- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

The Axiom System - Part 4: Justification in Chess

#111

This just in from DailyInsanity in response to my sharing with him one of the Pawn Structures guides on simplifychess.com: it may not be helpful for beginners, but intermediate players COULD benefit in terms of positional skill from playing through some of the examples, then playing games to see the principles in action. (Personally, I think the Pawn Structures guides there are a bit situation-specific, therefore I prefer as a starting point studying the pawn structures guide on the YT channel Pegasus Chess at https://youtu.be/74D0PCKYfqU?si=zuHnERzas-m108uz)

This just in from DailyInsanity in response to my sharing with him one of the Pawn Structures guides on simplifychess.com: it may not be helpful for beginners, but intermediate players COULD benefit in terms of positional skill from playing through some of the examples, then playing games to see the principles in action. (Personally, I think the Pawn Structures guides there are a bit situation-specific, therefore I prefer as a starting point studying the pawn structures guide on the YT channel Pegasus Chess at https://youtu.be/74D0PCKYfqU?si=zuHnERzas-m108uz)
#112

@ViAaNjS said in #104:

its been a year since part 4, wow. @DailyInsanity sorry to say but step up your pace :D
NOW it’s been a full year. At this point, I get the feeling that no one will ever outdo the way Dr. Can breaks down positional chess/chess strategy (that is, explaining how to enliven your own pieces while shutting down your opponent’s, according to the spatial and structural strengths and weaknesses of both White’s and Black’s armies/territories (taking into account any tactics that can be calculated within, say, 3-ply)).

@ViAaNjS said in #104: > its been a year since part 4, wow. @DailyInsanity sorry to say but step up your pace :D NOW it’s been a full year. At this point, I get the feeling that no one will ever outdo the way Dr. Can breaks down positional chess/chess strategy (that is, explaining how to enliven your own pieces while shutting down your opponent’s, according to the spatial and structural strengths and weaknesses of both White’s and Black’s armies/territories (taking into account any tactics that can be calculated within, say, 3-ply)).
#113

@chessTraian said in #112:

NOW it’s been a full year. At this point, I get the feeling that no one will ever outdo the way Dr. Can breaks down positional chess/chess strategy (that is, explaining how to enliven your own pieces while shutting down your opponent’s, according to the spatial and structural strengths and weaknesses of both White’s and Black’s armies/territories (taking into account any tactics that can be calculated within, say, 3-ply)).

I might agree but andras toth comes close but jsut not there (yet)

@chessTraian said in #112: > NOW it’s been a full year. At this point, I get the feeling that no one will ever outdo the way Dr. Can breaks down positional chess/chess strategy (that is, explaining how to enliven your own pieces while shutting down your opponent’s, according to the spatial and structural strengths and weaknesses of both White’s and Black’s armies/territories (taking into account any tactics that can be calculated within, say, 3-ply)). I might agree but andras toth comes close but jsut not there (yet)
#114

@chessTraian said in #111:

Yes true, but with the important caveat that this would be done with the idea of improving one's intuition/'feeling' in such positions, as opposed to acquiring knowledge/explanations which would then be used to deduce the correct moves in one's own games (which, as I argue in this post, is not possible).

I do thank you guys for continuing to post your thoughts here :) I will have some free time coming up soon, and so I hope to be active on lichess again.

@chessTraian said in #111: > Yes true, but with the important caveat that this would be done with the idea of improving one's intuition/'feeling' in such positions, as opposed to acquiring knowledge/explanations which would then be used to deduce the correct moves in one's own games (which, as I argue in this post, is not possible). I do thank you guys for continuing to post your thoughts here :) I will have some free time coming up soon, and so I hope to be active on lichess again.
#115

@DailyInsanity said in #114:

Yes true, but with the important caveat that this would be done with the idea of improving one's intuition/'feeling' in such positions, as opposed to acquiring knowledge/explanations which would then be used to deduce the correct moves in one's own games (which, as I argue in this post, is not possible).

I do thank you guys for continuing to post your thoughts here :) I will have some free time coming up soon, and so I hope to be active on lichess again.

What about knowledge regarding philosophy of chess physics? Based on the subject "philosophy of physics" (https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-philosophy-of-physics-when-you-can-do-physics-itself).

@DailyInsanity said in #114: > Yes true, but with the important caveat that this would be done with the idea of improving one's intuition/'feeling' in such positions, as opposed to acquiring knowledge/explanations which would then be used to deduce the correct moves in one's own games (which, as I argue in this post, is not possible). > > I do thank you guys for continuing to post your thoughts here :) I will have some free time coming up soon, and so I hope to be active on lichess again. What about knowledge regarding philosophy of chess physics? Based on the subject "philosophy of physics" (https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-philosophy-of-physics-when-you-can-do-physics-itself).
#116

Philosophy can be had while trying to build the theories. It may not be conscious of the target question, but it might be part of the method. I know, being vague. But even in the blog of this thread (or one of the series) some elements of philosophical nature were proposed in order to motivate fruther presentation. Of which I was actually critical, like "who wants to do science of chess". But now I understand it meant the science of only the non-human part of chess the board, without the human variables on each side of it and their internal representation being in perpetual learning (until they run out of brain space)... Well that would be my agreable interpretation.

An observer science of chess with only the board, and perhaps perfect chess as the target question?

maybe philosophy is about defining the questions first. not imposing but discussing it.

Philosophy can be had while trying to build the theories. It may not be conscious of the target question, but it might be part of the method. I know, being vague. But even in the blog of this thread (or one of the series) some elements of philosophical nature were proposed in order to motivate fruther presentation. Of which I was actually critical, like "who wants to do science of chess". But now I understand it meant the science of only the non-human part of chess the board, without the human variables on each side of it and their internal representation being in perpetual learning (until they run out of brain space)... Well that would be my agreable interpretation. An observer science of chess with only the board, and perhaps perfect chess as the target question? maybe philosophy is about defining the questions first. not imposing but discussing it.
#117

@chessTraian said in #115:

What about knowledge regarding philosophy of chess physics? Based on the subject "philosophy of physics" (aeon.co/essays/why-do-philosophy-of-physics-when-you-can-do-physics-itself).

thanks for this reading suggestion.

@chessTraian said in #115: > What about knowledge regarding philosophy of chess physics? Based on the subject "philosophy of physics" (aeon.co/essays/why-do-philosophy-of-physics-when-you-can-do-physics-itself). thanks for this reading suggestion.
#118

Just for the sake of messing around with speculations just for fun, here's a couple more titles that sound like they might find bridges between chess strategy and more concrete subjects: "The Grand Tactics of Chess: An Exposition of the Laws and Principles of Chess Strategetics, the Practical Application of These Laws and Principles to the Movement of Forces: Mobilization, Development, Maneuver and Operation" and "Corridors (THE Geometry, Physics And Mathematics Of Chess) Vol 1: (THE Geometry, Physics And Mathematics Of Chess) Vol 1".

Just for the sake of messing around with speculations just for fun, here's a couple more titles that sound like they might find bridges between chess strategy and more concrete subjects: "The Grand Tactics of Chess: An Exposition of the Laws and Principles of Chess Strategetics, the Practical Application of These Laws and Principles to the Movement of Forces: Mobilization, Development, Maneuver and Operation" and "Corridors (THE Geometry, Physics And Mathematics Of Chess) Vol 1: (THE Geometry, Physics And Mathematics Of Chess) Vol 1".
#119

Franklin Young Loyds has been accused of flowery (floury?) language style. I do like the attempt to use logistics to devise graphical theory, but it felt heavy on the amount of definitions compared to purpose.

I did actually buy electronic versions as I got serious about chess (as much as I could) 5 years ago. Serious meaning touching something chess mostly everyday, not competition or performance, but pure curiosity, and understanding the "mechanics" of it, in my own ways, not excluding existing culture.

However, this is an early attempt at formalizing chess not only from the ruleset but from the experienced "higher" levels lessons we might develop above the microscopic known turn by turn ruleset.

It might also suffer from being a single mind construct without a big enough many-heads discussion context, but that might be chess culture side-effects.

The single mind omnipotence illusion. But I value his generous drawing means of communication, a scarce thing in chess books. Best would be not using inert books or inexorable streams of discourse.

Franklin Young Loyds has been accused of flowery (floury?) language style. I do like the attempt to use logistics to devise graphical theory, but it felt heavy on the amount of definitions compared to purpose. I did actually buy electronic versions as I got serious about chess (as much as I could) 5 years ago. Serious meaning touching something chess mostly everyday, not competition or performance, but pure curiosity, and understanding the "mechanics" of it, in my own ways, not excluding existing culture. However, this is an early attempt at formalizing chess not only from the ruleset but from the experienced "higher" levels lessons we might develop above the microscopic known turn by turn ruleset. It might also suffer from being a single mind construct without a big enough many-heads discussion context, but that might be chess culture side-effects. The single mind omnipotence illusion. But I value his generous drawing means of communication, a scarce thing in chess books. Best would be not using inert books or inexorable streams of discourse.
#120

Hello. Any update on the rest of the 6 articles or so? I just re-read this series after reading about Silman's imbalances and safe to say, I agree. So, for the 'seeing' skill, I've been doing woodpecker. After a while, you really do see the same motifs in games, barring time pressure (where my blitz games go to die).

It's the evaluation skill I want to see being written about, with the disregard for principles-as-justification method. How is that possible, assuming there are no tactics in the position? As for determining if it's likely that there are no tactics in a position, I follow NM Neiman's (not that Neimann) 'chess tactics antenna' idea, which for me, fits this series well, given how concrete it is. Looking forward to it.

Hello. Any update on the rest of the 6 articles or so? I just re-read this series after reading about Silman's imbalances and safe to say, I agree. So, for the 'seeing' skill, I've been doing woodpecker. After a while, you really do see the same motifs in games, barring time pressure (where my blitz games go to die). It's the evaluation skill I want to see being written about, with the disregard for principles-as-justification method. How is that possible, assuming there are no tactics in the position? As for determining if it's likely that there are no tactics in a position, I follow NM Neiman's (not that Neimann) 'chess tactics antenna' idea, which for me, fits this series well, given how concrete it is. Looking forward to it.