- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

The Axiom System - Part 4: Justification in Chess

#2

I've read all four of your posts in this series and liked them so far. While I found that thinking about the decision making process the way you did is helpful, I also believe you've made a mistake in this post. As you've pointed out, the crucial point is the absence of a set of meta-rules for deciding which principle to follow in a given position. You go on to argue that due to the multitude of possible positions there can be no such set of (abstract) meta-rules and come to the conclusion: Talking of principles is futile. But that seems to be a little quick to me - just because there is no (and may never be) an precise set of a b s t r a c t meta-rules that doesn't mean you can't derive a good or even a best move from a c o n c r e t e position using these principles. These principles then formulate "mini games" inside the whole game, with the goal of improving your position. The real skill then is being able to know when to prioritise which principle, depending on the concrete position. This evaluation to me seems to be the real object of interest when investigating the process of decision making. How can we learn to weigh these principles better, depending on the position? I don't know if this process can be taught, if there are - so to say - meta rules for weighing these principles depending on the concrete position or if this just comes down do intuition, which can still be honed. Nevertheless I believe these principles can help in finding moves through making the patterns expressible when arguing with others or just in our head. My first take on such a meta rule for weighing principles would be: look at the board, think of all the principles that want to be manifested on the board and bring their degree of manifestation in a "just" (talking about justification) proportion to each other, depending on the effect their further manifestation would have on the position at hand. Then we could begin arguing about how we distinguish a just principle prioritisation from an unjust one, which probably has very much to do with distinguishing between good and bad positions. The principles may then be only general proposals, rules of thumb for what often works well. Following them blindly is surely not helpful, but they may give a hint for what your next goal in the position might be and as such a starting point for your further considerations (which then of course must build on the given position, concrete threats and so on).
Looking forward to your next post - I'm interested in how you think evaluation is possible.

I've read all four of your posts in this series and liked them so far. While I found that thinking about the decision making process the way you did is helpful, I also believe you've made a mistake in this post. As you've pointed out, the crucial point is the absence of a set of meta-rules for deciding which principle to follow in a given position. You go on to argue that due to the multitude of possible positions there can be no such set of (abstract) meta-rules and come to the conclusion: Talking of principles is futile. But that seems to be a little quick to me - just because there is no (and may never be) an precise set of a b s t r a c t meta-rules that doesn't mean you can't derive a good or even a best move from a c o n c r e t e position using these principles. These principles then formulate "mini games" inside the whole game, with the goal of improving your position. The real skill then is being able to know when to prioritise which principle, depending on the concrete position. This evaluation to me seems to be the real object of interest when investigating the process of decision making. How can we learn to weigh these principles better, depending on the position? I don't know if this process can be taught, if there are - so to say - meta rules for weighing these principles depending on the concrete position or if this just comes down do intuition, which can still be honed. Nevertheless I believe these principles can help in finding moves through making the patterns expressible when arguing with others or just in our head. My first take on such a meta rule for weighing principles would be: look at the board, think of all the principles that want to be manifested on the board and bring their degree of manifestation in a "just" (talking about justification) proportion to each other, depending on the effect their further manifestation would have on the position at hand. Then we could begin arguing about how we distinguish a just principle prioritisation from an unjust one, which probably has very much to do with distinguishing between good and bad positions. The principles may then be only general proposals, rules of thumb for what often works well. Following them blindly is surely not helpful, but they may give a hint for what your next goal in the position might be and as such a starting point for your further considerations (which then of course must build on the given position, concrete threats and so on). Looking forward to your next post - I'm interested in how you think evaluation is possible.
#3

@Fokus98 said in #2:

I've read all four of your posts in this series and liked them so far. While I found that thinking about the decision making process the way you did is helpful, I also believe you've made a mistake in this post. As you've pointed out, the crucial point is the absence of a set of meta-rules for deciding which principle to follow in a given position. You go on to argue that due to the multitude of possible positions there can be no such set of (abstract) meta-rules and come to the conclusion: Talking of principles is futile. But that seems to be a little quick to me - just because there is no (and may never be) an precise set of a b s t r a c t meta-rules that doesn't mean you can't derive a good or even a best move from a c o n c r e t e position using these principles. These principles then formulate "mini games" inside the whole game, with the goal of improving your position. The real skill then is being able to know when to prioritise which principle, depending on the concrete position. This evaluation to me seems to be the real object of interest when investigating the process of decision making. How can we learn to weigh these principles better, depending on the position? I don't know if this process can be taught, if there are - so to say - meta rules for weighing these principles depending on the concrete position or if this just comes down do intuition, which can still be honed. Nevertheless I believe these principles can help in finding moves through making the patterns expressible when arguing with others or just in our head. My first take on such a meta rule for weighing principles would be: look at the board, think of all the principles that want to be manifested on the board and bring their degree of manifestation in a "just" (talking about justification) proportion to each other, depending on the effect their further manifestation would have on the position at hand. Then we could begin arguing about how we distinguish a just principle prioritisation from an unjust one, which probably has very much to do with distinguishing between good and bad positions. The principles may then be only general proposals, rules of thumb for what often works well. Following them blindly is surely not helpful, but they may give a hint for what your next goal in the position might be and as such a starting point for your further considerations (which then of course must build on the given position, concrete threats and so on).
Looking forward to your next post - I'm interested in how you think evaluation is possible.

Thank you for reading my posts and for your detailed comment! Let me try to address your response.

If I understand you correctly, you suggest that while no abstract meta-rules exist, players can still intuitively feel which principle is more important in a given position. This shifts the focus from intuitively selecting the best move to intuitively prioritizing principles. However, in my view, this still leads to the same reliance on intuition. The principle that feels most applicable will dictate which move feels best.

Therefore, whether we are directly choosing moves or prioritizing principles, intuition remains the core driver in decision-making. In this context, my critique remains that principles, without a clear hierarchical structure, cannot independently guide us without resorting to intuitive judgment.

Regarding your final comment about how I think evaluation is possible, it essentially boils down to intuition, along the lines I noted in the post. This doesn't mean human evaluation isn't possible, but it isn't possible in a rational, step-by-step sense. Just to be clear, in the next article, I'll discuss more about the properties of this intuitive skill, rather than subdividing it into key steps or anything like that.

@Fokus98 said in #2: > I've read all four of your posts in this series and liked them so far. While I found that thinking about the decision making process the way you did is helpful, I also believe you've made a mistake in this post. As you've pointed out, the crucial point is the absence of a set of meta-rules for deciding which principle to follow in a given position. You go on to argue that due to the multitude of possible positions there can be no such set of (abstract) meta-rules and come to the conclusion: Talking of principles is futile. But that seems to be a little quick to me - just because there is no (and may never be) an precise set of a b s t r a c t meta-rules that doesn't mean you can't derive a good or even a best move from a c o n c r e t e position using these principles. These principles then formulate "mini games" inside the whole game, with the goal of improving your position. The real skill then is being able to know when to prioritise which principle, depending on the concrete position. This evaluation to me seems to be the real object of interest when investigating the process of decision making. How can we learn to weigh these principles better, depending on the position? I don't know if this process can be taught, if there are - so to say - meta rules for weighing these principles depending on the concrete position or if this just comes down do intuition, which can still be honed. Nevertheless I believe these principles can help in finding moves through making the patterns expressible when arguing with others or just in our head. My first take on such a meta rule for weighing principles would be: look at the board, think of all the principles that want to be manifested on the board and bring their degree of manifestation in a "just" (talking about justification) proportion to each other, depending on the effect their further manifestation would have on the position at hand. Then we could begin arguing about how we distinguish a just principle prioritisation from an unjust one, which probably has very much to do with distinguishing between good and bad positions. The principles may then be only general proposals, rules of thumb for what often works well. Following them blindly is surely not helpful, but they may give a hint for what your next goal in the position might be and as such a starting point for your further considerations (which then of course must build on the given position, concrete threats and so on). > Looking forward to your next post - I'm interested in how you think evaluation is possible. Thank you for reading my posts and for your detailed comment! Let me try to address your response. If I understand you correctly, you suggest that while no abstract meta-rules exist, players can still intuitively feel which principle is more important in a given position. This shifts the focus from intuitively selecting the best move to intuitively prioritizing principles. However, in my view, this still leads to the same reliance on intuition. The principle that feels most applicable will dictate which move feels best. Therefore, whether we are directly choosing moves or prioritizing principles, intuition remains the core driver in decision-making. In this context, my critique remains that principles, without a clear hierarchical structure, cannot independently guide us without resorting to intuitive judgment. Regarding your final comment about how I think evaluation is possible, it essentially boils down to intuition, along the lines I noted in the post. This doesn't mean human evaluation isn't possible, but it isn't possible in a rational, step-by-step sense. Just to be clear, in the next article, I'll discuss more about the properties of this intuitive skill, rather than subdividing it into key steps or anything like that.
#4

Chess engines have a branching factor of about 6, which suggests that humans can likewise calculate relevant variations to some extent.

In crazyhouse and shogi, due to being able to drop pieces there are hundreds of possible legal moves and calculation is much harder, so having guiding principles and solid evaluation skills can immensely help.

Chess engines have a branching factor of about 6, which suggests that humans can likewise calculate relevant variations to some extent. In crazyhouse and shogi, due to being able to drop pieces there are hundreds of possible legal moves and calculation is much harder, so having guiding principles and solid evaluation skills can immensely help.
#5

@Fokus98 said in #2:

... The real skill then is being able to know when to prioritise which principle, depending on the concrete position.
...
I don't know if this process can be taught, if there are - so to say - meta rules for weighing these principles depending on the concrete position or if this just comes down do intuition, which can still be honed.

Well this is the current status quo. I think that the op is doing fine in exagerating in the full skeptical direction, if the long term plan is to have that as one boundary of a set of theories of improving; boundary theory case that was never really explored. That might be the big swing search pattern at the most meta level of theories of improving (or theories of study program for the improvers). I.e. among us theoretician of chess learning theories, which could be anyone talking here, as we are all, at least learning data points, and this being chess, I would bet, we can all, maintain reasonable discussions in search of a common "truth" that which might fit in axiom1.

But you do raise an aftermath question or actually a equivalent angle of pragmatism. Which might be to spell out what is the status quo of chess theory for the theory of learning has been (I prefer that as probably overlapping with all the variants of goals covered by axiom1).

So, currently there is a lot let to the hunch interpretation.. Which is part of the problem when the chess theory is using a language of knowers seeking minimal word approximations that make sense to them, given their experience. Hence the impression from other points of view, such as the players that are trying to learn from such presentations, but have to learn both the chess board 2D (ormore) sensory reality, and the words used through verbal "hand-waving" about illustrious games, board features (which might alos have many other features than the verbal narration intended).

I have only read your post. And I do value its presence and would like it part of the op thinking as well. in furhter discussion. I still need to read what you read. (i know I should not do that, but discussion, is my cup of tea, and impulse control not my forte, internally).

I am not sure that I agree with the conclusion of the op, though. But I think that it has to be studied and debated. I hope there is room for that in the op, the widest scope thinking or presentation project in this series. But even if not, I can use the discussion, of other people like you. And the op presentation would be a clear package. A stance that at least would be internally reasonable (through the transparent goal that I am seeing, or giving systematically the conditions with the consequence in the propositions so that we keep being peers of reason. Not swallowers of truth, or not starving for any truth audience, without wanting to know why. if it improves us fast enough in some undetermined timescale we would sing the glory of that truth, without "knowing" more (or is it understanding). Not that.

Thank you for having voice this other point of view. I now have a crutch, or carrot or longer arc context, to go back to forward reading in this series. I am still at previous blog. For the forward reading, crawling, critical reading. I have more than one reading pointer thread going it seems, and they might interact. Not the same chunk sizes, not the same pace. And not same fast reading levels. I might have some spiral going on too..

Ok. enough about my process. This is a great series. There are other great series, for theories of learning, from outside the modern chess culture, that we can see on Lichess blogs by the way. From the actual fields of cognitive psychology; nowadays having more biological underpinning ingredients than even 10 years ago, or was it 15 years, when connectionism might have been a school of thought. Now, high-level concepts and neurobiology (I guess neuropsychology?), the 2 approaches might start having to meet, somewhere, I mean this is now happening, or has been while I was not looking, the past decade or so). I am thinking of @ndpatzer blogs, and Saychess... (sorry me and names, fleeting results)

There is some hope for lichess blog 3 headed lobby feature, after all.

@Fokus98 said in #2: >... The real skill then is being able to know when to prioritise which principle, depending on the concrete position. ... > I don't know if this process can be taught, if there are - so to say - meta rules for weighing these principles depending on the concrete position or if this just comes down do intuition, which can still be honed. Well this is the current status quo. I think that the op is doing fine in exagerating in the full skeptical direction, if the long term plan is to have that as one boundary of a set of theories of improving; boundary theory case that was never really explored. That might be the big swing search pattern at the most meta level of theories of improving (or theories of study program for the improvers). I.e. among us theoretician of chess learning theories, which could be anyone talking here, as we are all, at least learning data points, and this being chess, I would bet, we can all, maintain reasonable discussions in search of a common "truth" that which might fit in axiom1. But you do raise an aftermath question or actually a equivalent angle of pragmatism. Which might be to spell out what is the status quo of chess theory for the theory of learning has been (I prefer that as probably overlapping with all the variants of goals covered by axiom1). So, currently there is a lot let to the hunch interpretation.. Which is part of the problem when the chess theory is using a language of knowers seeking minimal word approximations that make sense to them, given their experience. Hence the impression from other points of view, such as the players that are trying to learn from such presentations, but have to learn both the chess board 2D (ormore) sensory reality, and the words used through verbal "hand-waving" about illustrious games, board features (which might alos have many other features than the verbal narration intended). I have only read your post. And I do value its presence and would like it part of the op thinking as well. in furhter discussion. I still need to read what you read. (i know I should not do that, but discussion, is my cup of tea, and impulse control not my forte, internally). I am not sure that I agree with the conclusion of the op, though. But I think that it has to be studied and debated. I hope there is room for that in the op, the widest scope thinking or presentation project in this series. But even if not, I can use the discussion, of other people like you. And the op presentation would be a clear package. A stance that at least would be internally reasonable (through the transparent goal that I am seeing, or giving systematically the conditions with the consequence in the propositions so that we keep being peers of reason. Not swallowers of truth, or not starving for any truth audience, without wanting to know why. if it improves us fast enough in some undetermined timescale we would sing the glory of that truth, without "knowing" more (or is it understanding). Not that. Thank you for having voice this other point of view. I now have a crutch, or carrot or longer arc context, to go back to forward reading in this series. I am still at previous blog. For the forward reading, crawling, critical reading. I have more than one reading pointer thread going it seems, and they might interact. Not the same chunk sizes, not the same pace. And not same fast reading levels. I might have some spiral going on too.. Ok. enough about my process. This is a great series. There are other great series, for theories of learning, from outside the modern chess culture, that we can see on Lichess blogs by the way. From the actual fields of cognitive psychology; nowadays having more biological underpinning ingredients than even 10 years ago, or was it 15 years, when connectionism might have been a school of thought. Now, high-level concepts and neurobiology (I guess neuropsychology?), the 2 approaches might start having to meet, somewhere, I mean this is now happening, or has been while I was not looking, the past decade or so). I am thinking of @ndpatzer blogs, and Saychess... (sorry me and names, fleeting results) There is some hope for lichess blog 3 headed lobby feature, after all.
#6

@DailyInsanity said in #3:

Thank you for reading my posts and for your detailed comment! Let me try to address your response.

If I understand you correctly, you suggest that while no abstract meta-rules exist, players can still intuitively feel which principle is more important in a given position. This shifts the focus from intuitively selecting the best move to intuitively prioritizing principles. However, in my view, this still leads to the same reliance on intuition. The principle that feels most applicable will dictate which move feels best.

Therefore, whether we are directly choosing moves or prioritizing principles, intuition remains the core driver in decision-making. In this context, my critique remains that principles, without a clear hierarchical structure, cannot independently guide us without resorting to intuitive judgment.

Regarding your final comment about how I think evaluation is possible, it essentially boils down to intuition, along the lines I noted in the post. This doesn't mean human evaluation isn't possible, but it isn't possible in a rational, step-by-step sense. Just to be clear, in the next article, I'll discuss more about the properties of this intuitive skill, rather than subdividing it into key steps or anything like that.

While I definitely agree that intuition plays a strong role in Chess and Chess ability I do also believe there is rationale and reason that goes along with the principles. For example in the position you showed I actually preferred the move a4 over b4 before reading your comments on the position because I noticed that there were some "principle problems" with b4. With b4 you prevent black from playing b4 but at the same time create a slightly uncomfortable or ugly backwards pawn on c3 on an open file and also you give black the c4 outpost. Still though I evaluated that position as better for White but just didn't think it was their best idea. So, every move in Chess has strengths and weaknesses, I think the way that you weigh different principles comes down to weighing how much you can exploit the strengths/advantages of the move compared to how much the opponent can exploit the weaknesses of the move. In the example you gave even though we have the backwards pawn on c3 and give black the c4 outpost which are both bad on principle, I wouldn't evaluate the position as bad for white since these weaknesses are not easily exploited. It would be incredibly difficult for black to get the knight or bishop onto c4 and it will also be incredibly difficult for them to exploit the c3 pawn since their knight can practically never attack that pawn so they would only be able to attack it with the Rooks and Queen but we have our Knights to guard it, so consequently, the weaknesses in our position aren't that exploitable. The reason though I wouldn't opt for b4 though is that while yes the weaknesses aren't that exploitable, the advantages aren't exploitable either. If we go into the line with b4 axb4 axb4 then yes we get the open line for the Rook but so what? Where is our Rook actually going to go? What is that Rook actually going to do? Nothing that I see. So the weaknesses aren't bad but the strengths aren't good.

Compare this now to a4 which I liked because I can use it to take the sting out of black playing b4 since if black plays b4 then we can go Bb5 pinning the Knight so we can threaten to take the Knight then take on b4 (taking the Knight since with taking on b4 we lose control of d4) and in that type of position we end up with good strengths and few weaknesses. We have the strong past a pawn, we can play Qb3 or b3 and potentially make a target of their b4 pawn, in this variation with a4 rather than b4 we keep the c4 square open for Knights or other pieces to go to. All in all, the advantage of the past a4 pawn poses a more serious threat and is more exploitable than simply having the open a file for the Rook and the a4 b4 line comes with no real noticeable weaknesses for white. (Of course after a4 black has other options beyond b4 which each have their own benefits but I'll save us the time of going through each of them.)

In summary I think that there is and should be a conscious weighing of principles when deciding between moves and beyond that as a teacher I've found that understanding principles is one of the most effective ways of encouraging student progression but there must also of course be concrete examples and explanations to supplement.

@DailyInsanity said in #3: > Thank you for reading my posts and for your detailed comment! Let me try to address your response. > > If I understand you correctly, you suggest that while no abstract meta-rules exist, players can still intuitively feel which principle is more important in a given position. This shifts the focus from intuitively selecting the best move to intuitively prioritizing principles. However, in my view, this still leads to the same reliance on intuition. The principle that feels most applicable will dictate which move feels best. > > Therefore, whether we are directly choosing moves or prioritizing principles, intuition remains the core driver in decision-making. In this context, my critique remains that principles, without a clear hierarchical structure, cannot independently guide us without resorting to intuitive judgment. > > Regarding your final comment about how I think evaluation is possible, it essentially boils down to intuition, along the lines I noted in the post. This doesn't mean human evaluation isn't possible, but it isn't possible in a rational, step-by-step sense. Just to be clear, in the next article, I'll discuss more about the properties of this intuitive skill, rather than subdividing it into key steps or anything like that. While I definitely agree that intuition plays a strong role in Chess and Chess ability I do also believe there is rationale and reason that goes along with the principles. For example in the position you showed I actually preferred the move a4 over b4 before reading your comments on the position because I noticed that there were some "principle problems" with b4. With b4 you prevent black from playing b4 but at the same time create a slightly uncomfortable or ugly backwards pawn on c3 on an open file and also you give black the c4 outpost. Still though I evaluated that position as better for White but just didn't think it was their best idea. So, every move in Chess has strengths and weaknesses, I think the way that you weigh different principles comes down to weighing how much you can exploit the strengths/advantages of the move compared to how much the opponent can exploit the weaknesses of the move. In the example you gave even though we have the backwards pawn on c3 and give black the c4 outpost which are both bad on principle, I wouldn't evaluate the position as bad for white since these weaknesses are not easily exploited. It would be incredibly difficult for black to get the knight or bishop onto c4 and it will also be incredibly difficult for them to exploit the c3 pawn since their knight can practically never attack that pawn so they would only be able to attack it with the Rooks and Queen but we have our Knights to guard it, so consequently, the weaknesses in our position aren't that exploitable. The reason though I wouldn't opt for b4 though is that while yes the weaknesses aren't that exploitable, the advantages aren't exploitable either. If we go into the line with b4 axb4 axb4 then yes we get the open line for the Rook but so what? Where is our Rook actually going to go? What is that Rook actually going to do? Nothing that I see. So the weaknesses aren't bad but the strengths aren't good. Compare this now to a4 which I liked because I can use it to take the sting out of black playing b4 since if black plays b4 then we can go Bb5 pinning the Knight so we can threaten to take the Knight then take on b4 (taking the Knight since with taking on b4 we lose control of d4) and in that type of position we end up with good strengths and few weaknesses. We have the strong past a pawn, we can play Qb3 or b3 and potentially make a target of their b4 pawn, in this variation with a4 rather than b4 we keep the c4 square open for Knights or other pieces to go to. All in all, the advantage of the past a4 pawn poses a more serious threat and is more exploitable than simply having the open a file for the Rook and the a4 b4 line comes with no real noticeable weaknesses for white. (Of course after a4 black has other options beyond b4 which each have their own benefits but I'll save us the time of going through each of them.) In summary I think that there is and should be a conscious weighing of principles when deciding between moves and beyond that as a teacher I've found that understanding principles is one of the most effective ways of encouraging student progression but there must also of course be concrete examples and explanations to supplement.
#7

I've never looked forward to a chess blog before, so when I saw that you posted a part 4, I was happily surprised with how excited I was to read through it. I found it so interesting to read and delve into my own thoughts and justifications. Well done man, thoroughly enjoyed.

I've never looked forward to a chess blog before, so when I saw that you posted a part 4, I was happily surprised with how excited I was to read through it. I found it so interesting to read and delve into my own thoughts and justifications. Well done man, thoroughly enjoyed.
#8

@Toadofsky said in #4:

Chess engines have a branching factor of about 6, which suggests that humans can likewise calculate relevant variations to some extent.

In crazyhouse and shogi, due to being able to drop pieces there are hundreds of possible legal moves and calculation is much harder, so having guiding principles and solid evaluation skills can immensely help.

That brings up an interesting discussion about how these skills generalize across different games and how the relative importance of subskills varies with the nature of the game. I have thought that games with more branching, such as Go and those mentioned, might place a greater emphasis on evaluative ability over visual ability. However, I struggle to see how principles could help in variants like crazyhouse, according to the same line of argumentation as in the post. I'm unsure about other games since I don't know much about them.

@Toadofsky said in #4: > Chess engines have a branching factor of about 6, which suggests that humans can likewise calculate relevant variations to some extent. > > In crazyhouse and shogi, due to being able to drop pieces there are hundreds of possible legal moves and calculation is much harder, so having guiding principles and solid evaluation skills can immensely help. That brings up an interesting discussion about how these skills generalize across different games and how the relative importance of subskills varies with the nature of the game. I have thought that games with more branching, such as Go and those mentioned, might place a greater emphasis on evaluative ability over visual ability. However, I struggle to see how principles could help in variants like crazyhouse, according to the same line of argumentation as in the post. I'm unsure about other games since I don't know much about them.
#9

@IntentionalBlunder said in #6:

Thank you for your detailed comment! While I understand why you might see value in principles, I don't believe that a back-and-forth reasoning game can support that conclusion.

With the sample position, the main point wasn't to show that the reasoning behind b4 was perfect, yet it recommended the wrong move, or anything like that. Rather it was to show that there are reasons why both b4 and a4 are good moves, as well as reasons why both a4 and b4 are bad moves, and there is no system one can use to determine the relative importance of these reasons.

Even if we shift the focus to weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each move, the same problem persists. We lack a system for prioritizing these factors, leading us to tailor our justification to fit our initial belief about which move is stronger.

Arguing further reasons without a system to prioritize them leaves us at a stalemate. For example, you say that the advantages of b4 are small, but I could argue that they are not small. For example, the weakness on b5 is cemented forever, with permanent pressure from the bishop, and the rook now being tied to the pawn long term. Then, if the a-file is opened, white may prevent ideas like Na7 (defending the b5 pawn and freeing the rook), as well as hinting at Ra6 and Qa1, taking more control over the a-file. If black ever moves their c6 knight, then Ra5 will come to further pressure b5. In any case, the open a-file rook is much better in general than the rook with a pawn on a2, and so on, and so on.... Of course, you could then provide further reasons back why this is wrong and the process repeats itself. I don't necessarily 'believe' in what I just said about b4, rather, I'm just 'playing the principle game'. This endless exchange highlights the problem: principles can be used to justify or critique anything without clear guidance.

Without a precise mechanism to outline how principles helped decide, statements like "I preferred a4 over b4... because I noticed some 'principle problems' with b4" are questionable. The word 'because' implies the decision was based on principles, but ultimately, your intuition led you to prefer one principle over another, or one line of reasoning over another, or to think that one advantage was bigger than another advantage. Intuition drives our preference for the move/principle/reasoning, not the principle itself. Therefore, I think that, principle-supporters need to be a lot more precise when outlining the mechanism by which principles drove their decision-making, otherwise they will continue to face the same critique.

@IntentionalBlunder said in #6: > Thank you for your detailed comment! While I understand why you might see value in principles, I don't believe that a back-and-forth reasoning game can support that conclusion. With the sample position, the main point wasn't to show that the reasoning behind b4 was perfect, yet it recommended the wrong move, or anything like that. Rather it was to show that there are reasons why both b4 and a4 are good moves, as well as reasons why both a4 and b4 are bad moves, and there is no system one can use to determine the relative importance of these reasons. Even if we shift the focus to weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each move, the same problem persists. We lack a system for prioritizing these factors, leading us to tailor our justification to fit our initial belief about which move is stronger. Arguing further reasons without a system to prioritize them leaves us at a stalemate. For example, you say that the advantages of b4 are small, but I could argue that they are not small. For example, the weakness on b5 is cemented forever, with permanent pressure from the bishop, and the rook now being tied to the pawn long term. Then, if the a-file is opened, white may prevent ideas like Na7 (defending the b5 pawn and freeing the rook), as well as hinting at Ra6 and Qa1, taking more control over the a-file. If black ever moves their c6 knight, then Ra5 will come to further pressure b5. In any case, the open a-file rook is much better in general than the rook with a pawn on a2, and so on, and so on.... Of course, you could then provide further reasons back why this is wrong and the process repeats itself. I don't necessarily 'believe' in what I just said about b4, rather, I'm just 'playing the principle game'. This endless exchange highlights the problem: principles can be used to justify or critique anything without clear guidance. Without a precise mechanism to outline how principles helped decide, statements like "I preferred a4 over b4... because I noticed some 'principle problems' with b4" are questionable. The word 'because' implies the decision was based on principles, but ultimately, your intuition led you to prefer one principle over another, or one line of reasoning over another, or to think that one advantage was bigger than another advantage. Intuition drives our preference for the move/principle/reasoning, not the principle itself. Therefore, I think that, principle-supporters need to be a lot more precise when outlining the mechanism by which principles drove their decision-making, otherwise they will continue to face the same critique.
#10

This series has been articulating a lot of things I've never been able to verbalize very well, but which have been rattling around my brain for a long time. Eagerly awaiting the next installment!

I do want to push back gently against a couple components of this part (mostly places where I felt like I was only 80% agreeing with you, rather than 100%.)

I agree with the core premise that most of what we do at the chessboard is intuitive, and that "principles" are typically just explanations for intuitive judgements. I think it logically follows that experience is the best teacher; that our chess intuition is developed by seeing and playing out a variety of positions, rather than rote learning and applying a list of principles. But I do think principles unavoidably play at least some role in the development of intuition, even beyond just the early beginner-level.

Principles are unavoidably imperfect proxies for concrete truths about any given position, or about chess knowledge more generally, but they do let us codify and clarify broad approximations of chess knowledge, which expedites the learning process. Take the concept of an outside passed pawn, for example. We could start with a basic principle, something like, "outside passed pawns are generally very good in the endgame, often winning." This would obviously, as you point out, have to undergo basically an infinite number of revisions and sub-principles, some of them contradictory or needlessly complicated: "Outside passed pawns are better in knight endgames than bishop endgames;" "Outside passed pawns are worse than protected passed pawns;" "Outside passed pawns are sufficient to win in rook endgames, but only if you can put your rook behind it, and only if it's an extra pawn, and only if there are enough pawns remaining on the other side of the board, and only if the king position is favorable, and only if the opponent lacks sufficient counterplay..." etc. However! The core principle is still a unit of chess knowledge which can be taught, learned, and eventually subsumed into a broader intuitive framework.

I learned about outside passed pawns from my dad when I was maybe 11 years old, and I thought they were a wonderfully exciting thing. There's a very silly game of mine from about this time where I spent several moves in the early middlegame working to prepare the possibility of an outside passed pawn, then relaxed, content in the certainty my position would eventually win itself. Of course, I promptly got steamrolled everywhere else on the board and lost a largely non-competitive game. But I learned some things about outside passed pawns! I learned some things which could, after the fact, be reduced into some sort of verbalized principle, one which would have been of limited usefulness. My learning was largely intuitive, done at the board, but it was jump-started by the conceptualization that there was this thing called an "outside passed pawn" which could be very powerful in given situations.

In the thousands of games I've played since then, I've refined my intuitive feeling around outside passed pawns. Many of those feelings could certainly be distilled into some sorts of principles (and I think there's a valid case to be made for the usefulness of principles simply as a refined and verbalized approximation of part of some more complex chess knowledge), but most of the learning has gone directly into building my intuition, without the in-between step of having to define explicit principles.

That said, it's not at all clear to me that I would have been able to develop this intuition nearly as effectively without the starting point of a designed principle which I could use as a guidepost, nor, to a lesser extent, without the help of curated examples codifying particular sub-principles and exceptions which I likely would not have understood or even necessarily encountered on my own.

Basically, I think you're right that principles are, on average, fairly useless at revealing deep truths about a given position, but I do think they oughtn't to be shortchanged as an important part of the chessic learning process.

This series has been articulating a lot of things I've never been able to verbalize very well, but which have been rattling around my brain for a long time. Eagerly awaiting the next installment! I do want to push back gently against a couple components of this part (mostly places where I felt like I was only 80% agreeing with you, rather than 100%.) I agree with the core premise that most of what we do at the chessboard is intuitive, and that "principles" are typically just explanations for intuitive judgements. I think it logically follows that experience is the best teacher; that our chess intuition is developed by seeing and playing out a variety of positions, rather than rote learning and applying a list of principles. But I do think principles unavoidably play at least some role in the development of intuition, even beyond just the early beginner-level. Principles are unavoidably imperfect proxies for concrete truths about any given position, or about chess knowledge more generally, but they do let us codify and clarify broad approximations of chess knowledge, which expedites the learning process. Take the concept of an outside passed pawn, for example. We could start with a basic principle, something like, "outside passed pawns are generally very good in the endgame, often winning." This would obviously, as you point out, have to undergo basically an infinite number of revisions and sub-principles, some of them contradictory or needlessly complicated: "Outside passed pawns are better in knight endgames than bishop endgames;" "Outside passed pawns are worse than protected passed pawns;" "Outside passed pawns are sufficient to win in rook endgames, but only if you can put your rook behind it, and only if it's an extra pawn, and only if there are enough pawns remaining on the other side of the board, and only if the king position is favorable, and only if the opponent lacks sufficient counterplay..." etc. However! The core principle is still a unit of chess knowledge which can be taught, learned, and eventually subsumed into a broader intuitive framework. I learned about outside passed pawns from my dad when I was maybe 11 years old, and I thought they were a wonderfully exciting thing. There's a very silly game of mine from about this time where I spent several moves in the early middlegame working to prepare the possibility of an outside passed pawn, then relaxed, content in the certainty my position would eventually win itself. Of course, I promptly got steamrolled everywhere else on the board and lost a largely non-competitive game. But I learned some things about outside passed pawns! I learned some things which could, after the fact, be reduced into some sort of verbalized principle, one which would have been of limited usefulness. My learning was largely intuitive, done at the board, but it was jump-started by the conceptualization that there was this thing called an "outside passed pawn" which could be very powerful in given situations. In the thousands of games I've played since then, I've refined my intuitive feeling around outside passed pawns. Many of those feelings could certainly be distilled into some sorts of principles (and I think there's a valid case to be made for the usefulness of principles simply as a refined and verbalized approximation of part of some more complex chess knowledge), but most of the learning has gone directly into building my intuition, without the in-between step of having to define explicit principles. That said, it's not at all clear to me that I would have been able to develop this intuition nearly as effectively without the starting point of a designed principle which I could use as a guidepost, nor, to a lesser extent, without the help of curated examples codifying particular sub-principles and exceptions which I likely would not have understood or even necessarily encountered on my own. Basically, I think you're right that principles are, on average, fairly useless at revealing deep truths about a given position, but I do think they oughtn't to be shortchanged as an important part of the chessic learning process.