- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Do not capture that pawn!

#31
<Comment deleted by user>
#32

The same sort of positions arise in the Caro Kann and also when playing against the London. Most of the time you get f'ed when you take that pawn :D

The same sort of positions arise in the Caro Kann and also when playing against the London. Most of the time you get f'ed when you take that pawn :D
#33

pawns are just future queens, so maybe I should capture it ;)

pawns are just future queens, so maybe I should capture it ;)
#34

so still no examples of when it might work. I can't invent the knowledge from before Colle was in its novelty period.

  1. Is my memory of the idea of QB staying put to protect b2 pawn in the placement idea for what early mid-opening sub-phase**, actually part of the set of ideas commented by anyone at the time? (don't ask me when, I don't retain that well, either, current guess is 1920s?).

  2. Is my reasoning if 1) is true, it was indeed an idea or at least a mnemonic of the early placement plan as a system, then is my inucing there might have been historical precedents of "mainlines" if that rings more bells, or other board ideas perhaps as historical principles of the time. Maybe something about center. I am not kidding. We can learn a lot about history if we accept human limitations, and patzer abilility to reason, even wihtout experience, if given the commonly visible parts of the reasoning. Also, if we do not over-revere the context dependent "principles" enonciated then. This does not mean dismissing that baby with bathwater, but include more informatnio into the theory or the "principles" so they might be like "theorems" without using that scary word.

Help, anyone able to answer? I guess some historical knowledge about position context of the times, and previous waves of novelty method of high-level tournament chess exploration (if they were not too obsessed by winning, or have some cavern me-time between tournaments of illustrious recording, which allows exploration AND wining on record).

** I am still struggling with some chess notions, but I like the fog of it, until I find a good board argument to lift it, but being an adult, I am revisiting my assumptions on the board quite often, including what I previously accepted without enough board logic to it.

Anecdote: if not cause for deletion.
Actually, I was annoying as a kid too, but I was indulged by my parents, they thought it would pass, I guess. My father had put a lower bound at 12 years old for my first exposure, and only as a weekly thing during hockey night on TV. That was long ago, and guess what no opening shenanigans, it was pure chess (although in hindsight i can name because of the first plies, max 4, mostly open game, I guess, not overloading my call stack with unconsumed threat piling up, I did that on my own later with the French, also defined by only 4 plies, and then I was not lazy).

I wonder if a chess teacher would have succeeded in me becoming suddenly procedural as it seems the tradition might be (coaching might modulate that theory of teaching, I noticed a difference between written things in chess, and live voice discussion, not really videos, as the narrator is still the boss, so no annoying interruptions by guess who. I tried, the talking heads never notice, and they keep going. I think I was already very procedurally retarded. Somehow, there are ways to survive that initial condition. Enough beating around the bush will end up with the same result, and lots of extra information in something were to happen in the sequential procedure, knowing the terrain would offer flexibility (theory in hindsight, but also winking at chess).

This is a 2 part post. first part is actually a question as chess learner. The second part is my editorial or interlude I generously share.

Techinical note: Theorem and quantity of board arguments. Maybe one needs some kind of probabilitic versions of logic. So that we can have more board logic argument behind an advice in form of action rule. Maybe as we grow our internal model of that external chess board with some opponent attached responses when we toy with it, we get to ask more annoying questions to anyonoe or our own autonomous play if no one is there to have fun that way.

so still no examples of when it might work. I can't invent the knowledge from before Colle was in its novelty period. 1) Is my memory of the idea of QB staying put to protect b2 pawn in the placement idea for what early mid-opening sub-phase**, actually part of the set of ideas commented by anyone at the time? (don't ask me when, I don't retain that well, either, current guess is 1920s?). 2) Is my reasoning if 1) is true, it was indeed an idea or at least a mnemonic of the early placement plan as a system, then is my inucing there might have been historical precedents of "mainlines" if that rings more bells, or other board ideas perhaps as historical principles of the time. Maybe something about center. I am not kidding. We can learn a lot about history if we accept human limitations, and patzer abilility to reason, even wihtout experience, if given the commonly visible parts of the reasoning. Also, if we do not over-revere the context dependent "principles" enonciated then. This does not mean dismissing that baby with bathwater, but include more informatnio into the theory or the "principles" so they might be like "theorems" without using that scary word. Help, anyone able to answer? I guess some historical knowledge about position context of the times, and previous waves of novelty method of high-level tournament chess exploration (if they were not too obsessed by winning, or have some cavern me-time between tournaments of illustrious recording, which allows exploration AND wining on record). ** I am still struggling with some chess notions, but I like the fog of it, until I find a good board argument to lift it, but being an adult, I am revisiting my assumptions on the board quite often, including what I previously accepted without enough board logic to it. Anecdote: if not cause for deletion. Actually, I was annoying as a kid too, but I was indulged by my parents, they thought it would pass, I guess. My father had put a lower bound at 12 years old for my first exposure, and only as a weekly thing during hockey night on TV. That was long ago, and guess what no opening shenanigans, it was pure chess (although in hindsight i can name because of the first plies, max 4, mostly open game, I guess, not overloading my call stack with unconsumed threat piling up, I did that on my own later with the French, also defined by only 4 plies, and then I was not lazy). I wonder if a chess teacher would have succeeded in me becoming suddenly procedural as it seems the tradition might be (coaching might modulate that theory of teaching, I noticed a difference between written things in chess, and live voice discussion, not really videos, as the narrator is still the boss, so no annoying interruptions by guess who. I tried, the talking heads never notice, and they keep going. I think I was already very procedurally retarded. Somehow, there are ways to survive that initial condition. Enough beating around the bush will end up with the same result, and lots of extra information in something were to happen in the sequential procedure, knowing the terrain would offer flexibility (theory in hindsight, but also winking at chess). This is a 2 part post. first part is actually a question as chess learner. The second part is my editorial or interlude I generously share. Techinical note: Theorem and quantity of board arguments. Maybe one needs some kind of probabilitic versions of logic. So that we can have more board logic argument behind an advice in form of action rule. Maybe as we grow our internal model of that external chess board with some opponent attached responses when we toy with it, we get to ask more annoying questions to anyonoe or our own autonomous play if no one is there to have fun that way.
#35

The black player is the squirrel stuffing nuts, unwittingly walking into a snare that will kill them.

The black player is the squirrel stuffing nuts, unwittingly walking into a snare that will kill them.
#36

I used this tactic yesterday! (since i learned it the day before lol)
I saw my opponent take the pawn and i was like: omg, i saw this one yesterday! :D
i was so impressed (and so was he lol) when I trapped his queen
Thanks!

I used this tactic yesterday! (since i learned it the day before lol) I saw my opponent take the pawn and i was like: omg, i saw this one yesterday! :D i was so impressed (and so was he lol) when I trapped his queen Thanks!