first model with game 1 chapter 1. relations between plan proposition structures (W and B) of ideas and chosen example, dissection of either with respect to either.. no tactics or SAN words other than pointing a point in the gird. (look ma, no SAN! reaching the cookie jar). point is not the SAN per say.. more the sequences of turn by turn move language avoidance, but on the contrary board coordinate points are welcome, from static snapshot perceivable features. or target of plans. referring to a move by its function...in the plans.. possible plans. not recipes.... examples not proofs, but evidence of viability of such plan articulated around the board visible or potential future visible given the the current board features, not yet dismissed by such information.
no divination at all. but no tripping over the flowers on the carpet. find the author plan logic flow in chosen a restricted number of "examples" to cover the main menu presented out of game fragments first (a rare thing i would say).
next post game one model full depth per front page ventialation of plan set of ideas and their mutual dependencies..
from inbox.
Plan #1 for White dissection...
a) Create a kingside attack.
b) Possible moves Ne5, Bg5, battery Qd3-Bc2.
c) Possible piece sacrifice on kingside.
d) Rooks typically on e1 and d1 (or c1).
e) Rook transfer via the third rank.
me:
I would indent some already, some are lofical relations some are chess time chronologic. king side attack is broader than others... but no need to go overkill.
For Black ...
1. Trade pieces to win an endgame. In particular,
exchange White's good bishop (the lightªsquared bishop) .
In game 1, Black failed to exchange White's good bishop.12:48
2. Place a knight on d5. This prevents the central
break d4-d5 , and controls some key squares.
In an endgame a rook, bishop or even a king
would be strong on this square.
Black did put a knight on d5, but removed it!13:01
White's good bishop parked itself at a2 and hence was pinning the Black f-pawn. Hence, that f-pawn was not guarding g6.
2 last games seem to be special topic, perhaps more general puporse than preceding exmaples.. (that is me talking).
back to inbox:
ROT in the front material...
". As we will learn, the key is whether the player who has the isolani possesses
his good bishop."
this ROT is saying that the player who has the isolani and keeps his good bishop has an advantage.13:04
"...an interesting rule for evaluating whether the isolani provides enough attacking chances."
Tarrasch quipped that without his King Bishop he could not come up with an attacking plan. (Hyperbole)
The King Bishop can attack f7 or h7, and those are the usual attacking points.
To help me, who learns the relation better than the things being related, or learn from the relation what things are relatied.. connecting general usedul statements above.
light B, and f2/f7 (well f7 here). me constrasting with king side box sacrifice with dark B (my experience as passive and active). light B, f7 pin. queen dance with that.
Specifically, the g6 (g3) square is not guarded because of the pin and because the h-pawn has moved up. condition for the pin...
(but that is tactical plan.. although the assessment is way upstream.. as it is differcult to separate tactical from strategic,,it is a matter of variable chess depth window how to look at disjoint segments and their abstractions... (me talking).
Well. while this may be target. my shallowest pass. it to use the top level that distinguises enough each game example purpose with respect of above dissection of plan set of ideas and its possible structure. (there are many dimensions of imbalances, while the total things that makes the PS namable, is that it should be acceptable position for 2 equally prepared players. i.e playable structure all else being equal. so with total imbalance at whole game odds level is likely "drawish" a.k.a unknown perhaps, within the spread of chess time, or board regions, there might be asperities, board features that can be used n possibly different ways..
this kind of implies having some neutral descriptors a priori to have such flexibility of usage depending on whole game (space on board and chess time) contextes. Hence, the ground lanscape might be more descriptive, why the notion of imbalance used by FLORes when compared with other authors kind of rings a slight dissonant bells. not yet having an opinion on that. likely favorable. as i prefer neutral features that can be objectified over many positions contexts, and other givens of those combining or temporization aspect would end up making the side axis valuation.. and plan formation.. I find it a more flexible generalizable language to have an ambient space that does not contain context dependent information.. but is fully descroptive on context in shareable way.. it might seem contorted. but If I could draw figures, I would have more telling sharing.. of what i mean.. putting value hard wired, makes it regid notion likely hard to modify in different context is what i can say....
have a vast ambient space where all things are lossless endoded or better. and then make your assessement on top.. no harm done. .and maybe unknown information coming from elsewhere would then not have to get a conversion curve to fit in the corset.
