@DailyInsanity said in #79:
> Yep, that sounds like a better use of your time than the comments you've been leaving here
also on which topic should i post?
@ViAaNjS said in #78:
> (does it take this many days to create a blog post?)
Given the topic, and the need to let thoughts find their way, some problems, I think this might be, are more about what is not in the blog, the thinking. I don't think all the precautions taken before presenting the axioms, is about not having things to say or share, I view it as prudent, and maybe, since this is an open question in the non-existing science of chess, or is it learning of chess, or is it improving within some measure of player strength, or better yet, some skill set many dimensions (if somehow it could be conceived), but to be current practical or is it tangible, and to fix ideas, something like rating in some abstract pool (for the discussion not to derail into still open questions about rating systems maybe).
I think that digesting post blog discussions, as this seems to have been a part of the series intention; the clear exposition of not wanting to jump too fast, before enough people would get to show their interest but with some clarity as best as the author could drop as a blog into the lichessphere (as atmosphere), as a series, takes time.
Or might or should. I just hope that this will not be abandoned, in case this is what is behind your reminders of interest, I also think this not done.
I am not myself, working on this (completing my intended active and critical reading).
But I wanted to provide some support here, about this exercise in scope about a difficult to define (as it might have never been, in within a discussion and building context (more than one head invitation is my understanding), really well-defined (or I never found myself fitting in the assumptions I could induce or infer, or guess, but I think here, is a worthy attempt at reviewing for maybe the first time, previously not made explicit parts of improving theory assumptions (or simply learning for me, as possibly bigger scope of chess question).
I am not asking activity here. But I support the author keeping this in mind. And the other previous participants to keep some pilot flame for it. I don't think I am able myself to comment. But I will certainly try when some more material. I do still have some backlog reading and understanding about this (among other unrelated backlogs). However, I can say. I am still curious. About where this might go.
PS: some language correcting tool used. I do use, but a bit too much. So, "however" is some compromise here. Experiment. Does it still sound like me :) ?
Sorry, I said I would not think about this, but I am not the boss of me. Just having put my hands here before, has had some overnight echos, and some just popped up, thinking back about whether I did help express the core issues I have so far here.
And I think I found another aspect that is missing in more than one place (it also follow up a few discussions with @jomega, not directly about this, but in orbit of this (pertaining to the first blog initial video out link, but other discussions as well, from a recent teaching event of his, in the more general problem of learning to play chess (versus improving from a yet to be specified, I understand the prudence, but I think one could suggest what there single indvidiual experience of what they had in mind about improving from where to where, as for me, from the video, it seems to have some boundaries or I would have couter arguements if it were in the wider theory of learning problem). One person alone is not enough. So, it would not hurt here, for the authors, while still giving priority to many of us by keeping as general and consensu as possible. To come down to hypothesis land.
Declarative does not pop out from nowhere, despite de hush hush about where it might come from, like a education mathmetics omerta, driven by some declarative aesthetic. At many head construction level, one has to use more than one level of languge. because langugae sucks!
So, delivering that post mouse: The problem is of the improving domain defitinon effort (and that my lichess abstract reader friend, might not be what the Lobby has been implying hammering in my head for while now. Say OTB. from 2000 ELo to 2100 Elo?
nothing wrong with that. In fact if the author has some tangile experience there as learner already in the assumed domain of what improvement questino might be. I think maybe here more than blog unless blog with big header. saying Interlude. (does not have to be). Since I don't believe in spontaneous generation of decalartive (and I think neither does the author, although might feel obliged to solve all the issus by onesleve before making other blog, given the previous blog precaution. The initial precaution was a good effort in not narrowing in vain. It was making the 360 review of issues, that we would all, then be aware to be on the mind of the author, so that incoming declarative (itself having still a lot of room) whould not diverge in readership audience reception of the incoming axiom set which is a jump value in restriction amount. But author needed the minimal misunderstandding.
Mission accomplished I say. I find no issue at declarative reading of the axiom set. Jomega neither. So, I think we need the human now a bit. The fallible thoughts. The initial video why put it there? Is it your current hunch? Why not put it. and then we can discuss that. in light of what it seems we all agree on. You don't have to always be consensual. Many headds mean that we give each other room to err, as we are wise, and while coming from chess and its possibly social layer overcompetitive bias in how we fill in the blanks of language (which sucks! btw, if I did not yet mention), we find it cool to try to be humble where it counts for once (for me, it has been a conclusion for while, I am not humble, I have been humbled for good, and it is liiberating..).
Ai the above maybe. as complement reading. not as the source.
Did I deliver. oh no. the trunk. the popup missing, above is just reiteraction of what I find floating so far, nagging floating (the domain discussion in missing for the target question of axiom 1), And the meta level of the blog series with dicussion space.
But the cherry. was. The diagram and my own agreement with the novelty made explicit for this theory building work. (do you agree that you want us to help, or do you want to be the sole creator in this? through blog delivery, I assume not, but explicit is bliss, big internet and all).
The idea in our language and construct to make an explcit difference between seeing board things (for me commen sensory verifiable things of board that can be defined with words and minial number of examples, and minimal prior knowledge internalized)
And evaluation.. Jomega and was it RyanVelez blog on pins does that. jomega in the extensive digestions and rationalization of a big corpus of chess literature, densely networked, allowing many angles of approach, preferable accompanied. I recently realized that in his study of features determined by pawns for example. There was a systematic vertical annotation (cramped, recently enforced even more so by lichess) space. From defintion to "consideration".
And this is where my popup arise. Duh! we have a triple of pattern or theme characters to worry about. and it does dive into the crux of what I consider missing, well, what I think chess teaching dogma (it does not know being so, as there is only one), by examples from real games only (and worse buried in full games, but that is just me adding more criticism, as it bugs me as hell).
The word "practical" might be another word for it. As in theoretical endgame versus practical endgame. That meaning of practical.
It would be better to use the spelled out version. to libreate the word practical back to natural language outside chess culture converage to that meaning. (even if not a chess official term of art, it may have acquired the same qualities. chess is such a wondferful microcosm, that reduces so many floating variables that other complex systems, i am now thinking of have, like the human sphere, the internet, the worlds of ideas or beliefs, certitude dynamics ect.. and... words!).
The probability of visiting a position in ones future remaining life tim games? That is my first salvo..
but it is related to how we make a theory of learning, when we talk to each other (which we have not actually done ever it seem, but this blog series is offering an opportunity, but I am not, the one to set the domain, just to point that it is currecnlty missing loudly).
The collaborative or debating construction of the domain in improvement toward a definition restriction (I am thinking in the same lingo that axioms might come from, here). is linked to what we consider the possible world of position that might be sample in some next game which is bigger that the accumulated singe individual chess board visit total experience. Which is already made salient somwhere in the blog as something to consider. The generalization target domain is missing. my point, not just the improvemnt from performance measure, but performance over what possible new set of positions that the next random paring game from some to be defined pool type. and are we talking about some specific tournament and maybe era of chess history?
So. that fog there from the chess culure, not being spelled out ever, by common sense magics, but it ain't common, if the questino is about learning. If it is common, then the domain is not including where I come from, in chess walk of life.
ok. i think done.
so
1) common sensory definable seeing (once at least already learned as isolated thing).
2) evaluation: big chess learning evolution of value of what we can all see but is it single-game forsight thought energy and time worth to use or target as plan goal
and the missing
0) which position context? I mean it is everywhere for me, the elephant that contains the elephant that we talk about.
History, human life timescale, which records. Which explicit database(s) of positions are we talking about, when we talk about a "practical" position. The next such and such federation tournament event? Rhetorical that last one, and not for cleavage, though, as it might be one possibility, but this discussion here being more abstract, I think time to try things, that even if it excludes my meaning of the learning problem, at least I could work with, having all the assumptions that matter (it is my claim that is does), on the table for many head discussion.
This post is the TLDR version of the previous post.
Jack, I'm still not seeing this article or the one before it on your website. I see parts 1 and 2 of this series, but not 3 and 4. Would suggest having such article uploading to your website be on your to-do list.
@chessTraian said in #85:
>
yes. me too. I find it better navigation there. if following the same chunking (or better) as in existing cases. My kind of active (and slow if even ever through), parsing, digesting, chewing, and going back and forth, pause, .., hmm, what if.. and then again rinse and repeat. No really. I liked it. maybe both as I do like or am used to Lichess discussion space. and abliitie to link within acorss posts.
But for lecturing part. Having some interactive map, gives me some flexibility, and control somehow over my attention dynamics, as I can always, as in touch typing. count of the top map, if I lose whereabouts in the Forrest of characters (strings). There might be others like that. Maybe not all material benefits, that. If not too much work, I would also find it nice to have that option.
I think the general principle that seems now to be in chess culture, is that there is something about invovling motor control mind events, even mousing is about that. I would say. And inert text, while the subject is not a novel with familar characters doing reasonable things, we already have each of us an internal model likely similar from author to reader (and btw. chat bot not there yet), within a novel stream for example. Where one can have a shapeless wall of text, and it would not be cognitive load, in need of backtracking to self-check if the dense chunk of sting segments earlier was logically tighly well incorporated in the working memory slots necessary for proper processing (something like that).
Did I reamble in vain. I just think, is so important for me, and appearently so optional is chess materials and default assumptions at time, that maybe injecting some rational about being not that capicrious.. might help this kind of concern not be out of oridnary forever.
Also our dear blog authors, did mention similar awareness about communication strategies when stuck with written verbal language. (not that a video of someone gong verbal would change anything, the problem for me is the stringification of thoughts, it needs work around for real full worl (or chessboard) effective communication, and verifiablility efficiency, with some disucssion chunks (in my case, and deal might seal even faster, and if lecture was already workd aroud it might make the discussion even more informative, but I would not count on me to demonstrate, I might always have lecture wihout Q and A embedding, a difficulty. But we all try.
edit: about the sound versus written things. It is still a stream problem. However, I now am sure or pretty sure of the appeal of such voiced visuals streams. over book streams mixing informative text chunks along some board based specific examples, with all bells and whistles. few boards, heavey eye gaze for parsing text, while mind'eye, somehow would need the eye gaze subsconscious control for imaginatino if that is what the text is trying to evoke, frm authors imaginatino to reader imagination. ok. I am perhaps wrong but this is how I perceive my difficutly with board and having to read text about the board. And I think that videos, at least free the visual control of that eye gaze to be board driven. If some of us have face motion attention distracting problems, well, that is on us I guess. Also. not interactive at all. The books can be. with good TOC. although that seems lost of some traditions, and why just list the games if that is the book structure (sorry for caricature, and ignorance of enough counter examples).
@chessTraian said in #85:
> Jack, I'm still not seeing this article or the one before it on your website. I see parts 1 and 2 of this series, but not 3 and 4. Would suggest having such article uploading to your website be on your to-do list.
True - thank you for the reminder. I know some people prefer reading there/with that format so I'll try to get around to posting there too.
Here's something better do to instead of analyzing comments I found
C-Checks
C-Captures
T-Threats
P-Pawn Breaks
go and solve some puzzles everybody!
ps:i'm not making a blogpost to solve some puzzles(i'm just lazy, Daily Insanity, i finally feel you. take your time)
I can't read my post a few days later. I know what I wanted to say, but now I can read as if I did not, and it really hurts.
Intriguing-looking Chessable course on positional chess: https://www.chessable.com/the-positional-chess-patterns-manual/course/243952/