Excellent work.
Reading all three articles, I really appreciate the framework of known and unknown positions and the conclusions derived from it. Since I came to similar conclusions about the errors in my own play and how to go about them I'm intrigued about the perspective offered as it gives me the opportunity to think couple my own thoughts in and reference and reflect my own actions from there.
Reading all three articles, I really appreciate the framework of known and unknown positions and the conclusions derived from it. Since I came to similar conclusions about the errors in my own play and how to go about them I'm intrigued about the perspective offered as it gives me the opportunity to think couple my own thoughts in and reference and reflect my own actions from there.
Thus far, the framework reminds me of step two of my own '3-Step Process For Game Analysis' - which states that we should figure out what moves we had to see or what we had to appreciate in the position (evaluation) to find the best move.
I had just been thinking of writing a 'First Principles' book on chess. I've found that the engine's 'logic' behind moves often deviates from more 'conventional' principles from the pre-computer era (as Willy Hendriks already started to indicate in 'Move First, Think Later'). It will be interesting to see how the first principles approach evolves from here.
I had just been thinking of writing a 'First Principles' book on chess. I've found that the engine's 'logic' behind moves often deviates from more 'conventional' principles from the pre-computer era (as Willy Hendriks already started to indicate in 'Move First, Think Later'). It will be interesting to see how the first principles approach evolves from here.
Interesting articles and I do follow that practical chess is all about decision making, but following questions came to mind when reading :
* how do you evaluate positions if you have no framework of concepts to judge a move by? Even values of the pieces is a concept in chess and no universal law (given value of pieces can change given position at hand)
* Do we not use chess concepts to link known and unknown positions. e.g. famous mating patterns seems to fall outside the known positions, since they are no theoretical endgames. If you know smothered mate pattern, you can try to apply it in unknown positions. How would this fit in your current framework.
* There are many interesting books existing about decision making at the board. Two authors that came immediately to mind are Dan Heisman (e.g. in his Best of Novice nooks book from Everyman he talks about decision making process and it being analyzing and evaluating) Jacob Aagaard considers seeing the non-obvious move as his definition of calculation in chess. (e.g. Excelling at chess calculation)
So I feel that your axioms are maybe a new way of bringing things, but they seem to merely support at the moment the importance of concepts and chess culture, since they seem to presuppose concepts and bring existing concepts in a new manner, but the underlying idea seem the same to me.
Anyway nice articles, and looking forward to the rest
* how do you evaluate positions if you have no framework of concepts to judge a move by? Even values of the pieces is a concept in chess and no universal law (given value of pieces can change given position at hand)
* Do we not use chess concepts to link known and unknown positions. e.g. famous mating patterns seems to fall outside the known positions, since they are no theoretical endgames. If you know smothered mate pattern, you can try to apply it in unknown positions. How would this fit in your current framework.
* There are many interesting books existing about decision making at the board. Two authors that came immediately to mind are Dan Heisman (e.g. in his Best of Novice nooks book from Everyman he talks about decision making process and it being analyzing and evaluating) Jacob Aagaard considers seeing the non-obvious move as his definition of calculation in chess. (e.g. Excelling at chess calculation)
So I feel that your axioms are maybe a new way of bringing things, but they seem to merely support at the moment the importance of concepts and chess culture, since they seem to presuppose concepts and bring existing concepts in a new manner, but the underlying idea seem the same to me.
Anyway nice articles, and looking forward to the rest
I want to know more about this, thank you and please continue.
The great Cuban World Champion Jose Raul Capablanca said that he reached master strength before undertaking a formal study of book openings. This confirms your thesis that SEEING (combinative vision) and EVALUATING (judging the end positions of one's analysis) are the primary elements of chess strength! Different players vary in their abilities regarding this two faculties.
Tacticians are especially good at SEEING, positional players are especially good at EVALUATING - although there is of course much overlap since both are essential.
Honing the visual search process and positional procedures conceptually are critical - I think this is the key to improvement. Grandmaster Igor Smirnov has some interesting things to say about these skills.
GOD BLESS!
My own conception is that A GOOD CHESS PLAYER IS ESSENTIALLY A CRITIC!
CONCEPTMAN.
Tacticians are especially good at SEEING, positional players are especially good at EVALUATING - although there is of course much overlap since both are essential.
Honing the visual search process and positional procedures conceptually are critical - I think this is the key to improvement. Grandmaster Igor Smirnov has some interesting things to say about these skills.
GOD BLESS!
My own conception is that A GOOD CHESS PLAYER IS ESSENTIALLY A CRITIC!
CONCEPTMAN.
PLEASE FORGIVE MY GRAMMATICAL (SPELLING) ERROR!
CONCEPTMAN.
CONCEPTMAN.
You are severeeeeeely abusing the word "axiom" here.
There are five Axioms, yet axioms three and four are nearly the same, the minor difference being "decisions" and "moves." What is the difference between "decisions" and "moves"? Are they not the same thing?
@DailyInsanity
@DailyInsanity
@bearcats said in #2:
> I really appreciate the framework of known and unknown positions and the conclusions derived from it. Since I came to simil
Thank you very much! I'm glad you found them helpful so far :)
> I really appreciate the framework of known and unknown positions and the conclusions derived from it. Since I came to simil
Thank you very much! I'm glad you found them helpful so far :)