Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Modern Morals of Chess

As for shogi from afar, and what I read here, I get that the board later might become tactical because the effective graph of interactions between things on board gets dense as things get closer to each other, and re-entry keeps the heat on in numbers of such nodes (the things that move), but in chess, the board is small from the beggining.

it is as if there might be only one tempo of slack or one rank of space before anything not yet tactical can happen. (both are tangled chess board time (depth) and space behind the pawn frontmost "line" (I was gonna say phalanx, because it stats like a phalanx, with every pawn once protectetd. (some more).

Interlude (core board games of chess OR shogi kind: movers/disappearance acts on regular grid)
board size does matters. (damn, can't use size anymore, board cardinality? matters?). Also, tangentially, anyone thought of using the board center in 9x9 as the center of some 2D euclidian coordinate system (well the R2 embeded Z2 embeded 9x9 gridpoints). In chess I thought we were using spreadsheet system because of the center not being on the board itself as one of those points.

So, what we use is not using the inherent existing board symetries, that any patzer like me, might naturally resonate with. (sure great for scriptures, but then, no redundancy of the string encoding for visual thinkers that would rather look at board than some artistic string encoding, figurine is not where the visual cognition could be improved, but the information density of the string, I would say. So using a well spatially spread information string, with minds'eye natural euclidian locomotion induced swimmingness, would lighten the parsing load. so it would not have to be another chess education initiation ritual, or obstacle, to have to speak computery strings (or rapid note taking?, but i think computers like that too, ask them... we can now..).

back to sub topic of core chess, ... and my very touristic view of shogi from the elements I could gather so far. I do like abstractions first, as things to look forward to testing maybe. don't know why, but I do. Now you know if you were dying to. No need to thank me, or accuse me of spamming.

Is the reentry anywhere on board? Because that might affect my interaction network density acting as effective small board.

As for shogi from afar, and what I read here, I get that the board later might become tactical because the effective graph of interactions between things on board gets dense as things get closer to each other, and re-entry keeps the heat on in numbers of such nodes (the things that move), but in chess, the board is small from the beggining. it is as if there might be only one tempo of slack or one rank of space before anything not yet tactical can happen. (both are tangled chess board time (depth) and space behind the pawn frontmost "line" (I was gonna say phalanx, because it stats like a phalanx, with every pawn once protectetd. (some more). Interlude (core board games of chess OR shogi kind: movers/disappearance acts on regular grid) board size does matters. (damn, can't use size anymore, board cardinality? matters?). Also, tangentially, anyone thought of using the board center in 9x9 as the center of some 2D euclidian coordinate system (well the R2 embeded Z2 embeded 9x9 gridpoints). In chess I thought we were using spreadsheet system because of the center not being on the board itself as one of those points. So, what we use is not using the inherent existing board symetries, that any patzer like me, might naturally resonate with. (sure great for scriptures, but then, no redundancy of the string encoding for visual thinkers that would rather look at board than some artistic string encoding, figurine is not where the visual cognition could be improved, but the information density of the string, I would say. So using a well spatially spread information string, with minds'eye natural euclidian locomotion induced swimmingness, would lighten the parsing load. so it would not have to be another chess education initiation ritual, or obstacle, to have to speak computery strings (or rapid note taking?, but i think computers like that too, ask them... we can now..). back to sub topic of core chess, ... and my very touristic view of shogi from the elements I could gather so far. I do like abstractions first, as things to look forward to testing maybe. don't know why, but I do. Now you know if you were dying to. No need to thank me, or accuse me of spamming. Is the reentry anywhere on board? Because that might affect my interaction network density acting as effective small board.

@svensp said in #43:

NM Dan Heisman has quite a few sayings/principles on his page for free sorted by area of the game

AHA! "area"! territory! This has some spatial tones to it, that repertoire or phase do not have.

So, are there many principles that actually give the action prescribed conditions with specifics (of various levels, i am asking in relative ignorance, but I find that there is a lot of unsaid to the paztzer that a learner like me would have to be, "somewhere" in its learning "expansion".

Also, I think, I should make a note each time, I read someone actually using terms to give some hints to their internal model of "chess". We have lines of the board (rooks, and bishops types). But this here is not about the board but about the space of chess positions, is it not? And I support this usage. I am full speed ahead in that direction. Can't think at all otherwise. I wonder where I got that kind of internal thinking support, maybe before I learn to talk or understand verbal sound streams (if I ever did).

Should I look at the link? I have the tab in background now. Or should I keep the hope, that if I keep devoting my limiter resources for chess player union study (in natural language it would be and, go figure, in passing) to chess theory in the hope that my current 50% of it needs re-construction for non-expert learner chess enthousiasts. Those that might not yet be a the 2000 to 2100 improvment theory. (pick any other narrow range, or just don,t even worry about it, people will know we all know what improvement means and what lichess user that also want to learn have or are starting from. Only need to look at the lobby day after day, and any idea that one might have of a diverse ambition user base, would be eventually course-corrected to the common sense, hence, consolidated if it ever started to widen.

How to tie this cisconstancial tangential reply... well I did. i just could not help vent a bit in last paragraph. But how we view the vastness of chess (board and population of humans, demographic time series even (but of what, only recorded chess games?), seems to be perhaps the carpet under this discusision, a stimulating comparative ruleset consequence discussion about how they each deploy and constitue and thinking (and me learning) challenge, given the cooperatively accepted goal of one sided winning (cooperation from accepting the ruleset and entering the game with it, just saying).

So, space witout frontiers? loads of questions. but let's stick to tangible core chess and core shogi. comparative.. and the nature of their respective "theories" of playing. The link question is whether I will get depressed if I look at it.

@svensp said in #43: > NM Dan Heisman has quite a few sayings/principles on his page for free sorted by area of the game AHA! "area"! territory! This has some spatial tones to it, that repertoire or phase do not have. So, are there many principles that actually give the action prescribed conditions with specifics (of various levels, i am asking in relative ignorance, but I find that there is a lot of unsaid to the paztzer that a learner like me would have to be, "somewhere" in its learning "expansion". Also, I think, I should make a note each time, I read someone actually using terms to give some hints to their internal model of "chess". We have lines of the board (rooks, and bishops types). But this here is not about the board but about the space of chess positions, is it not? And I support this usage. I am full speed ahead in that direction. Can't think at all otherwise. I wonder where I got that kind of internal thinking support, maybe before I learn to talk or understand verbal sound streams (if I ever did). Should I look at the link? I have the tab in background now. Or should I keep the hope, that if I keep devoting my limiter resources for chess player union study (in natural language it would be and, go figure, in passing) to chess theory in the hope that my current 50% of it needs re-construction for non-expert learner chess enthousiasts. Those that might not yet be a the 2000 to 2100 improvment theory. (pick any other narrow range, or just don,t even worry about it, people will know we all know what improvement means and what lichess user that also want to learn have or are starting from. Only need to look at the lobby day after day, and any idea that one might have of a diverse ambition user base, would be eventually course-corrected to the common sense, hence, consolidated if it ever started to widen. How to tie this cisconstancial tangential reply... well I did. i just could not help vent a bit in last paragraph. But how we view the vastness of chess (board and population of humans, demographic time series even (but of what, only recorded chess games?), seems to be perhaps the carpet under this discusision, a stimulating comparative ruleset consequence discussion about how they each deploy and constitue and thinking (and me learning) challenge, given the cooperatively accepted goal of one sided winning (cooperation from accepting the ruleset and entering the game with it, just saying). So, space witout frontiers? loads of questions. but let's stick to tangible core chess and core shogi. comparative.. and the nature of their respective "theories" of playing. The link question is whether I will get depressed if I look at it.

Front matter of Dan Heisman link https://www.danheisman.com/principles.html

areas?

Link by Type of Principle:
Improving/Learning
General/Thought Process
General/Other
Opening
Middlegame
Endgame
Humorous

Last and first. I might try to read.

Front matter of Dan Heisman link https://www.danheisman.com/principles.html areas? > Link by Type of Principle: > Improving/Learning > General/Thought Process > General/Other > Opening > Middlegame > Endgame > Humorous Last and first. I might try to read.

Sorry, the idea of 2 retreat. which pervious post introduced it. I read backward from things that I can grasp, and that is sparse.
Discussions are great for I am not the only one not getting the lecture at all time steps. and the frictions points are often not just about one person,s obligatory blind spots. so. 2-retreat idea in chess. is that related to some aspect metnioned in discussion about shogi and where the tactical turn by turn hard thinking intensity happens? or else?

Sorry, the idea of 2 retreat. which pervious post introduced it. I read backward from things that I can grasp, and that is sparse. Discussions are great for I am not the only one not getting the lecture at all time steps. and the frictions points are often not just about one person,s obligatory blind spots. so. 2-retreat idea in chess. is that related to some aspect metnioned in discussion about shogi and where the tactical turn by turn hard thinking intensity happens? or else?

The difference between a guideline (or principle or rule of thumb or heuristic) and a rule is that a rule works (or is required) all the time (or has a few, definable exceptions), while a guideline is just a helpful hint that does not have the force of a rule - some guidelines work almost all the time - others to varying degrees of frequency. Principles help you figure out what to play when you don't know what to do; if analysis suggests a best move, that usually overrides principles. Another way of looking at this is that strategy usually tiebreaks equally safe moves.

From https://www.danheisman.com/principles.html

I find this a good thing to quote here. Since golden rules, proverbs and such might have been meaningful in each of their poster's mind first, and then varying and obligatory individual experiences sets over some slice of lichess user pop... which might be from all over the internets (walks of life, walks of chess, cognitive types, ooops).

I find it reasonable. I am actually surprise at that being itself some wisdom I can get behind. But it does not seem to be how it is taught in the pudding of it. (idiom digested and retrieved, my sauce, if some AI is trying to understand me).

So it is acknowledge the fog of chess in there. And the adapability to the learner (are we not all to some extent) of the usefulness.

Now, the blog is not saying anything else. It is just comparing the measure of the set of positions across 2 rulesets, that might get the exception clause (that makes the wisdom above) on it. It seems that there might be less exceptions on average in sets of "principles" of "strategic" nature. To keep with measure of sets of position approach (yep invoking something undefined, but I would not be the first, I avoid the word size, cardinality or volume).

I just find that perhaps becaue of the arguments of the blog (not the discussion, still Wip for me, forever it seems) about chess abrupt early tacticality priority probablility associated to speep of crossing the middle empty space, that it makes every step more informative or strong conditional to any attempts at making principles.

But still this to be the most reasonable "defintion" of the use principle (and cousins) in chess. It is kind of floating though, as we could caricature it as. The action rule is always true except when it is not. I might have mentioned that.

So there is undefined room in there, and it might be where the blog is going more specific. Than that safe paragraph.

then the question of usefulness if kept at current frozen status quo, more personally for me, about theory of learning for chess.
modulo ambitions impatience or scope. I guess there will always be a market for spoilers toward some early rating climb, and then we deal with the increasing amount of exceptions thrown by better opponents, who actually in spite of such coarse behavior, eventually random game after random game figured out the hidden logic of them and perhaps exceptions was a carpet, and there was shiny cool stuff to learn under it.

Chess have urgent need to make this position to action logic a bit more an active area of many head thinking?

maybe this is a subthread and the other sub-thread about Shogi is also having its load of tactical (but not in all the phases, it seems to emerge, right?). I am interest in lesser but longer term extent about shogi constrasting ruleset aspects, and how the many game theory or experience also differs or compares. But chess and the, persistent frozen aspect of ROTS, not acknowledging the smoke of exceptionalism as just "lazy" theory building. Perhaps not time for that, and look it works, we still have enough highlevel winners to prove something.. (I am not clear on the mechanichs of a shared theory resistance to update iteslf, so I point to the elephant I see from the general lobby visuals (on average, and proportion of surface area). It might be wrong. And maybe the way things are, it is a waste of time for most improvers and improving advice givers. But I am clearly seeing inertia and lack of reasoning as an essential part of thinking in chess and learning about it. The recipe aspect might be a market force that feedback on the energies among people about being more curious in some common language. sigh. did I spam?

> The difference between a guideline (or principle or rule of thumb or heuristic) and a rule is that a rule works (or is required) all the time (or has a few, definable exceptions), while a guideline is just a helpful hint that does not have the force of a rule - some guidelines work almost all the time - others to varying degrees of frequency. Principles help you figure out what to play when you don't know what to do; if analysis suggests a best move, that usually overrides principles. Another way of looking at this is that strategy usually tiebreaks equally safe moves. From https://www.danheisman.com/principles.html I find this a good thing to quote here. Since golden rules, proverbs and such might have been meaningful in each of their poster's mind first, and then varying and obligatory individual experiences sets over some slice of lichess user pop... which might be from all over the internets (walks of life, walks of chess, cognitive types, ooops). I find it reasonable. I am actually surprise at that being itself some wisdom I can get behind. But it does not seem to be how it is taught in the pudding of it. (idiom digested and retrieved, my sauce, if some AI is trying to understand me). So it is acknowledge the fog of chess in there. And the adapability to the learner (are we not all to some extent) of the usefulness. Now, the blog is not saying anything else. It is just comparing the measure of the set of positions across 2 rulesets, that might get the exception clause (that makes the wisdom above) on it. It seems that there might be less exceptions on average in sets of "principles" of "strategic" nature. To keep with measure of sets of position approach (yep invoking something undefined, but I would not be the first, I avoid the word size, cardinality or volume). I just find that perhaps becaue of the arguments of the blog (not the discussion, still Wip for me, forever it seems) about chess abrupt early tacticality priority probablility associated to speep of crossing the middle empty space, that it makes every step more informative or strong conditional to any attempts at making principles. But still this to be the most reasonable "defintion" of the use principle (and cousins) in chess. It is kind of floating though, as we could caricature it as. The action rule is always true except when it is not. I might have mentioned that. So there is undefined room in there, and it might be where the blog is going more specific. Than that safe paragraph. then the question of usefulness if kept at current frozen status quo, more personally for me, about theory of learning for chess. modulo ambitions impatience or scope. I guess there will always be a market for spoilers toward some early rating climb, and then we deal with the increasing amount of exceptions thrown by better opponents, who actually in spite of such coarse behavior, eventually random game after random game figured out the hidden logic of them and perhaps exceptions was a carpet, and there was shiny cool stuff to learn under it. Chess have urgent need to make this position to action logic a bit more an active area of many head thinking? maybe this is a subthread and the other sub-thread about Shogi is also having its load of tactical (but not in all the phases, it seems to emerge, right?). I am interest in lesser but longer term extent about shogi constrasting ruleset aspects, and how the many game theory or experience also differs or compares. But chess and the, persistent frozen aspect of ROTS, not acknowledging the smoke of exceptionalism as just "lazy" theory building. Perhaps not time for that, and look it works, we still have enough highlevel winners to prove something.. (I am not clear on the mechanichs of a shared theory resistance to update iteslf, so I point to the elephant I see from the general lobby visuals (on average, and proportion of surface area). It might be wrong. And maybe the way things are, it is a waste of time for most improvers and improving advice givers. But I am clearly seeing inertia and lack of reasoning as an essential part of thinking in chess and learning about it. The recipe aspect might be a market force that feedback on the energies among people about being more curious in some common language. sigh. did I spam?

@dboing said in #55:

I just find that perhaps because of the arguments of the blog... that it makes every step more informative or strong conditional to any attempts at making principles.

I think you and Heisman are right that there are well-understood reasons or excuses why chess can't have prescriptive (literal; non-abstract; position-agnostic) proverbs like shogi has.

@dboing said in #55: > I just find that perhaps because of the arguments of the blog... that it makes every step more informative or strong conditional to any attempts at making principles. I think you and Heisman are right that there are well-understood reasons or excuses why chess can't have prescriptive (literal; non-abstract; position-agnostic) proverbs like shogi has.

@Toadofsky

So, now the shogi ruleset and experience comparative insight sub-threads left to discuss? :) So enough wisdom from us? You worries are now settled?

It is hard to find flaws in last post. So concise and really expressive and confirming my previous understanding. I hope you don't mind I borrow position-agnostic from you, in the future. That is so good to read right now. Kudos. But now I try to read under it.

Ok I surrender to your non-explicit satisfied blogger hinting that future spamming might not be needed.. I will try to remember this hypothesis. :). Concision, big internet, big Lichess, and imagination = spamming in the heads of the reader(s)? Where should that go? I am moving that to less visible "space" on Lichess (visible for those who want, but no pressure, actually very relaxed).

@Toadofsky So, now the shogi ruleset and experience comparative insight sub-threads left to discuss? :) So enough wisdom from us? You worries are now settled? It is hard to find flaws in last post. So concise and really expressive and confirming my previous understanding. I hope you don't mind I borrow position-agnostic from you, in the future. That is so good to read right now. Kudos. But now I try to read under it. Ok I surrender to your non-explicit satisfied blogger hinting that future spamming might not be needed.. I will try to remember this hypothesis. :). Concision, big internet, big Lichess, and imagination = spamming in the heads of the reader(s)? Where should that go? I am moving that to less visible "space" on Lichess (visible for those who want, but no pressure, actually very relaxed).

@Toadofsky said in #56:

I think you and Heisman are right that there are well-understood reasons or excuses why chess can't have prescriptive (literal; non-abstract; position-agnostic) proverbs like shogi has.

I think some of these principles mentioned by NM Heisman actually are fairly prescriptive (I don't think he argues that chess cannot have them). For example:

"Loose Pieces Drop Off"

"A knight on the rim? Your future is dim (or grim!)"

"When there is only one open or semi-open file for your army and it is an open file, then if you have two rooks, almost always double rooks on that file"

To me this seems fairly concrete as well as general, so I think it's rather similar to the shogi principles you mentioned in your article.
In addition, two of the shogi principles you mentioned also exist in chess in a more or less identical way:

"Rooks and bishops need open lines."

"A threat is almost always stronger than its execution"

So in that sense I disagree with the notion that chess doesn't have prescriptive principles.

@Toadofsky said in #56: > I think you and Heisman are right that there are well-understood reasons or excuses why chess can't have prescriptive (literal; non-abstract; position-agnostic) proverbs like shogi has. I think some of these principles mentioned by NM Heisman actually are fairly prescriptive (I don't think he argues that chess cannot have them). For example: "Loose Pieces Drop Off" "A knight on the rim? Your future is dim (or grim!)" "When there is only one open or semi-open file for your army and it is an open file, then if you have two rooks, almost always double rooks on that file" To me this seems fairly concrete as well as general, so I think it's rather similar to the shogi principles you mentioned in your article. In addition, two of the shogi principles you mentioned also exist in chess in a more or less identical way: "Rooks and bishops need open lines." "A threat is almost always stronger than its execution" So in that sense I disagree with the notion that chess doesn't have prescriptive principles.

problem is not concreteness it is does if actually work on any position or not.

so the first paragraph from heisman has the "exception" elastic clause. For each of those, yes they are indeed erroneously prescriptive in tone (not at all what the disclaimer paragraph is saying to use as the softener. Toadofsky might be refer to that very first paragraph.

And I agree that they are being propagated and formulated as imperative prescritive slogans. (but then with the above apparently exception clause that makes the presciption action, havin poistino information dependency and hence not on exceptions.

The size of position set for each rules and their exception, being in question. but that is not yet a measurable thing. It is a qualitativbe statment that shogi seems to have less exceptionality to its strategic and indeed more oftten valid or stable tyhrough the years and generations, action rules. I don't want those myself in any such game anyway. but that is not the question.

some of those are indeed things to keep in mind among many other things . I don,t see them as in game wortyh, but maybe as study material. and then testing oneselg what that means in real board logic own doodlings. but I find piling up so many of those without logic or position information conditionals. a joy killer, or memory overload theory of learning. for my cognitive type tribe, how many could we be, not a lot. If lobby atmosphere and ambient assumptions of who seems to be target audience focus group, is a clue.

some of those are to be read in life just to raise the possiblity and if taken a hypotheses to test with game play later, i don't see them as harmful. but that is not my impression of how they are being shared, soi far.

prescritive boring for me in any game. erroneously prescripting, not just boring, but detrimeantl to the learned chess generliation skill. delyaing that training is teaching rigidity, and then one gets stuck with disappointement and flips to the pure random (undefined) many games any pace just gobble as many as you can, and eventualy one will grow taller and reach that ceiling noodle. have let experience fix the exceptoin gaps. Caricature is my way of being concise. some adaptation to your own sense of chess reality might help. please let me know about that, if inclined.

problem is not concreteness it is does if actually work on any position or not. so the first paragraph from heisman has the "exception" elastic clause. For each of those, yes they are indeed erroneously prescriptive in tone (not at all what the disclaimer paragraph is saying to use as the softener. Toadofsky might be refer to that very first paragraph. And I agree that they are being propagated and formulated as imperative prescritive slogans. (but then with the above apparently exception clause that makes the presciption action, havin poistino information dependency and hence not on exceptions. The size of position set for each rules and their exception, being in question. but that is not yet a measurable thing. It is a qualitativbe statment that shogi seems to have less exceptionality to its strategic and indeed more oftten valid or stable tyhrough the years and generations, action rules. I don't want those myself in any such game anyway. but that is not the question. some of those are indeed things to keep in mind among many other things . I don,t see them as in game wortyh, but maybe as study material. and then testing oneselg what that means in real board logic own doodlings. but I find piling up so many of those without logic or position information conditionals. a joy killer, or memory overload theory of learning. for my cognitive type tribe, how many could we be, not a lot. If lobby atmosphere and ambient assumptions of who seems to be target audience focus group, is a clue. some of those are to be read in life just to raise the possiblity and if taken a hypotheses to test with game play later, i don't see them as harmful. but that is not my impression of how they are being shared, soi far. prescritive boring for me in any game. erroneously prescripting, not just boring, but detrimeantl to the learned chess generliation skill. delyaing that training is teaching rigidity, and then one gets stuck with disappointement and flips to the pure random (undefined) many games any pace just gobble as many as you can, and eventualy one will grow taller and reach that ceiling noodle. have let experience fix the exceptoin gaps. Caricature is my way of being concise. some adaptation to your own sense of chess reality might help. please let me know about that, if inclined.