Congrat section:
First congrats. I appreciate this alternative angle into opening popularity relative to the opening explorer.
I am assuming some uniform puzzle opportunity across games classified by opening classes -- whatever the nomenclature** chosen. Therefore the puzzle presence numbers in the display page (https://lichess.org/training/openings) should also give an idea about the game opening popularity (soft therefore).
This is great for me who does not have the time memory or ability (or appreciation) for memorizing long sequences, to keep exploring opening data by other means.
One of the limits of books like the opening explorer is the cramped space in general, e.g. for the name of the opening, and possible obligatory arbitrary choices that depend on the prefix of the game leading to the system (transposition of sort) position.
It maybe true for all transposition, this argument, but my curiosity is about system for the theory they might contain (real theory of the emergent kind, principles and ideas of geometric and temporal nature).
** nomenclature chosen: there seems to be one, and here is part of my congrats: the transposition into systems seems to be systematically accessible under each classes prefix. Pardon the jargon, i don't think there is established terminology for what i mean.
for op see next post
Actual feedback forum op:
anyway not done dealing with that. but here is my suggestion/request. As I am curious in a way about opening but not in the traditional way. I find puzzle by opening may be suited for those of us not liking long sequences to keep in store, without hunting exploration and quick charades or problem solving chunks.
However, I doubt that there is much opening signature left as game depth increases (if any position signature left: that could be good quiz, guess the opening of given middle-game position, or guess the set of openings). My argument besides chess "entropy" or long term fog, is that blunders may come from anywhere, and are the spark of the puzzle creation.
Also, maybe my assumption that the classification is made for all puzzle according to the game container opening designation by lichess, is wrong or missing something.
Have they been filtered by starting position depth? that is my question.
If not, could it be implemented for those wanting to explore tactical flavors that could be associable to opening designations (increasingly true for early puzzle start depth)? That is my suggestion/request.
I apologize if this is doubling someone else comments or requests or if already implemented. I did not see it. And I would not know how to find out without asking.
Also I may have made wrong assumptions, so as usual: feel free to correct.
This might serve as documentation of some sort too.
if there is already, links welcome.
for example i may be wrong about the difference in layout from the opening explorer. It may be the exact same choices of name made with some prefix priority rules for transposition, or per case decisions...
But i was thinking that such a flat display here would allow for more information to be extractible. like London system, I might collect al the numbers and prefix designations to get some sense of how widespread such position information is disseminated as reachable from earlier opening decisions (game depth shorter is earlier).
There is more room. maybe i should separate questions. or maybe this is not even making sense as a question because I am missing some piece of information (or some bolt in my head, but I can't do anything about that).
@dboing said in #2:
> However, I doubt that there is much opening signature left as game depth increases
As far as I know, the opening puzzles starting move is <= 20. After doing the puzzles for a few days, I am finding that the opening is highly recognizable if the starting move is around 10, fairly recognizable at 11-15, and not recognizable for me at 16-20. However, I do enjoy going back to move 1 of each puzzle and following the opening sequence. Very grateful for the addition of these opening puzzles!
Thanks for that so I just have to filter manually when working on opening angle
Glad to hear your depth scales
so maybe i should go github to find out the exact parameters guiding this puzzle by opening page.
and go back to the opening explorer part there, for how they chose priority of designation when encountering some transposition common to different prefix sequence with different upstream names.
To figure out if there are missing systems designations (system being my entry point in the world of openings, structuring my usually question driven method of learning and doing anything really).
I can get the list of names, but that won't tell me which sorry omissions had to be made. It is possible that systems have been spared, but how to make sure. I guess otherwise a name is worth another as it is not a content address with actual content hint.
while system might be, and so that would be loss of information to me.
gambits fianchettos and mobile unit class names (like King or Queen) might also be hints, what else?
but "system" seems to be looking at more of the board (if they share the static visible geometry that the colle system did, in my current view).
I also found some recent forum thread about this new region of lichess puzzle system. but still looking for more uptream (in content) links.
https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/puzzles-by-game-opening-with-variations
That last link has lots of suggestions and seems to be it.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.