Great post! ,,The only way to win against the Caro-Can is to play 1.d4... (:
thanks for making this visible. I see that you have others blogs about the book. I also like it. I find it interesting beyond the game presentions included. It is a rare case of presentation with abstractions being extirpated from the games before the presentation.
each chapter is laying out the higher level (as in outer, or abstract level maybe, although it might just be an abstracted of a projection onto the pawn planes). I have tried explaining that aspect in another comment section of another blog of yours.
but I think it might be for my blog inner blog.. (visible if curious) musing.. I think that book is structuring proposition for chess theory, not opening "theory", as the word theory there has been nuked from overuse, I think. I think that what the opening knowledge is tending to, is cataloghing depth first traversals that persist as high level playable leaf positions hypotheses of playing through. When the dust settles (I just don't know why some mates are also part of opening theory....:).
I find the pawn initial phalanx of 8 forming a fence context of the peculiar way the author is using imbalance (my patzer point of view for sure), compatible with this thesis of mine about what opening theory will keep amounting too over time.
Also compatible with my need for more language about features/patterns/common sensory board visible objects, that are not bound at first to some advantage/odds/SF or Sillman sided imbalances. Like a pin is an easy observable once core ruleset of chess internalized. But when comes the time for whole game or mini-games from study strategy or theory of learning plan hypothesis deliberation or problem solving (both play and study mode), I find having the point of view focused in that book a more efficient proposal, than going in the other direction, depth first traversal of the opening catalog monster).
But there are a lot of features in chess theory language that might need such an unsupervised separation of concepts. I don't mean useless. to make a concept win odds agnostic, is not killing its usefulness. it is allowing the reductonist scientific approach to the common language construction we might call model of the target of sought understanding. In my experience, that goes hand in hand with some superposition principle. But we may not always have the superimposition formulas at the ready. Yet we can isolate things that are easier to communicate about the board in precision and accuracy, from those that need problem solving of many kind, and further method discoveries (some of which have already been developped in endgame territory, but I am talking about more than that).
ok. I can't help sharing my salad. It has been nagging me for five years now, so, I think that is my expressing my guts out. I just did not have the words.. i might still not, but I can highjack or surf on colleagues of chess curiosity that also want to share and do it better than me.. a priori. other salvo. i will put in musing.. I must have a pawn structure thread still up. keep at it..
each chapter is laying out the higher level (as in outer, or abstract level maybe, although it might just be an abstracted of a projection onto the pawn planes). I have tried explaining that aspect in another comment section of another blog of yours.
but I think it might be for my blog inner blog.. (visible if curious) musing.. I think that book is structuring proposition for chess theory, not opening "theory", as the word theory there has been nuked from overuse, I think. I think that what the opening knowledge is tending to, is cataloghing depth first traversals that persist as high level playable leaf positions hypotheses of playing through. When the dust settles (I just don't know why some mates are also part of opening theory....:).
I find the pawn initial phalanx of 8 forming a fence context of the peculiar way the author is using imbalance (my patzer point of view for sure), compatible with this thesis of mine about what opening theory will keep amounting too over time.
Also compatible with my need for more language about features/patterns/common sensory board visible objects, that are not bound at first to some advantage/odds/SF or Sillman sided imbalances. Like a pin is an easy observable once core ruleset of chess internalized. But when comes the time for whole game or mini-games from study strategy or theory of learning plan hypothesis deliberation or problem solving (both play and study mode), I find having the point of view focused in that book a more efficient proposal, than going in the other direction, depth first traversal of the opening catalog monster).
But there are a lot of features in chess theory language that might need such an unsupervised separation of concepts. I don't mean useless. to make a concept win odds agnostic, is not killing its usefulness. it is allowing the reductonist scientific approach to the common language construction we might call model of the target of sought understanding. In my experience, that goes hand in hand with some superposition principle. But we may not always have the superimposition formulas at the ready. Yet we can isolate things that are easier to communicate about the board in precision and accuracy, from those that need problem solving of many kind, and further method discoveries (some of which have already been developped in endgame territory, but I am talking about more than that).
ok. I can't help sharing my salad. It has been nagging me for five years now, so, I think that is my expressing my guts out. I just did not have the words.. i might still not, but I can highjack or surf on colleagues of chess curiosity that also want to share and do it better than me.. a priori. other salvo. i will put in musing.. I must have a pawn structure thread still up. keep at it..
@The_Eruptodon said in #2:
> Harika gönderi! ,,Caro-Can'a karşı kazanmanın tek yolu 1.d4 oynamaktır... (:
I think 1.e4 is best
> Harika gönderi! ,,Caro-Can'a karşı kazanmanın tek yolu 1.d4 oynamaktır... (:
I think 1.e4 is best
;D...
I have very good results against Caro-Kann, I win most of the times, and if I lose,then I lose because of some causal blunder in the middlegame or endgame.
<Comment deleted by user>
Thx hlpd me undrstnd