- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

The Axiom System - Part 4: Justification in Chess

#31

@Toscani said in #23:

Thank you for your comment, but I'm not sure that LLM summary of my article is very accurate :)

It seems that the second part of your response outlines a method for selecting a candidate move by combining computer evaluations with removing pieces from the board? I've never seen such an idea or 'technique' before, and it certainly seems interesting. However, it appears to be unrelated to the process of human evaluation discussed in my post, right? Not that that's a bad thing - I'm just trying to understand the connection.

@Toscani said in #23: > Thank you for your comment, but I'm not sure that LLM summary of my article is very accurate :) It seems that the second part of your response outlines a method for selecting a candidate move by combining computer evaluations with removing pieces from the board? I've never seen such an idea or 'technique' before, and it certainly seems interesting. However, it appears to be unrelated to the process of human evaluation discussed in my post, right? Not that that's a bad thing - I'm just trying to understand the connection.
#32

@sjcjoosten said in #25:

Thank you for your comment! You raise an interesting point by considering an 'extreme' position. It's indeed a good idea to try and limit test such premises to see if they still hold. That being said I don't see how even this extreme example proves any premise or conclusion false.

It is also clear that your conclusion 2 doesn't hold: we can use either principle and it doesn't matter which, as long as we stick to it (if we'd mix principles, I could be repeating moves). Conclusion 3 and 4 also do not hold, they are in direct conflict with the first premise.

I think what you're getting at is the fact that, regardless of which principle you choose to follow, the outcome will be the same (forced mate). I'm not sure that has anything to do with my argument, since the argument boils down to the idea of not having a system of principles to fall back on to determine what move to select out of a set of candidates. It just so happens that you've picked a position where almost every option leads to forced mate, but I still don't see how that implies that the principles have explicitly directed you to make a specific move. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding.

In any case, let's suppose for the sake of argument that in that particular position, the premises don't hold (again I don't currently see how that is the case) - I wouldn't consider this a critical issue. Clearly, that position is quite an 'artificial example', and most, if not all, of the purported utility of principles comes from their use in more complex, multifaceted positions, instead of theoretical endgames. In this case, I could simply add some 'nit-picky' qualifications to the premises to exclude such extreme cases, if we want to be pedantic.

But I envision that even in preparation of world championships, ideas in certain positions are formulated as principles: I imagine they'd be saying something like "If black ever plays Nf6, you want to look if you can transpose into one of the open lines, so that's why you keep the pawn tension." which would then be a principle that only really applies for the duration of five or six moves, and only because in the preparation for this particular game the player looked at certain "open lines".

In this specific example, I'd say something along the lines that that wouldn't be a general principle in the way that we typically think about principles (general, rational truths about the game that we can apply across a variety of positions). Rather it's more like a specific note about that specific opening line that serves as a tool to aid our memorization of the theory. It's just a more concise way of summarizing specific, 'known position' knowledge. In other words, it's like a short way of saying, if black plays Nf6 on move 6, we play dxe5, then if black plays Nf6 on move 7, we play dxe5 etc... Again, I wouldn't consider this a principle in the same sense of how it's generally discussed (as well as how I've been discussing it).

@sjcjoosten said in #25: Thank you for your comment! You raise an interesting point by considering an 'extreme' position. It's indeed a good idea to try and limit test such premises to see if they still hold. That being said I don't see how even this extreme example proves any premise or conclusion false. > It is also clear that your conclusion 2 doesn't hold: we can use either principle and it doesn't matter which, as long as we stick to it (if we'd mix principles, I could be repeating moves). Conclusion 3 and 4 also do not hold, they are in direct conflict with the first premise. > I think what you're getting at is the fact that, regardless of which principle you choose to follow, the outcome will be the same (forced mate). I'm not sure that has anything to do with my argument, since the argument boils down to the idea of not having a system of principles to fall back on to determine what move to select out of a set of candidates. It just so happens that you've picked a position where almost every option leads to forced mate, but I still don't see how that implies that the principles have explicitly directed you to make a specific move. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding. In any case, let's suppose for the sake of argument that in that particular position, the premises don't hold (again I don't currently see how that is the case) - I wouldn't consider this a critical issue. Clearly, that position is quite an 'artificial example', and most, if not all, of the purported utility of principles comes from their use in more complex, multifaceted positions, instead of theoretical endgames. In this case, I could simply add some 'nit-picky' qualifications to the premises to exclude such extreme cases, if we want to be pedantic. > But I envision that even in preparation of world championships, ideas in certain positions are formulated as principles: I imagine they'd be saying something like "If black ever plays Nf6, you want to look if you can transpose into one of the open lines, so that's why you keep the pawn tension." which would then be a principle that only really applies for the duration of five or six moves, and only because in the preparation for this particular game the player looked at certain "open lines". In this specific example, I'd say something along the lines that that wouldn't be a general principle in the way that we typically think about principles (general, rational truths about the game that we can apply across a variety of positions). Rather it's more like a specific note about that specific opening line that serves as a tool to aid our memorization of the theory. It's just a more concise way of summarizing specific, 'known position' knowledge. In other words, it's like a short way of saying, if black plays Nf6 on move 6, we play dxe5, then if black plays Nf6 on move 7, we play dxe5 etc... Again, I wouldn't consider this a principle in the same sense of how it's generally discussed (as well as how I've been discussing it).
#34

@RoySturgess said in #33:

Dear forum viewers, please don't mind Roy, he is still mourning the shutdown of the Oz chess forums...

@RoySturgess said in #33: > Dear forum viewers, please don't mind Roy, he is still mourning the shutdown of the Oz chess forums...
#35

@DailyInsanity said in #34:

Dear forum viewers, please don't mind Roy, he is still mourning the shutdown of the Oz chess forums...
That as maybe but in no way discounts my point! :)

@DailyInsanity said in #34: > Dear forum viewers, please don't mind Roy, he is still mourning the shutdown of the Oz chess forums... That as maybe but in no way discounts my point! :)
#36

@DailyInsanity said in #32:

Thank you for your comment!

Thank you for your reply, it is rare for me to be able to bounce ideas of a chess master!

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding.

So far so good

In any case, let's suppose for the sake of argument that in that particular position, the premises don't hold

Here there's perhaps a misunderstanding: I argued that for the two principles and the particular position, the premises do hold, just not all of the conclusions.

In this specific example, I'd say something along the lines that that wouldn't be a general principle in the way that we typically think about principles (general, rational truths about the game that we can apply across a variety of positions).

Here you've perhaps identified the source of our disagreement. By picking some set of principles and some set of positions (even if these are fairly large sets) you're able to argue that those principles aren't useful for picking a move in those positions. I would agree. My counter-point was that by picking some other set of principles (just two endgame strategies) and some other set of positions (just one) I could argue that the principles (those that I picked) are useful (yes, there are only three drawing moves in that position, but the point of the principles is not a single move but a sequence of moves). Your response then is that those weren't the principles and positions you were talking about. That's fair, but then how do you conclude that higher-level players can never justify moves, or should not ask 'why'?

Perhaps the conclusion of your reasoning (which I would agree with) is: you will need a larger vocabulary of principles as you become a better player. Those principles are then definitely not "general principles". What word would you use to describe "overly specific principles that only apply to a very select set of positions but still explain why a certain move should be played"?

@DailyInsanity said in #32: > Thank you for your comment! Thank you for your reply, it is rare for me to be able to bounce ideas of a chess master! > Correct me if I'm misunderstanding. So far so good > In any case, let's suppose for the sake of argument that in that particular position, the premises don't hold Here there's perhaps a misunderstanding: I argued that for the two principles and the particular position, the premises do hold, just not all of the conclusions. > In this specific example, I'd say something along the lines that that wouldn't be a general principle in the way that we typically think about principles (general, rational truths about the game that we can apply across a variety of positions). Here you've perhaps identified the source of our disagreement. By picking some set of principles and some set of positions (even if these are fairly large sets) you're able to argue that those principles aren't useful for picking a move in those positions. I would agree. My counter-point was that by picking some other set of principles (just two endgame strategies) and some other set of positions (just one) I could argue that the principles (those that I picked) are useful (yes, there are only three drawing moves in that position, but the point of the principles is not a single move but a sequence of moves). Your response then is that those weren't the principles and positions you were talking about. That's fair, but then how do you conclude that higher-level players can never justify moves, or should not ask 'why'? Perhaps the conclusion of your reasoning (which I would agree with) is: you will need a larger vocabulary of principles as you become a better player. Those principles are then definitely not "general principles". What word would you use to describe "overly specific principles that only apply to a very select set of positions but still explain why a certain move should be played"?
#37

moved to musing. for the rambling tolerant readers, pining to know what I might pop out.

moved to musing. for the rambling tolerant readers, pining to know what I might pop out.
#38
<Comment deleted by user>
#39

This part is different to the other parts. First difference I didn't read the whole part. Second I can mostly agree.

I don't know, if principals are made to evaluate moves. And therefore maybe the attack is on the wrong aim.

Either b4 nor a4 is a bad move. I think principals are more a guide line to find candidate moves.

And I don't think that it is a mistake to play b4. If I am a human, I will never be a computer.

But okay, enough with that.

I think I am agree at a high level.

It is crazy how obsessed people sometimes about principals.

And I read an article about scientists try to understand how our brain works and studying chess grandmasters and try to explain their results on playing chess. They said it is mostly like the quote of Capablanca: "I see only one move ahead, but it is always the correct one."

The better player are the more they have a kind of instinct for the correct move and just see the right move without any explanation. But what happend in the brain is that the brain recognize patterns. Patterns that most (if not all) players cannot put into words. That is maybe the problem with principals (or patterns, I don't know why scientists prefer that word). They are there, but it is not possible to translate them properly into spoken/written language. There will missed something by the translation.

Or they are similar to grammar rules according to the article. Just because you can speak a language, don't mean that you are able to write down the grammar rules. But it does help to know "He, she, it - the 's' must fit!" It would be much better to learn it as a native speaker by accident, but yeah maybe there is not the time to practice as much as a native child 24/7 surrounded by people speak almost correct most the time.

In chess that maybe could mean to play many games against good players and good engines and to analyze it. Or to watch many GM games. In some way our brain is made to do the rest by itself.

This part is different to the other parts. First difference I didn't read the whole part. Second I can mostly agree. I don't know, if principals are made to evaluate moves. And therefore maybe the attack is on the wrong aim. Either b4 nor a4 is a bad move. I think principals are more a guide line to find candidate moves. And I don't think that it is a mistake to play b4. If I am a human, I will never be a computer. But okay, enough with that. I think I am agree at a high level. It is crazy how obsessed people sometimes about principals. And I read an article about scientists try to understand how our brain works and studying chess grandmasters and try to explain their results on playing chess. They said it is mostly like the quote of Capablanca: "I see only one move ahead, but it is always the correct one." The better player are the more they have a kind of instinct for the correct move and just see the right move without any explanation. But what happend in the brain is that the brain recognize patterns. Patterns that most (if not all) players cannot put into words. That is maybe the problem with principals (or patterns, I don't know why scientists prefer that word). They are there, but it is not possible to translate them properly into spoken/written language. There will missed something by the translation. Or they are similar to grammar rules according to the article. Just because you can speak a language, don't mean that you are able to write down the grammar rules. But it does help to know "He, she, it - the 's' must fit!" It would be much better to learn it as a native speaker by accident, but yeah maybe there is not the time to practice as much as a native child 24/7 surrounded by people speak almost correct most the time. In chess that maybe could mean to play many games against good players and good engines and to analyze it. Or to watch many GM games. In some way our brain is made to do the rest by itself.
#40

I will have another bite at the cherry, hopefully at a less theoretical and more practical level. Surely, the intent of general principles is to increase the probability of good human moves and decrease the probability of bad human moves. To take an example or two, we should usually place our rooks on open files and our bishops on open diagonals. The rooks belong on open files. And we want a good bishop, not a bad bishop. There are reasons for such general rule(s) and they revolve around pawn structure and piece activity, to summarize it. The rooks control or hit more squares on the open file and the bishop on the open diagonal. There will be less probable counter examples but they do exist. As always, we then attempt to calculate the tactical results of each possible placement. Bobby Fischer said: "Tactics flow from position."

For beginners like me, it is good (I believe) to attempt to look for forcing moves first off; for the enemy (in case I need to defend) and then for me in case there is a winning combination immediately available (like in a puzzle). The standard rule or protocol is to look for checks, captures and threats in that order and then try to calculate if there is a forcing combination. Then the beginner (and others sometimes) need to make a blunder check, time limit permitting. Though we could call a blunder check a personal protocol and not a general rule.

Humans perceive, deliberate and calculate differently from computers. General rules or general principles are not strictly necessary for a very powerful computer chess program. The ultimate godlike chess program, if it were possible and super super fast, would need no general principles at all (not even to optimise search times). It would just tactically crunch every variation to ultimate conclusion, totally solving chess in the process. But humans, who are not super-super-calculators like this and not even super calculators like Stockfish, need general rules, sequence memory, positional memory, pattern recognition memory, motif recognition and so on. (Computer programs may use pattern libraries too. I am not expert in this.) General rules (highly sophisticated and extensive ones at GM level and often internalised perhaps not even in standard language like English or Russian) do exist and make sense for humans (I contend). I allude here to the issue that GMs probably play by general rules, as well as by advanced and accurate calculation, and that these rules may be in "Chessian" not English, not Russian, not French, not Mandarin etc. in the GMs head. What is "Chessian". Well I speculate it can be expressed in chess nomenclature and then translated into ordinary language (like math) but if a GM can think in it (somewhat subconsciously) then the GM will have trouble explaining it, even if he or she can do it.

Now this is an argument for general rules. And it is an argument that humans need them because of the way humans think. And especially beginners need them to get basically playable positions and to at least feel that they are beginning to understand chess, which can boost confidence and enjoyment. So in pure terms, to the perfect godlike calculator, general rules would be superfluous but to the human brain, as evolved and enculturated, they are necessary to some extent.

Yet, I view these theory essays by @DailyInsanity as very interesting exploratory essays in pure reason. These are "notes towards" a theory but not a full theory yet. I can understand the impulse to explore this. General rules seem to leave us high and dry very soon, especially people like me who are very poor calculators. Good calculation soon becomes indispensable in any game if you want to win. It is good to radically question the general principles "consensus" and we may find out how and why they can fail the player (including by cluttering the mind too much with "noise": a noise that is not in "Chessish" or "Chessian").

Finally, when using speculative pure reason for deductions (supported indeed by premises with some potential "truth warrant" as the philosophers term it) there will be a need to develop, if possible, testable hypotheses. To try new approaches out and see if they work. Overall, we cannot dispense with empirical research if we want to advance objective and practical knowledge.

A number of these ideas were touched on by writers above. I don't claim complete originality in all these thoughts.

I will have another bite at the cherry, hopefully at a less theoretical and more practical level. Surely, the intent of general principles is to increase the probability of good human moves and decrease the probability of bad human moves. To take an example or two, we should usually place our rooks on open files and our bishops on open diagonals. The rooks belong on open files. And we want a good bishop, not a bad bishop. There are reasons for such general rule(s) and they revolve around pawn structure and piece activity, to summarize it. The rooks control or hit more squares on the open file and the bishop on the open diagonal. There will be less probable counter examples but they do exist. As always, we then attempt to calculate the tactical results of each possible placement. Bobby Fischer said: "Tactics flow from position." For beginners like me, it is good (I believe) to attempt to look for forcing moves first off; for the enemy (in case I need to defend) and then for me in case there is a winning combination immediately available (like in a puzzle). The standard rule or protocol is to look for checks, captures and threats in that order and then try to calculate if there is a forcing combination. Then the beginner (and others sometimes) need to make a blunder check, time limit permitting. Though we could call a blunder check a personal protocol and not a general rule. Humans perceive, deliberate and calculate differently from computers. General rules or general principles are not strictly necessary for a very powerful computer chess program. The ultimate godlike chess program, if it were possible and super super fast, would need no general principles at all (not even to optimise search times). It would just tactically crunch every variation to ultimate conclusion, totally solving chess in the process. But humans, who are not super-super-calculators like this and not even super calculators like Stockfish, need general rules, sequence memory, positional memory, pattern recognition memory, motif recognition and so on. (Computer programs may use pattern libraries too. I am not expert in this.) General rules (highly sophisticated and extensive ones at GM level and often internalised perhaps not even in standard language like English or Russian) do exist and make sense for humans (I contend). I allude here to the issue that GMs probably play by general rules, as well as by advanced and accurate calculation, and that these rules may be in "Chessian" not English, not Russian, not French, not Mandarin etc. in the GMs head. What is "Chessian". Well I speculate it can be expressed in chess nomenclature and then translated into ordinary language (like math) but if a GM can think in it (somewhat subconsciously) then the GM will have trouble explaining it, even if he or she can do it. Now this is an argument for general rules. And it is an argument that humans need them because of the way humans think. And especially beginners need them to get basically playable positions and to at least feel that they are beginning to understand chess, which can boost confidence and enjoyment. So in pure terms, to the perfect godlike calculator, general rules would be superfluous but to the human brain, as evolved and enculturated, they are necessary to some extent. Yet, I view these theory essays by @DailyInsanity as very interesting exploratory essays in pure reason. These are "notes towards" a theory but not a full theory yet. I can understand the impulse to explore this. General rules seem to leave us high and dry very soon, especially people like me who are very poor calculators. Good calculation soon becomes indispensable in any game if you want to win. It is good to radically question the general principles "consensus" and we may find out how and why they can fail the player (including by cluttering the mind too much with "noise": a noise that is not in "Chessish" or "Chessian"). Finally, when using speculative pure reason for deductions (supported indeed by premises with some potential "truth warrant" as the philosophers term it) there will be a need to develop, if possible, testable hypotheses. To try new approaches out and see if they work. Overall, we cannot dispense with empirical research if we want to advance objective and practical knowledge. A number of these ideas were touched on by writers above. I don't claim complete originality in all these thoughts.