Questions from a player stuck at 800-900 for over 4 years

Damn this game is tough

So many blunders.. But tried to think and take my time.
I did have reasons for what I did. Except for almost blundering my queen away in the heat of the moment.

@nizzledizzleshizzle said in #72:

Except for almost blundering my queen away in the heat of the moment.

Are you talking about taking a Rook around move 24? XD

When capturing 10.Bxa7, did you noticed b6 could trap your Bishop, if not for the placement of your Knight forking Black Queen and King?

@OctoPinky said in #73:

Are you talking about taking a Rook around move 24? XD

When capturing 10.Bxa7, did you noticed b6 could trap your Bishop, if not for the placement of your Knight forking Black Queen and King?

No. Move 33. Too fixated on getting a check. He could have taken my queen.

I do now. Fortunately he also messed up. But yeah.. on the bright side, on the other side I played on I almost gained 100 points. So it is get better. I just don't want to see so much red stuff.

@nizzledizzleshizzle said in #74:

I do now. Fortunately he also messed up. But yeah.. on the bright side, on the other side I played on I almost gained 100 points. So it is get better. I just don't want to see so much red stuff.

Try not getting panicked when checked. Here your opponent blundered their Queen but you played too fast 29.Kd2 instead of 29.hxg3, it happens a lot, not only to you:

@OctoPinky said in #75:

Try not getting panicked when checked. Here your opponent blundered their Queen but you played too fast. It happens a lot, not only to you:

That one was painful. Felt so good to keep going and fighting lol

If you want to play a game you can always invite me :)

@nizzledizzleshizzle said in #70:

I feel dumb reading you :) "invert the data dable from SAN to ideas, and more ideas to SAN, and the tree transversal traversals slices outlook"? What does that even mean?

Please don't feel that way.

Data table. Spreadsheet. instead of having the ideas as a function of the tree single path, have the paths as a function of the ideas. or vice versa. I can confuse myself as well, don't think your are alone in that. So it was not dable, although it could still make sense, would it not, so there was no reason to feel that way. So for each distinct path in the opneing decision tree, people assign idea sequences or "the" plan of some amount of first move, for example, for such amount of first moves known, we would call "the" sicilian, determines some "plan" or idea determined by that. I chose this one component name but that can be pushed to compounded "the" opening "name", and all ideas should be inherited from early moves along that path.

I think it is more economical to gather all the kitten ideas as function of position infomration, than which path was taken to get there. Is there not an inversion in there? I guess once we remind that the positoins information should be a good determinant of plans for the future of all its continuations, we won't need that analogy I tried to suggest. Also bad English at times, I got stuck in wrong sentence first phrase and intend meaning got stuff there: danger, danger of having new thoughts by reconstructing sentence, on top of new thoughts from previous thought being writtent. a real nightmare of writing.. (and it propagates to your reading, I am sorry).

I view the opening theory as more opening data. See it might make sense, if I had rambled some more.
Thanks for asking. I think it is maybe better to ramble after the question, than before, in expectation of not making sense, while I write. Did I clarify? (and add some more questions for you).

just forget the inversion of the data table. I just mean that the decision tree might not be the best thinking or learning trails to travel as knowledge with a depth first approach. we might need to look at all the games it might represented once played out at least once through every decision point (if we can accept that it can be stored in such a tree, why not accept the set of all the "games" it allows). Then one can use the knowledge not as a solo map to ones game instance, but knowledge about the board and all games that contributed to this summary of opening knowledge in the form of turncated game data.

that is what I meant. I really am unable to be concise and explanatory of an unusual new thing (I am not the only one, but that is deemed not even approachable in general, people love their toys when becoming part of the scenery for so long, the tree, so I have to contort my game set thinking to that, and proutch, that sentence, you noticed).

Tangible. Consider the wiki page about pawn structures. Its historical evolution reflect that which has happened in the history of books representing new chess theory evolving not in adding new critters of the board, but finding out that there are a lot of different opening names (which have genealogical single path dependency), to the same pawn structure, and set of compatible continuation ideas. Look at how the Soltis predecessor pawn structure to name multivalence set of names. Since the plans in that theory can be suggested from the pawn structures being called out as a system or set of exemplar pawn placements (not all placements being named pawn structures), then we have many paths in the tree federated under such restricted set of plans/ideas of future decision to make from that commonality among the many paths. So in other words something got inverted. the single path was not the monopolistic owner of the ideas usually meant to teach that opening line.

@dboing said in #77:

Instead of having the ideas as a function of the tree single path, have the paths as a function of the ideas.

I remember someone writing something like this: in any given position, ask yourself "if you could relocate three pieces or pawns for free, what would you do?" and then "is there a path to accomplish it?". Closely related: when in doubt, improve the position of your worst placed piece.

@OctoPinky said in #79:

I remember someone writing something like this: in any given position, ask yourself "if you could relocate three pieces or pawns for free, what would you do?" and then "is there a path to accomplish it?". Closely related: when in doubt, improve the position of your worst placed piece.

very good. I like that. This is how to populate your imagination at the plan logic level. compensating our limitations of calcuation from legal transitions being compounded turn by turn, with mutations of the board, that are not legal transitions yet.

induction after that with the local logic of the board to figure out how to tactically over some duration get to such more desirable goals. and as your imagination would be about your current level of chess knowledge, it would be likely about putative goals that you could handle yourself through. A moving target set of desirable mutations as one's learning improves.

I think such thinking can be promoted early. But while I am an expert of my current learning state, like more expanded learnersk, I might have lost sight of what it was really when I was starting.

I just know I have been craving for while, to think beyond turn by turn, and done my own imagination experiments... and that I think better teach such things as abstraction, generalization, and imagination from the beggining. it means more patience from the learner about their possible priority of win ratios.. (rating). or just beating people around them, king of mountain, etc...

But would not a long lasting clarity, of progress that is not bound to hit plateaus from premature imitation learning or blind ROT application, with no clue of how general it was exactly as a function of what anyone could look that is in their face, the positoin, ... (missing end of sentence!) be great?

sure, we don't see the same "things". but we do see things. what is the cost of giving the full relational take-home of the action rule and its positional information dependencies, some of them at least, teach to see them at the same time. small bits of possible harder pairs of things to be exposed the very first time. no more fake improvement. (from recipe learning, specialized, not generalizable to unseen positions).

PS: by the way to made yourself a an agreable generalization of what i was saying. or was it an implementation or a corroloary. anyway. it is a step further. And I realize that now it is related. I was in it. but they are relate. of course.