@zwenna said in #1:
> without consulting an engine?
I didn't even look yet. Good question scheme. It could make a great template for interesting threads. If only we had a common board to verbal way to communicate other than encoding in strings of coordinates. (although nothing wrong with having that as reproducible data, supporting/illustrating the conversation arguments).
Well, we do have some. I think development might come in different shapes in each experience of both the board and how we talk about it. But we might all have the common sense that it is about increasing the activity of all our movable things (pieces and pawns), in a sustainably "increasing" potential of exerting the final restricting pressure. We start mostly equally cramped (all sliding pieces), and seek to reconfigure that one turn at a time, into a cramped opponent king before ours get the same.
But there are pawns obstacles, for most of the movers. Etc... the rest is history... Kidding. I just meant that development, being late per op introduction, is meaningful, and more informative than an opening name for me, and more informative about the issues of the proposed game, than just rephrasing the moves of the board by their SAN encoding. (and I don't just mean that because I am not fluent, but because I would also don't need that conversation, if having the real thing in a board to look at, so the conversation can be about more than recreating what I can check myself, without computing the string to board).
This is a compliment. Now, I am curious about what you meant while browsing that game, "de visu" and "de manu". thanks. This is a meaningful opening post. Enticing about the board. I now have a human talk scaffold to look at someones else's game I did not participate in. I might not get lost or attention skip or bored this time.
Whole thread seems like food for my study. actually. Thanks to the others as well.