@CrankyOldGuy said in #9:
> I think perhaps you forgot to mention a fifth "rule" that was taught to me long ago, control the center. He who controls the center can attack outward in any direction while his opponent can only snipe inward. It's the same general principle as using interior lines on a battlefield, forcing your opponent's forces to travel greater distances to attack the same location.
I think that contrary to historical appearances of school of thoughtism about the center, there is core mobility arguments for it. I like to say that: core mobility rules. It comforts me on the finiteness of the basic ruleset, and gives me license to feel still rational about chess and share among peers of at least such common luggage.
Chess was invented by humans who might not have been already experts at chess, so the reasoning goes, that perhaps it was some pre-chess thinking that made chess of today initially and probably all along, like the written language symbols, we did not evolve to recognize pre-existing writing, woah, full derailment sorry, 2D characters have evolved for your visual thinking at a glance pattern recognition is my point about center, pfiou: I thought I lost the thread, now back on it, I knew I was getting somewhere...).
The board is finite (although we can see it infinite at will, no problem, we do remember there are rims). kind of makes the center a geometric vista point... all pieces might like to maximize the empty board immediate activity (or is activity= immediate mobillity already?). That is the set of all target points (squares) with their mobility patterns per material type. Blame the rims.
other point. An example of something that might be so internalized that it goes without saying. not a critic, an hypothesis.
And now reversing point (3rd point).
Well, perhaps it confirms my angle that the 4 items were about obstacles for newcomers. Pre-chess geometry and basic material mobility rules as figure patterns on the empty board** might also be part of their incoming luggage on the internal side. Also one can count on repertoires normal first educational exposure to serious chess.
Even without the name.. my father did, naturally, without any naming, show by example (and me thinking that mirroring would be clever. until it did not) . It was center pawns, and mostly open games... good for learning sweeping mobility things... and also pawns are the most difficult things finally, I am decreeing that, even before knights.
** (infinite board generalization, then the rims, does any one remember how their very first encounter with chess material mobility was?, I might be painting my own memory, but I think my father only had to show me the figure from one placement and tell me that it "goes like this", as we will do like physicist and simply by infinite generalization, and ooops there are rims... but only on the way.. so we can think of the infinite one... and superimpose the rims. is my thesis. but that is from my present math. deformed mind)
> I think perhaps you forgot to mention a fifth "rule" that was taught to me long ago, control the center. He who controls the center can attack outward in any direction while his opponent can only snipe inward. It's the same general principle as using interior lines on a battlefield, forcing your opponent's forces to travel greater distances to attack the same location.
I think that contrary to historical appearances of school of thoughtism about the center, there is core mobility arguments for it. I like to say that: core mobility rules. It comforts me on the finiteness of the basic ruleset, and gives me license to feel still rational about chess and share among peers of at least such common luggage.
Chess was invented by humans who might not have been already experts at chess, so the reasoning goes, that perhaps it was some pre-chess thinking that made chess of today initially and probably all along, like the written language symbols, we did not evolve to recognize pre-existing writing, woah, full derailment sorry, 2D characters have evolved for your visual thinking at a glance pattern recognition is my point about center, pfiou: I thought I lost the thread, now back on it, I knew I was getting somewhere...).
The board is finite (although we can see it infinite at will, no problem, we do remember there are rims). kind of makes the center a geometric vista point... all pieces might like to maximize the empty board immediate activity (or is activity= immediate mobillity already?). That is the set of all target points (squares) with their mobility patterns per material type. Blame the rims.
other point. An example of something that might be so internalized that it goes without saying. not a critic, an hypothesis.
And now reversing point (3rd point).
Well, perhaps it confirms my angle that the 4 items were about obstacles for newcomers. Pre-chess geometry and basic material mobility rules as figure patterns on the empty board** might also be part of their incoming luggage on the internal side. Also one can count on repertoires normal first educational exposure to serious chess.
Even without the name.. my father did, naturally, without any naming, show by example (and me thinking that mirroring would be clever. until it did not) . It was center pawns, and mostly open games... good for learning sweeping mobility things... and also pawns are the most difficult things finally, I am decreeing that, even before knights.
** (infinite board generalization, then the rims, does any one remember how their very first encounter with chess material mobility was?, I might be painting my own memory, but I think my father only had to show me the figure from one placement and tell me that it "goes like this", as we will do like physicist and simply by infinite generalization, and ooops there are rims... but only on the way.. so we can think of the infinite one... and superimpose the rims. is my thesis. but that is from my present math. deformed mind)
