I will eventually read the whole thing, well, what catches my attention, and understanding, and certainly not in one fell swoop.
Since you tend to have a very Salient vertical text organization, with enough headers to hint to the incoming content, I think it would not be like reading any one of my walls of text. So, I can say, we are all safe, looking into your blog. But it will take time for me to be able to finally say that I gave it a full try. This is already a topic that I am allergic to, from the get go. Not the actual opening phase chess things on the board, but the learning of an opening "line".
The learning one opening at a time. It implies always going forward and depth first. And it implies move first then position later.
Conundrum of kidding that last sentence. :)
So now. this will be one of my many chess=lichess bed time readings (only it does not put me to sleep). If it were someone else obliged to fill in the usual expectations to get to survive as chess industry entrepreneur, my reading clutch**, might slip and eventually stall. But I am sure I will find some food in there.
** For the non-driving or the youngster driving:
In the past, or somewhere else on earth there are human driven cars, with manual transmissions, still, and having had to learn to drive that way, makes you understand, what gears might be when the car is in motion. Automatic transmission is also a kind of clutch, but not the same kind of imagery for my reading, it relies on thick fluid friction, instead of engaging tight rotating wheels face to face. So, one is either letting engine spin out of useful driving work motion, or fully engaged after the 2 plates have fully connected (assuming the shifted gear choice was appropriate to the road and car workload to keep moving, otherwise the engine would start lugging, and then stall). "Stick shift" colloquial parlance keyword, the least distance between you and the engine propulsion gears (subjective experience).
Since you tend to have a very Salient vertical text organization, with enough headers to hint to the incoming content, I think it would not be like reading any one of my walls of text. So, I can say, we are all safe, looking into your blog. But it will take time for me to be able to finally say that I gave it a full try. This is already a topic that I am allergic to, from the get go. Not the actual opening phase chess things on the board, but the learning of an opening "line".
The learning one opening at a time. It implies always going forward and depth first. And it implies move first then position later.
Conundrum of kidding that last sentence. :)
So now. this will be one of my many chess=lichess bed time readings (only it does not put me to sleep). If it were someone else obliged to fill in the usual expectations to get to survive as chess industry entrepreneur, my reading clutch**, might slip and eventually stall. But I am sure I will find some food in there.
** For the non-driving or the youngster driving:
In the past, or somewhere else on earth there are human driven cars, with manual transmissions, still, and having had to learn to drive that way, makes you understand, what gears might be when the car is in motion. Automatic transmission is also a kind of clutch, but not the same kind of imagery for my reading, it relies on thick fluid friction, instead of engaging tight rotating wheels face to face. So, one is either letting engine spin out of useful driving work motion, or fully engaged after the 2 plates have fully connected (assuming the shifted gear choice was appropriate to the road and car workload to keep moving, otherwise the engine would start lugging, and then stall). "Stick shift" colloquial parlance keyword, the least distance between you and the engine propulsion gears (subjective experience).
I enjoy the idea of someone being allergic to a topic of chess! What a great image.
My main concern with this one, which is why I took extra time on it, was making sure the advice is practical and doable for people. I think openings are very tough for most people to learn enough of them to have a "Repertoire." However, because engines change lines all the time now, I am personally wondering if "Repertoires are dead" at top levels. At lower levels, people can still have a repertoire.
I think if I wrote an article "Repertoires are Dead" that it would have to be about top level players not sticking with an opening indefinitely, like they used to.
My main concern with this one, which is why I took extra time on it, was making sure the advice is practical and doable for people. I think openings are very tough for most people to learn enough of them to have a "Repertoire." However, because engines change lines all the time now, I am personally wondering if "Repertoires are dead" at top levels. At lower levels, people can still have a repertoire.
I think if I wrote an article "Repertoires are Dead" that it would have to be about top level players not sticking with an opening indefinitely, like they used to.
> I just wondered “What happens if ....
That is what chess is for me. And that is enough. I welcome that type of knowledge from others as well. books, real time discussion, even blogs treatise. I do bump over incompatible assumptions, some loud, some not even explicit, I just skip, and understand that this might be the room I can't read, because not made of same ambitions or aesthetics about the very same passion object that chess might be for any of us, here on lichess. I am going into our inbox. for my allergy explanation. before making a written abstract string wall painting here....
That is what chess is for me. And that is enough. I welcome that type of knowledge from others as well. books, real time discussion, even blogs treatise. I do bump over incompatible assumptions, some loud, some not even explicit, I just skip, and understand that this might be the room I can't read, because not made of same ambitions or aesthetics about the very same passion object that chess might be for any of us, here on lichess. I am going into our inbox. for my allergy explanation. before making a written abstract string wall painting here....
> At lower levels, people can still have a repertoire.
That is exactly my allergy. That social chess compeition is closed book. That the memory task performance is held as sacro-saint rite of passage. one more wall to your inbox. for this is not about your blog.
That is exactly my allergy. That social chess compeition is closed book. That the memory task performance is held as sacro-saint rite of passage. one more wall to your inbox. for this is not about your blog.
Do i really need to learn opening lines? :)
@RyanVelez said in #3:
> it would have to be about top level players not sticking with an opening indefinitely, like they used to.
You should announce that with trumpets, so the hordes in awe would also imitate. So, they stopped cooperating, what the hell?
> it would have to be about top level players not sticking with an opening indefinitely, like they used to.
You should announce that with trumpets, so the hordes in awe would also imitate. So, they stopped cooperating, what the hell?
@dboing said in #6:
> Do i really need to learn opening lines? :)
It depends on your goal. If you just like learning chess, and have no desires to be competitive, then nope. One can also play through an openings book just for fun - I do this all the time. My goal isn't always to learn an opening, but just to look at ideas.
> Do i really need to learn opening lines? :)
It depends on your goal. If you just like learning chess, and have no desires to be competitive, then nope. One can also play through an openings book just for fun - I do this all the time. My goal isn't always to learn an opening, but just to look at ideas.
@RyanVelez said in #8:
> It depends on your goal. If you just like learning chess, and have no desires to be competitive, then nope. One can also play through an openings book just for fun - I do this all the time. My goal isn't always to learn an opening, but just to look at ideas.
Yes ideas. But I think I prefer to learn the ideas first. I just wonder why, even in social competitive, which I am not aiming at, but curious as an observer of chess (can't help looking around), and my inability to learn lines without the ideas first, ... why does it have to be part of all the chess competitive categories, that requirement to learn the lines. The argument that is it what it is, is not satisfying to me, and people tend to offer that in many paraphrasing ways. sometimes they don't even do it explicitly.
Why is no one realizing that chess, at the whole population level, including transmission of knowledge across ages, has stopped being a game of reasoning skills with the same full information about the current position. It has become a game of reasoning skills, after you have been pruned for ability to memorise past knowledge of the moves. It sounds like cheating by opening line raw data memorization. Cheating the game of equal information in.
So back to my own chess learning ambitions. I find that a book not intended for my level, is most applicable to my chess curiosity, and approach. That of Flores on Pawn structure. It might not matter to me that much whether that will make me win more games (i don't even have the right attitude about that anyway, too curious side-ways). However, it does structure the knowledge in a more rational and cognitive load minimizing transition into absorbing the knowledge "hidden" about the whole tree of decisions known, in a out of that tree box way, not just looking at one transposition at a time, but combined all of them for concentrating on what might be common, transversally across the whole, tree.
The forest at last. and i think that I don't have to be expert to want to approach chess that way. The example being in tail to the more abstract yet applicable theory linking the slow-moving pawn structure to relatively invariantly associated set of ideas above turn by turn (tree hugging) thinking. It might not look tangible improvement, or transmit to my performance, but it makes sense and might help me organize my future playing experience in a further question driven fashion (about the plan, i can imagine from the lego plans relations that the book is giving). Even if the plan ideas themselves refer to things I do not have experiences, or have not seen the word definitions of, it just puts a placeholder for them in the larger context. The question, if every explored, would already fit, in a larger theory table of content, I would have internally. I work question driven at all levels. But I might not be alone like that. Chess is great, one cand find many levels to suit their daily resource fluctuation (mental), to sustain attention using that curiosity engine, for short time scale gratification, and longer more abstract, longer time sale (human thinking time scales). But it seems competent social layer, is going the way of knowledge storage and retrieval competition game. So. well. It can keep doing that. But from my observing point of view, and I guess those eyeing 960 but, thinking we might be calculation machines (the other fallacy about chess thinking, as incomplete), well it is going away for the ancestral game purpose. It is not attractive game that sort of game of chess.
So, FLORES PS angle of approach to the monster, might be analogous inverse lookup in some way. I don't care that some of the examples in there, have tangential non best move discussions, I only care about what the author has gathered, his or her (others books in future?) across their experience in an organized and non-mystifying way (secrets of gods unleashed type of thing, so accept and don't ask if you don't get it, not that).
Indexing the tree by the position space characterizations of the position's features. Then one does not have to know how one got to position.
> It depends on your goal. If you just like learning chess, and have no desires to be competitive, then nope. One can also play through an openings book just for fun - I do this all the time. My goal isn't always to learn an opening, but just to look at ideas.
Yes ideas. But I think I prefer to learn the ideas first. I just wonder why, even in social competitive, which I am not aiming at, but curious as an observer of chess (can't help looking around), and my inability to learn lines without the ideas first, ... why does it have to be part of all the chess competitive categories, that requirement to learn the lines. The argument that is it what it is, is not satisfying to me, and people tend to offer that in many paraphrasing ways. sometimes they don't even do it explicitly.
Why is no one realizing that chess, at the whole population level, including transmission of knowledge across ages, has stopped being a game of reasoning skills with the same full information about the current position. It has become a game of reasoning skills, after you have been pruned for ability to memorise past knowledge of the moves. It sounds like cheating by opening line raw data memorization. Cheating the game of equal information in.
So back to my own chess learning ambitions. I find that a book not intended for my level, is most applicable to my chess curiosity, and approach. That of Flores on Pawn structure. It might not matter to me that much whether that will make me win more games (i don't even have the right attitude about that anyway, too curious side-ways). However, it does structure the knowledge in a more rational and cognitive load minimizing transition into absorbing the knowledge "hidden" about the whole tree of decisions known, in a out of that tree box way, not just looking at one transposition at a time, but combined all of them for concentrating on what might be common, transversally across the whole, tree.
The forest at last. and i think that I don't have to be expert to want to approach chess that way. The example being in tail to the more abstract yet applicable theory linking the slow-moving pawn structure to relatively invariantly associated set of ideas above turn by turn (tree hugging) thinking. It might not look tangible improvement, or transmit to my performance, but it makes sense and might help me organize my future playing experience in a further question driven fashion (about the plan, i can imagine from the lego plans relations that the book is giving). Even if the plan ideas themselves refer to things I do not have experiences, or have not seen the word definitions of, it just puts a placeholder for them in the larger context. The question, if every explored, would already fit, in a larger theory table of content, I would have internally. I work question driven at all levels. But I might not be alone like that. Chess is great, one cand find many levels to suit their daily resource fluctuation (mental), to sustain attention using that curiosity engine, for short time scale gratification, and longer more abstract, longer time sale (human thinking time scales). But it seems competent social layer, is going the way of knowledge storage and retrieval competition game. So. well. It can keep doing that. But from my observing point of view, and I guess those eyeing 960 but, thinking we might be calculation machines (the other fallacy about chess thinking, as incomplete), well it is going away for the ancestral game purpose. It is not attractive game that sort of game of chess.
So, FLORES PS angle of approach to the monster, might be analogous inverse lookup in some way. I don't care that some of the examples in there, have tangential non best move discussions, I only care about what the author has gathered, his or her (others books in future?) across their experience in an organized and non-mystifying way (secrets of gods unleashed type of thing, so accept and don't ask if you don't get it, not that).
Indexing the tree by the position space characterizations of the position's features. Then one does not have to know how one got to position.
He is definitely good with the fact that he made no apologies over the length of the article. Instead, he decided to write a book. lol