Crazyhouse will teach you about the importance of king safety.
Atomic can probably teach you about keeping opponent's pieces at a distance.
Horde will teach you when and how to make proper sacrifices.
King of the Hill prioritizes control of the center, which may or may not help in Standard.
Antichess won't teach you anything. Shogi will mess up your pawn structures.
"please try not to be too general if possible"
:D
#12 please explain.
Edit: in any case, I was trying to avoid vague correlations. Suggesting to use abstract components and then linking them. I mean try to be specific. abstraction does not mean vague. if right on the nail, it can allow handles for non-divine source communication, among curious dialoguers. Are you saying this is a hopeless task. I think, the post above yours is in the right direction. Sorry if experience has dulled your curiosity, and ruined your hopes, if that is the case (hoping i misunderstood). See what cryptic posts can do to the reader? ;)
Such things are always "too general" (that's precisely what's wrong with them).
@MrPushwood Nice to meet you
I wanted to know you became a NM
I really want to know because my target is to become one @MrPushwood
me too!
Synergy = Rationales + Argumentales
#17. I am forced to try to make sense of that concise post.
Is it cryptic because concise? Yesterday, it felt like it. I slept.
so ..... hmm ..... computing .... pondering .... dreaming? ..... : cat-shink, dingueling: exactement!
The proof is in the threads. There is the self-centered interpretation of my question (and that other thread), but clearly, my instinct is about real theoretical constructions, and in standard that is called chess theory (not talking about opening cartography, or inventory). It has no absolute referential system. For some, worn out* seasoned players it is only a self-fulfilling set of words, too general to be useful (for the individual practice, implied, also: for them, implied, but extrapolated to any non-seasoned individual).
But, stepping above the rule-sets, perhaps there could be a debate framework in the contrast between rule-sets, one "mutation" at time (but it could be chunk mutations of the rule set). This has been tried somewhat if I recall with alpha-zero in mind. But, why not use human experience to test which chunks of chess theory come from which chunk of each rule set....
*: about any theoretical construction, not about chess playing... don't get me wrong. Not throwing mud here.
désabusé(e)(s), disillusioned, blasé(e)(s)?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.