Oh great, now I'm thinking of that Lost In Space (with Dr Smith as a stalk of celery).
Ta bien
How about some psychological principles.
*Find a good move, look for a better one.
*Don't move until you see it. Calculation beats intuition if there's time.
*Use your time, don't move fast just because your opponent is.
*Look for forced moves, you may have a winning position.
*Blunders, other than slips, are based on false assumptions, which you know better than.
*Attack and defend when the position calls for it. Don't just Attack or just defend.
*Play the board, not the person. Assume they will see through your trick.
*Imbalances inform plans. Plans create moves.
*Visualize where you want your pieces to be and then see if you can get them there.
*Sit on your hand when thinking, or you may just move.
*Don't give up, you might be embarrassed when you analyze with engine.
*Drink coffee.
*Find a good move, look for a better one.
*Don't move until you see it. Calculation beats intuition if there's time.
*Use your time, don't move fast just because your opponent is.
*Look for forced moves, you may have a winning position.
*Blunders, other than slips, are based on false assumptions, which you know better than.
*Attack and defend when the position calls for it. Don't just Attack or just defend.
*Play the board, not the person. Assume they will see through your trick.
*Imbalances inform plans. Plans create moves.
*Visualize where you want your pieces to be and then see if you can get them there.
*Sit on your hand when thinking, or you may just move.
*Don't give up, you might be embarrassed when you analyze with engine.
*Drink coffee.
Read a chess book and memorise as many openings as possible. Early game is fixed, there are just perfect plays or there is a disadvantage.
Once you stop the disadvantage then time to play chess. Till that point, get a good memory.
Once you stop the disadvantage then time to play chess. Till that point, get a good memory.
*If you see mate in one, look for better.
*Never play f3.
*Anyone higher rated than you is a sweaty tryhard with no life.
*Anyone lower rated than you is a weakie.
*Don't listen to weakies.
*Resign when you're lost.
*Never resign.
*Learn gambit.
*Master tempo.
*Never play f3.
*Anyone higher rated than you is a sweaty tryhard with no life.
*Anyone lower rated than you is a weakie.
*Don't listen to weakies.
*Resign when you're lost.
*Never resign.
*Learn gambit.
*Master tempo.
The op list are orphaned principles. They are missing the context where they are valid or where expected to be at the time of their adoption by chess theory or community.
It is actually a fun activity** to take each and every one of them and discuss where they apply, and find out where they stop applying. and discuss why (besides the minimalist SAN proof by example).
All sorts of understanding about chess and the complexity of the relationship between move selection guiding statement (half of a principle) and the current position information (material count, and the rest: where are the empty squares, where is the material). Things like position characterisitcs, features that can be defined for all positions. There are objective ways of telling the presence of such in a given position. In a crude perspective, people have been looking for yes/jno presence or absence. but it does not have to be that way. only those feature that are most striking in a position as there or not, are likely to have some of the type of rule the op gave as consequence.
Those things either discrete or with degrees (perhaps even counting accessible squares for a bishop), are independent of the "principle" like "no queen early" which is an action guideline, not an evaluation of the position. However, retracing the history of that teaching advice, when it was held with almost certain confidence, one could actually map the position context where it would be valid, identifying the underlying characteristics that are present that make it valid advice for move selection. But it also can lead to finding out why they are not valid anymore in other positions, rather than just stating the counter-example SAN, one can find arguments that minimize the amount of faith necessary for getting convinced, using own logic.
autonomous reasoning, is what i call it. even the "principles" need to be justified.... down to something everyone can see on the board configuration.
There are now 2 versions of Dr. Smith (different gender, similar social behavior).
Edit: **. It requires that some experienced enough player participate by providing at least counter-examples, caveats or exceptions. BTW, for me exceptions are just positions outside the region where the thing being excepted is valid. Once one finds positional arguments explaining the exception, other exceptions can be found with same arguments, until those arguments also find more boundaries. The ultimate question to the universe being not what is the question that gives 42 as an answer, but how tiny those (nested?) argument regions might get....
It is actually a fun activity** to take each and every one of them and discuss where they apply, and find out where they stop applying. and discuss why (besides the minimalist SAN proof by example).
All sorts of understanding about chess and the complexity of the relationship between move selection guiding statement (half of a principle) and the current position information (material count, and the rest: where are the empty squares, where is the material). Things like position characterisitcs, features that can be defined for all positions. There are objective ways of telling the presence of such in a given position. In a crude perspective, people have been looking for yes/jno presence or absence. but it does not have to be that way. only those feature that are most striking in a position as there or not, are likely to have some of the type of rule the op gave as consequence.
Those things either discrete or with degrees (perhaps even counting accessible squares for a bishop), are independent of the "principle" like "no queen early" which is an action guideline, not an evaluation of the position. However, retracing the history of that teaching advice, when it was held with almost certain confidence, one could actually map the position context where it would be valid, identifying the underlying characteristics that are present that make it valid advice for move selection. But it also can lead to finding out why they are not valid anymore in other positions, rather than just stating the counter-example SAN, one can find arguments that minimize the amount of faith necessary for getting convinced, using own logic.
autonomous reasoning, is what i call it. even the "principles" need to be justified.... down to something everyone can see on the board configuration.
There are now 2 versions of Dr. Smith (different gender, similar social behavior).
Edit: **. It requires that some experienced enough player participate by providing at least counter-examples, caveats or exceptions. BTW, for me exceptions are just positions outside the region where the thing being excepted is valid. Once one finds positional arguments explaining the exception, other exceptions can be found with same arguments, until those arguments also find more boundaries. The ultimate question to the universe being not what is the question that gives 42 as an answer, but how tiny those (nested?) argument regions might get....
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.