illustration of truths that might not be that useful. Thanks by the way. I rambled about that and deleted it. This also being a complex thing, what is helpful that we can share with each other outside the voice of our moves on the chessboard in single games. Examples and counter examples to the rescue.
So we have a good idea of what is not satisfying. Above. I think we all agree, those won't make the proverbial list.
Maybe for those that are skeptical, we could take the most popular ones, and discuss pro and cons.
Queen not early? It says. If you are in a position that is early in the game (some range of that in opening phase), then do not bring the queen early in your development phase (I am being nice I think).
When in the history of chess opening data or knowledge or that theory (I wonder if that is an admittance of human fallibiility), was this absolutely true. (assuming we know what early means, but I don't want to be picky dear, some good faith attempt).
Ok, maybe from the begginning of when this has been a principles it was already known to have exception even early or somewhat earlyin some playable lines. But then, from then on. Has the number of position in growing games exploration that makes it to the culture, been constant. or is there an increase.
What if instead of a blunt tool, we looked at why from the positoin board and basic chess logic, perhaps introducing non turn by turn enumeartion of all possible moves, but what is the logic that is not share with the slogan.
This one is easy to fix. I think most everyone that is not a future victim of the slogan as a newbie, if still in play as such, would be able to deconstruct it for somehting that is more flexible and aware of the board ijnformatoin dependency for when to do it anyway.
Or at least know that one has to reason on it if the imagination ever goes there for any reason, including the usual winning hope, but not only. One might be thinking that one game is not the only game to be played ever, and one might take the opportunitiy to test the idea in various conditions, to consolidate the fixed version of the slogan.
So I think this is not a good example as we might all be required to have already exorcised that kind of wisdom in its slogan form.
But are there others? maybe one by one. (I should say that I am thinking mostly of blunt behavior golden rules without any hints about board based distinctions.. something the poor learner when on its own game, wanting to learn form experience (it might be that winning is too loud as the purpose of playing any game btw, and then slogan gives rewards for a while, this in case some might want to diagnose why we are where we are, a suggestion of explaniatnion for the persistence of such slogans).
ok. I am eager to be shown wrong. or finding what is still of proverbial candidacy.
I think I should share what I would consider long-lasting and even updatable to be always applicable, candidate proverb characteristics.
A bit like the truths (those that are) of 2 posts above. But not from knowledge or factual agreement or blind oracle acceptance.
Things that make sense independently of the position are things that can be reasoned with at all positions.
So if the position has the explicitly shared seeable feature conditions, and the proverb is giving that condition as an integral part of its wisdom, then the action advice that goes with it would apply. That whole "if A on boar then B action" as the full explicit proverb proposition will also be true in the positions that do not meet the condition A.
This is a reminder. No real news. Basic. This is what I meant by shogi core rules, having already the conditions in them for some proverbs to emerge and not accumulate exceptions as fast as in chess, if shogi has the same growth in knowledge fighting strategies as chess.
I do think that such logic is available from the very beginning of chess life trajectory. Even showing an interest in chess as a hobby, should let us give some credit to the person wanting to learn. So the ability might be there, but maybe the ambitions requires those slogans as quick starters. Say the person is having a canny ability to pile up a procedural list of things to do, at each position where the coarse conditionals (like "early") would apply. Then they might improve if we restrict the definition of that to a certain range of rating, in the current chess tool ecosystem.
There already exist such proverbs. Actually. It might be that in chess, one needs additional information to build a proverb that contains action advice. It is not that chess does not have proverbs that could hold, it is perhaps that we have not defined what is a proverb. I used the robust characteristic over all positions. But maybe the blog is seeking something else.
I think this is related to "solving chess" idea. Ambivalence between recipes and stll having a game left to compete about reasoning from equal information. If chess were solved. Would the solutions be the proverbs? sorry. my AI on the fritz..
edit: forgot to say: if the positon does not have the conditional feature (assumed well defined), then the proverb usage is to imagine something else a an action, from another proverb. Not knowing is part of the essence of the chess appeal. That and reasoning combined is the promise.
@Toscani said in #27:
> General principles ....
Are you saying we have such principles? Or are you listing properties that principles should have if they existed in chess. I might agree, and it seems that would amount to what the blog was saying that shogi had in its proverbs.
But I do not think we have such adaptable principles. Calling what we have principles does not make them so.
well proverbs is some Japanese/East-asia thing. Problem with those is as any other means of transferring abstract information that is that they never capture the full picture. Go-proverbs do contradict with each other simply because thing a more complex then "Don't play closet to thickness" but would be less striking as "Don't play closet to thickness unless you have to"
And real goal of that go proverb is to tell that playing close to you own thick (safe/strong) stones is in efficient as lead too littel territory vs stones invested and playing close to opponent thickness leads to being attacked. But if you losing and only way to stain in the game is playing close to opponent stronghold then that is what you have to do.
So proverbs merely a mnemonics to remember more complex teachings. With proverbs alone one cannot learn to play Shogi or Go