@dboing said in #100:
> 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.
This surprises me. Why are you not able to read other books? (James Stripes' book "Essential Tactics: Building a Foundation for Chess Skill" is one example of a book that is quite a bit easier to absorb, in addition to doing an excellent job at teaching what is most essential from a relationist viewpoint (which viewpoint is convincingly promoted by Momir Radovic, a.k.a. RoaringPawn))
@chessTraian said in #101:
> This surprises me. Why are you not able to read other books? (James Stripes' book "Essential Tactics: Building a Foundation for Chess Skill" is one example of a book that is quite a bit easier to absorb, in addition to doing an excellent job at teaching what is most essential from a relationist viewpoint (which viewpoint is convincingly promoted by Momir Radovic, a.k.a. RoaringPawn))
I prefer an interactive tool of learning like on lichess, there are some authors that integrate a wide array of books and extirpate the juice from game buried narrative.. Also, I prefer discussions. And nimzo writing style was a bit theatircal and started abstract, and only gave the minimal amount of tangible so that I could catch the generality of stuff right away.
I get lost in too many examples, but words that are not tested for their relation to objective (or agreed common exact informatnoi of the board) variably (depending on how much they have been refined over generations of books or poeple behind the books) require many example. and what the speaker point to with a word might not be exactly what the listener sees...
variations on that theme. I guess I get to read excerpt of books shared with me within a discussoin aimeds at grasping such words.. Some words do not need that much examples once the care in the first exposure exemplar is involved.
Sure with a full life span from young enough it might not matter as one will definitely fill in the blanks of books by practice.
but I am not contemplating that amoung of life span in my case.. I meant not read completely. I get to read chosen excerpts. but I can't go through alone any whole game.. one after the other.. before enough theme driven experience would allow me to build my better generalizable (correctly so) intuition or meaning of the word. This might be very personal givens, perhaps even brain wiring type, not just professional deformation (or the profession appeal came from the wiring).
So books can be great. but they often don't come orgranized in a way I can parse well. This is as much a me than it is the books.
"relationist" does trigger something. I will look for that in those books.. at least the readable part not buried in games.
I only recently (five years) ago (through lichess) became less ignoramus about chess culture.. so I would not know about all things.. I appreciate the effort to pick some potential leads.
its been a year since part 4, wow. @DailyInsanity sorry to say but step up your pace :D
@dboing said in #103:
> "relationist" does trigger something. I will look for that in those books.. at least the readable part not buried in games.
>
> I only recently (five years) ago (through lichess) became less ignoramus about chess culture.. so I would not know about all things.. I appreciate the effort to pick some potential leads.
Hey dboing, some other potential leads if you're interested (the "chess crimes" one especially):
1. https://www.chess.com/blog/MomirRadovic/chess-improvement-find-key-to-an-essential-competence
2. https://zwischenzug.substack.com/p/priyomes
3. Look up "chess crimes" (esp. from Dr. Can, in videos such as this: https://youtu.be/Dz-k8K7ucio?si=EZtfO5e1Su73Fi5A)
4. https://dontmoveuntilyousee.it/second-order-effects/
@chessTraian said in #105:
> Hey dboing, some other potential leads if you're interested (the "chess crimes" one especially):
> 1. www.chess.com/blog/MomirRadovic/chess-improvement-find-key-to-an-essential-competence
> 2. zwischenzug.substack.com/p/priyomes
> 3. Look up "chess crimes" (esp. from Dr. Can, in videos such as this:
> )
> 4. dontmoveuntilyousee.it/second-order-effects/
Here's another lead: https://en.chessbase.com/post/mind-games-who-is-doing-the-playing-
And another: The (idea of) the study of factors that cause violations/adherences to chess principles to work vs. not work, for specific positions especially (if you catch my drift).
excellent topic. make configuration discussion on the validity of applying action "principles". most of that is in the manifest theory of learning left to brute force experiential learning.
and "lead" is a good word. As we keep critical thinking autonomy in being exposed to this stuff... good premise. I induce (infer?), about your thinking.
reading the above. I find that the salienting (made up word just now, from lack of vocabulary otherwise) of the question effort is very good. Often the narration is too asserting, although, to be able to even make sentences we have to leap a little bit in that direction for fear of becoming unreadable. (lol).
It is a bit categorical (but I suspect to make a point that I agree with, but not completely) about the conscious sub-conscious gating. I might not have read enough yet to get to further nuances... Also the innate notion might be conflated with developmental propicious time window of childhool brain for experiential learning. The fact that children use more autonomous thinking than what they are told to do might have something to do with the differential "improving" curves and slopes as a function of age at first chess serious exposure (also something to be further defined..., as this is not a punctual matter, more of a surface under some curve type of thing).
I do agree with the question of quality of generalization, but whether that is innate and not adult onset chess experience learnable, I have given my age to bet on otherwise, or limit the extent of my goals.
Also the notion of understanding (which prompted this impulisve communication attempt right here), seems to be consequent to categorical spit between conscious and subconscious.
I wonder if the bandwith of subconscious mind processes communication with the talking mind, is not trainable. or if innate not fully being studied in any theory of learning for such life span (or developmental equivalent duration and exposure).
one thing I like is the notion of exposure. generalization being held high as a problem, and then the realtion and possible timing (I hope or hunch here) between those.
Going back to reading.. I hope my impulse has been satisfied, i feel I had some other points, but my talkling mind has been typing for too long, it makes be go blank... till next impulse.
> Consciousness more or less functions as blunder check, quite lightly monitoring our play, making sure that no pieces are left hanging or put en prise. Most of the time when playing, consciousness is not involved at all.
This is not my experience as learner. It might be the too expert point of view maxed variable. and the time control trends toward faster play, bigger thrill bigger uncertainty adrenaline, etc...
my adult current make up is a fluctuating blend, and as I am more on the patzer end (neighborhood) of the lenaring space, there is plenty food on the board for both my brains.. (the small critical thinking one, and the big potentially stupid statistical one, another type of dichotomy, possibly interacting with the conscous/not-conscious (subconscious as not conscious) one).
I play correspondance just so I can have the opportunity (not an obligation, when I am not feeling like it I play more impulsively, but I have the time to make up stories and hypotheses silly or not, don't matterk ,because I can always use the cirtical thinking opportunity of slow chess, enough times during a game (won or lost) to figure out if silly or not.. or if still in the fog of good enough given my current chess vision scope (which might be itself a mixture of both types of brains).
I see now that the text is putting on its table the question of the dialog.. so till next impulse.
PS: I think blunder check is dependent of stake and haste to win. I tend to use conscious learning to listen to my possibly vain subconsius patzer imagination... I do not always know if it is blunder at my level.. but as learner I can say my 2 brains are at sensory and perception alertness.. I can feel how tentative and ignorant my hypotheses might be. it ain't 0 or 1.
in the LLM debate, since people had to come to accept the vectorization of language and the continuous vector space embedding of apparently categorical language, they start talking about understanding being of continuous nature. But that is wishful thinking in that particular technology, I am just talking about technical field having to consider such thing. and debate over it.. It might have value beyond the techonological qustion. using those as models of our target question in chess skill (set) learning. My objections to the LLM and understanding are not relevant here. (it implies meaning, which I doubt as attributed property in their castle, even attention, is jargon borrowed from other fields as shorthand word for their new tech. models, internal jargon now, losing original scientific meaining overlap at true external world common knowledge semantic level.
not our attention, not our relation between words and the word target factuals we want to communicate about, not that kind of "meaning". sorry. I need to be clear.. and that means rambling. One has to make mental restrictions when making analogies, not all analogies apply at same mechanistic depths of respective models constructions. sorry for crypitc. here. best concise and too compact version for now.
I seem to be impulsively raising questions that get adressed deeper in the text.. That is why it is more difficulty for me to digest lecture verus a discussion, I could have served as debater there and it would have been articultation.
the lecture communication missing the dialog and most importantly (and also about chess learning, while there).. The autonomous reader question engine interfering...
in some ways it is related to the topic. or where do blunders come from.. And I smell or induce that this is exactly what I find missing in a lot of chess existing learning theory (qui s'ignore en tant que tel), but also possibly in cognitive sciences. it might be time to start modeling inside the black box..
why I was a bit prudent about the initial conscoius-subconcsious dichotomy.. it has its approaching the questions value in the dicussion (the general abstract one, vague I know, but maybe accurate).
We have machine models of the statistical brains.. we can go beyond linguistic categories (which does not mean excluding them, it is about fruthering their plausibility and if need be, creating new concepts with appropriately differentiated words, we can even use analogies like LLM specialist came up with, as long as we are careful of context validity of jargon when dialoguing, whether lecture or not (my lecturing is dialog anyway).
ok. done.. for today. This article is not recent. it is not aware of the recent progress... in various fields. but I find it still very actual in the chess culture as far as I perceive it so far. (for the theories of learning I can see, in their applications, and cultural traces, like books).