Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

How Correct Were Mikhail Tal's Sacrifices? - Part 3

encyclopedic. Could this be put in a dataset with some structure, more than unstructured text?
It might allow doing some data analysis or using other tools as means of entry into your meticulous work.

Which is for now looking like proper names of the pairings, or chronology of games (the structure of entry).

encyclopedic. Could this be put in a dataset with some structure, more than unstructured text? It might allow doing some data analysis or using other tools as means of entry into your meticulous work. Which is for now looking like proper names of the pairings, or chronology of games (the structure of entry).

the thing is more than analyzing and learning we have to implement it and take risks

the thing is more than analyzing and learning we have to implement it and take risks

Who is supposed to get anything out of this? Who wants to look at three pages of the names of games with a parenthetical saying (excluded because Tal did not sacrifice)?

Come on dude, think for 5 seconds from the reader's perspective.

Who is supposed to get anything out of this? Who wants to look at three pages of the names of games with a parenthetical saying (excluded because Tal did not sacrifice)? Come on dude, think for 5 seconds from the reader's perspective.

@LarryWest said in #9:

Hm, I would suggest that after finishing your article you restructure it and put all the games at the end of the article. That way, it will be possible to read part 1 and 2 with ease and the intrested reader can still find all games in the later parts.

Anyway, I am looking forward reading your analysis!

Thanks :). I didn't quite get what you mean though. The basic structure of the series is as follows:

Parts 1 to 4: information
Parts 5 to X (depends on how many games I will later remove; probably X = ~200): 10 games in each article, annotations of the game and the rating given for the sacrifice
Parts X to Y (probably about 15 to 20 articles): Statistics, comparison to other top players, etc.

@Toscani said in #10:

Details is not always best. Many like summaries and conclusions before reading details.

Please see https://lichess.org/forum/community-blog-discussions/ublog-pbzlGxMb#3

@dboing said in #11:

encyclopedic. Could this be put in a dataset with some structure, more than unstructured text?
It might allow doing some data analysis or using other tools as means of entry into your meticulous work.

Which is for now looking like proper names of the pairings, or chronology of games (the structure of entry).

That will help make the statistics part easier I guess, yes, but that's a long ways off for now :).

@LarryWest said in #9: > Hm, I would suggest that after finishing your article you restructure it and put all the games at the end of the article. That way, it will be possible to read part 1 and 2 with ease and the intrested reader can still find all games in the later parts. > > Anyway, I am looking forward reading your analysis! Thanks :). I didn't quite get what you mean though. The basic structure of the series is as follows: Parts 1 to 4: information Parts 5 to X (depends on how many games I will later remove; probably X = ~200): 10 games in each article, annotations of the game and the rating given for the sacrifice Parts X to Y (probably about 15 to 20 articles): Statistics, comparison to other top players, etc. @Toscani said in #10: > Details is not always best. Many like summaries and conclusions before reading details. Please see https://lichess.org/forum/community-blog-discussions/ublog-pbzlGxMb#3 @dboing said in #11: > encyclopedic. Could this be put in a dataset with some structure, more than unstructured text? > It might allow doing some data analysis or using other tools as means of entry into your meticulous work. > > Which is for now looking like proper names of the pairings, or chronology of games (the structure of entry). That will help make the statistics part easier I guess, yes, but that's a long ways off for now :).

@deityrox said in #4:

Man, I understand that you've done a long job. You looked through the games, found the sacrifice of the pieces in them, analyzed the impact of this sacrifice on those games. But look at your work through someone else's eyes.

  1. Tal is no longer alive. And even if he were alive, he would hardly have gone to this blog to thank you for your work. Perhaps Tal would never even come to the Lichess and say good words about it. You may want to collect such statistics for a grandmaster who is still alive (and there are already 1800 of them), but first make sure that this gross will appreciate your work (better financially).
  2. If there is a joke or a story about the playing style of some chess player somewhere in the world, this does not mean that you need to spend your time and effort checking this story. Perhaps this is just a historical anecdote. You don't need to go into the archives and write a monograph to debunk some myth.
  3. There are many things in the world that can be calculated, you can find trends, study graphs, analyze statistics. Thanks to computers, a huge mass of statistics has already been compressed into beautiful infographics, data from many countries has already been collected into large tables, for different times. And here you are studying some chess player with his games under a microscope.
  4. The Lichess website has enough of its own statistics and profiles that you can study. There is much more benefit to the site in this study. After all, it is not just one chess player (like Tal) who creates information and a reason for an article. This is already a website and its ordinary users are creating new content about themselves and each other.
  5. And another important question. How would Tal feel about the chess Variants? After all, you play them a lot. Has Tal done anything to promote them? Did he play shogi, which were the ideological precursors of the Crazy House variant? Tal was made famous by some part of society. But do you need to follow its lead and replicate the hype around this player. Maybe you should take a closer look at those who have discovered new chess Variants for you that you love so much? Or titled players who also play a lot in THREECHECK, CRAZYHOUSE, ATOMIC.
    Who does your speculation on what Tal would or wouldn't look at matters? And more importantly, who cares?
    Stop telling people what to do with their free time.
    This article > your stupid comment.
@deityrox said in #4: > Man, I understand that you've done a long job. You looked through the games, found the sacrifice of the pieces in them, analyzed the impact of this sacrifice on those games. But look at your work through someone else's eyes. > 1. Tal is no longer alive. And even if he were alive, he would hardly have gone to this blog to thank you for your work. Perhaps Tal would never even come to the Lichess and say good words about it. You may want to collect such statistics for a grandmaster who is still alive (and there are already 1800 of them), but first make sure that this gross will appreciate your work (better financially). > 2. If there is a joke or a story about the playing style of some chess player somewhere in the world, this does not mean that you need to spend your time and effort checking this story. Perhaps this is just a historical anecdote. You don't need to go into the archives and write a monograph to debunk some myth. > 3. There are many things in the world that can be calculated, you can find trends, study graphs, analyze statistics. Thanks to computers, a huge mass of statistics has already been compressed into beautiful infographics, data from many countries has already been collected into large tables, for different times. And here you are studying some chess player with his games under a microscope. > 4. The Lichess website has enough of its own statistics and profiles that you can study. There is much more benefit to the site in this study. After all, it is not just one chess player (like Tal) who creates information and a reason for an article. This is already a website and its ordinary users are creating new content about themselves and each other. > 5. And another important question. How would Tal feel about the chess Variants? After all, you play them a lot. Has Tal done anything to promote them? Did he play shogi, which were the ideological precursors of the Crazy House variant? Tal was made famous by some part of society. But do you need to follow its lead and replicate the hype around this player. Maybe you should take a closer look at those who have discovered new chess Variants for you that you love so much? Or titled players who also play a lot in THREECHECK, CRAZYHOUSE, ATOMIC. Who does your speculation on what Tal would or wouldn't look at matters? And more importantly, who cares? Stop telling people what to do with their free time. This article > your stupid comment.

@ThatIsNotGood said in #13:

Who is supposed to get anything out of this? Who wants to look at three pages of the names of games with a parenthetical saying (excluded because Tal did not sacrifice)?

I think we could be generous, and view this as sharing some meticulous work to learn from some illustrious predecessor without ourselves having to read a book, stringing all the games in some arbitrary order, within which all sorts of issues of the chessboard might be commented for many themes, some of which might be of specific reader level or not. Basically, the usual chess book offer.

I think that the systematic proposition made clear there, is not for us to read in the vertical order of the blog, but that the author seems to have measured the own progress rate enough to put a date of completion.

If that were put into a database of games with enough fields, that thematic scanning, about the worth of a material sacrifice given all the other variables the author could invoke from the position information, that would allow an inversion from the usual offer I just described (and which personally is lost on me, given my level, and my biology about proximity in time of similar or contrasting stimuli to be processed somehow. . I can't spread learning a theme in particular, if that were how I would like my study program in chess to proceed, over so many games, hidden zugzwang mini-games within high-level play games (avoiding the lesser path I might have needed to see first once), and positions within games that have nothing to do other than legal move transitively connected, with the theme study theory of learning method, I usually dig myself, for discovery of chess, not performance chess execution yet, or even internalization. First exposure stuff.

So, it might not be the author's intent, but I am replying to your question, of there is room for this to be useful to some.
Only i would mean a database implementation, it would be about the theme entry to exposure to relevant game fragments, without having to first become an expert for learning about all the themes in between re-exposure to the same theme.

I guess I could have been more concise, but also less sure of having explained. I hope now with redundancy of rambling, it might be having some sense.. Theme first many board associated, and full game maybe very later.. Some other life, where I would not have started looking at chess while late in adulthood.

It might not be in the author's plans, though. I am just thinking of how it could go.

@ThatIsNotGood said in #13: > Who is supposed to get anything out of this? Who wants to look at three pages of the names of games with a parenthetical saying (excluded because Tal did not sacrifice)? > I think we could be generous, and view this as sharing some meticulous work to learn from some illustrious predecessor without ourselves having to read a book, stringing all the games in some arbitrary order, within which all sorts of issues of the chessboard might be commented for many themes, some of which might be of specific reader level or not. Basically, the usual chess book offer. I think that the systematic proposition made clear there, is not for us to read in the vertical order of the blog, but that the author seems to have measured the own progress rate enough to put a date of completion. If that were put into a database of games with enough fields, that thematic scanning, about the worth of a material sacrifice given all the other variables the author could invoke from the position information, that would allow an inversion from the usual offer I just described (and which personally is lost on me, given my level, and my biology about proximity in time of similar or contrasting stimuli to be processed somehow. . I can't spread learning a theme in particular, if that were how I would like my study program in chess to proceed, over so many games, hidden zugzwang mini-games within high-level play games (avoiding the lesser path I might have needed to see first once), and positions within games that have nothing to do other than legal move transitively connected, with the theme study theory of learning method, I usually dig myself, for discovery of chess, not performance chess execution yet, or even internalization. First exposure stuff. So, it might not be the author's intent, but I am replying to your question, of there is room for this to be useful to some. Only i would mean a database implementation, it would be about the theme entry to exposure to relevant game fragments, without having to first become an expert for learning about all the themes in between re-exposure to the same theme. I guess I could have been more concise, but also less sure of having explained. I hope now with redundancy of rambling, it might be having some sense.. Theme first many board associated, and full game maybe very later.. Some other life, where I would not have started looking at chess while late in adulthood. It might not be in the author's plans, though. I am just thinking of how it could go.

I am generally curious about material compensation at a very basic level.

So I find sacrifices to be something of a target as for people to agree about them in an illustrious, persistent over time manner. There ought to be some commonalities or contrast to be had, but then someone with the abilities could find those in this relatively controlled set of floating variables like level of play and stuff (I like that word, allows for concision, lol).

I mean that ought to be something better that what I said before does not compile at first learning stage of my subjective data point (if one were building some theory of learning, i would propose the existence of my data point, :).

Also, high-level play, another data point (condensed over a theme). Even the parts of the dissection by the author that would not be of my level to recognize at a glance, I am hopeful that it might introduce the concept, or as good, make a question or set of questions for me to further discover, elsewhere. Or by rambling about it on Lichess.

Chess food for thought in the less mainline depth first direction. I would how that ordering my exposure to chess things from such a board based concept might mean covering more positions seeds over a more biologically compatible learning time scale. (associative learning, might be my bias here).

I am generally curious about material compensation at a very basic level. So I find sacrifices to be something of a target as for people to agree about them in an illustrious, persistent over time manner. There ought to be some commonalities or contrast to be had, but then someone with the abilities could find those in this relatively controlled set of floating variables like level of play and stuff (I like that word, allows for concision, lol). I mean that ought to be something better that what I said before does not compile at first learning stage of my subjective data point (if one were building some theory of learning, i would propose the existence of my data point, :). Also, high-level play, another data point (condensed over a theme). Even the parts of the dissection by the author that would not be of my level to recognize at a glance, I am hopeful that it might introduce the concept, or as good, make a question or set of questions for me to further discover, elsewhere. Or by rambling about it on Lichess. Chess food for thought in the less mainline depth first direction. I would how that ordering my exposure to chess things from such a board based concept might mean covering more positions seeds over a more biologically compatible learning time scale. (associative learning, might be my bias here).
<Comment deleted by user>

@FischyVishy said in #14:

That will help make the statistics part easier I guess, yes, but that's a long ways off for now :).

I am glad it might be part of considerations. Always the first step. Sometimes some questions are not even considered at all.
Also, if you are making this into a PGN, publishing that can be enough. There is always the problem of which move to put the reasoning into, or the fragment of interest.

In my not very learned point of view, it would be from the not yet analyzed sacrifice to whatever was apparent valuable (and then perhaps the discussion branches that might have other assessments).

Some definition of sacrifice might have that word imply valuable, but I think here, it is not such definition, if using one (also something of interest in strict definition without valuation, and then depth to compensation, and nature of compensation (in my small experience it would be within horizon spectacular like mate).

I am not sure of what I am saying, but better say it, and be corrected than staying in the fog.

@FischyVishy said in #14: > That will help make the statistics part easier I guess, yes, but that's a long ways off for now :). I am glad it might be part of considerations. Always the first step. Sometimes some questions are not even considered at all. Also, if you are making this into a PGN, publishing that can be enough. There is always the problem of which move to put the reasoning into, or the fragment of interest. In my not very learned point of view, it would be from the not yet analyzed sacrifice to whatever was apparent valuable (and then perhaps the discussion branches that might have other assessments). Some definition of sacrifice might have that word imply valuable, but I think here, it is not such definition, if using one (also something of interest in strict definition without valuation, and then depth to compensation, and nature of compensation (in my small experience it would be within horizon spectacular like mate). I am not sure of what I am saying, but better say it, and be corrected than staying in the fog.

So this was part 3. I think the key to the purpose are in part 1. There is a lot to read.
I agree that the list of games is not readable as a blog, although it might be showing the work, but it definitely warrants some kind of tabular database. With some struture. Now I need to read the part of part 1, that is not data entry. I may have completely missed what is being done about the sacrifice theme and the scanning of all the games. my bad, so I had to imagine what it could be, sometimes it works.... So I miissed those previous blogs, when they appeared.

So this was part 3. I think the key to the purpose are in part 1. There is a lot to read. I agree that the list of games is not readable as a blog, although it might be showing the work, but it definitely warrants some kind of tabular database. With some struture. Now I need to read the part of part 1, that is not data entry. I may have completely missed what is being done about the sacrifice theme and the scanning of all the games. my bad, so I had to imagine what it could be, sometimes it works.... So I miissed those previous blogs, when they appeared.