@chessTraian said in #90:
> Intriguing-looking Chessable course on positional chess: www.chessable.com/the-positional-chess-patterns-manual/course/243952/
i have this course, not that good
Also, here's an article with axioms on the physics aspect of chess (in terms of 2D geometric energy): https://www.chess.com/blog/MomirRadovic/principia-scacchorum-part-6-chess-axioms
Axioms finding is a reverse engineering art in the long run... Shh.. don,t tell anyone.. They might not agree or realize they are not just one individual in a pool of other individuals not all contemporary that have been working at it... and that might be too self-observing....
@ViAaNjS said in #81:
> also on which topic should i post?
What do you think of RoaringPawn & his articles on chess teaching/learning methods? (Such as this one: https://www.chess.com/blog/RoaringPawn/with-alphazero-and-its-inventor-demis-hassabis-chess-is-celebrating-its-own-demise)
@chessTraian said in #94:
> What do you think of RoaringPawn & his articles on chess teaching/learning methods? (Such as this one: www.chess.com/blog/RoaringPawn/with-alphazero-and-its-inventor-demis-hassabis-chess-is-celebrating-its-own-demise)
Couldn't help but also share these articles that I enjoyed: https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/aron-nimzowitsch-quothow-i-became-a-grandmasterquot-part-1 and dontmoveuntilyousee.it/what-is-conceptualization/.
These are interesting philosophical takes on A0 and the machines and another master point of view on how they became grand-masters (so in singlge hindsight). Although I do like Nimzo only things I read style and excerpts I was made aware of, those are not pragmatic points of view, right.
I would still need to read carefully. But I do like the point of view of those articles (the distance, does help I mean, by point of view, not the points made themselve, running into my English lack of vocabulary nuances, using "point" to mean 2 things).
It could be interesting to hear the blog author take on those takes.
@chessTraian said in #95:
> Couldn't help but also share these articles that I enjoyed: www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/aron-nimzowitsch-quothow-i-became-a-grandmasterquot-part-1 and dontmoveuntilyousee.it/what-is-conceptualization/.
P.S. Just realized, the Nimzowitsch books (My System and Chess Praxis) are how we got many of our Generally Accepted Positional Principles in the first place (at least when it comes to hypermodern chess strategy). And I'll have to admit, the reasoning is quite compelling. (For instance, the following article explains how Nimzowitsch explores exceptions to principles such as pushing pawns into the center asap and maximizing activity/pressure: https://lichess.org/@/Kingscrusher-YouTube/blog/an-appreciation-of-aron-nimzowitsch-one-of-the-greatest-hypermodernists/b38wk6pZ)
@chessTraian said in #95:
> Couldn't help but also share these articles that I enjoyed: www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/aron-nimzowitsch-quothow-i-became-a-grandmasterquot-part-1 and dontmoveuntilyousee.it/what-is-conceptualization/.
(Chesspage1's take on chess principles: use general themes realized from the study of endgames to get an idea of the most important ones. Otherwise, just focus on tactics (and I might add conceptualization/board vision) until you can get through several games without losing(/missing out on winning) a significant amount of material because of them, as seen at 40:11: https://youtu.be/r7WNog6y-UU?si=E4MsY35Cs_stG6Ao)
@dboing said in #96:
> These are interesting philosophical takes on A0 and the machines and another master point of view on how they became grand-masters (so in singlge hindsight). Although I do like Nimzo only things I read style and excerpts I was made aware of, those are not pragmatic points of view, right.
>
> I would still need to read carefully. But I do like the point of view of those articles (the distance, does help I mean, by point of view, not the points made themselve, running into my English lack of vocabulary nuances, using "point" to mean 2 things).
>
> It could be interesting to hear the blog author take on those takes.
Hey dboing, just found out via Chat, the blog author's take is as follows:
"Regarding your latest comments, I checked out some of the links, but indeed for some of them it was hard for me to follow. Many people have their own terminology and so on, and so it can be easy to 'talk past one another'. That is why in the latest article I try to give a more formal presentation of the argument, such that anyone who wishes to challenge it/its conclusions should point out a specific premise or argument that they disagree with. I still haven't come across such a criticism.
As for nimzowitsch and his famous books, I find that they are very much academic, and is more so 'famous for being famous'. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I've heard countless amateur + club level players sing the praises of My System etc... probably merely because they heard it is such an important book. In line with the core argument in the last post, I don't think the type of principled-fueled play can inform practical decision making."
in my case it was the only book I couold ever read and only the first part that did not go into gamen buried narrative.