removing stalemate as has been tried and does not result decreased amount of draws. Shogi has simply less draws because material does disappear from the board. Only way to draw is that king manage to break trough the opposing positions. Most pieces are very weak backwards so mate comes almost impossible. Usually in tournament series in pro-shogi this would considered void game and would need to be replayed.
This book (written by an old-school GM) does a pretty good job of summarizing human chess wisdom :
https://www.amazon.com/Wisest-Things-About-Chess-Batsford/dp/1906388008
@watford said in #8:
> Shogi is known as more tactical compared to chess
>
> The blog wrote this in quotes, I disagree:
>
> "Chess is less strategic and more tactical than shogi, with opening memorization playing a large role......"
>
> Perhaps it should be the other way around since draws are rare in Shogi.
I agree - I came here to say this as well. Although I have not played Shogi, I am aware that Shogi is considered more tactical than chess. This can be seen in some very strong Shogi players who have tried their hand at chess and have produced some tactical frenzies in wins against GMs (in a few select games).
Relationship between draw outcome prevalance and tactical-strategic dichotomy?
@dboing Ok, perhaps shogi is both more strategic and tactical compared to chess. My point is there is no end game theory as pieces are never removed from the game due to the shogi drop rule. So no situations such as bishop versus knights, coloured squared bishop, etc that a player could strategically position themselves .
@watford said in #15:
> @dboing Ok, perhaps shogi is both more strategic and tactical compared to chess. My point is there is no end game theory as pieces are never removed from the game due to the shogi drop rule. So no situations such as bishop versus knights, coloured squared bishop, etc.
I did not know about that rule. Maybe it has to be read and my lishogi tutorial well would not show that, in how the individual pieces move. My bad with partial core rules. Ok. A more conservative evolution system (material). Less attrition certainty.
We can make many aspect contrasts, but how does this causally affect the despair that the blog has painted about chess having become a battle of deep line knowledge because the tactical sharp turns per unit depth and per unit games is very high.
Whatever the causes in Shogi for the proverbs to be accepted as widely applicable (i.e. if applying blindly, within the proverb specifics, its action or decision preference or diktat (I am not knowledgeable, I work from blog givens), and in chess the awareness that exceptions is the rule, to the point, when we look closely at any of the ROTS, we might find the exception are just more logic that was not yet known at the decree time of the ROT, from its pioneering time, but could always be shoved still under "exception", as chess theory seemed too illustrious tainted from its creator high achievements as performer credentials. Problem of logic being hidden for the sake of performance is one hypothesis I can think, and do think of, often.
> Socio or psychological hypothesis: the champion spot light distraction.
I might be trying to understand the arrested development of beyond move sequences knowledge commonly shareable knowledge about some logic in chess, beyond the core ruleset. Higher level concepts that derive from the core rules, but that are saving on turn by turn breadth of calculation (is that not what proverbs provide? In shogi).
That might not be about the rulesets. Just perhaps maybe the traditions of the whole population of chess player relationship to its most visible knight tournaments tiering or podium and its pool of contenders (like the vicissitudes of the life of the powerful or rich TV soaps: Dallas, Dynasty of old, or British of the highest poshest tribulations in town named tribe, I never watched, but I know a bunch around me that might wish to be in there, as they value those series). Sorry, derailed.
Just saying I find there has been some arrested development in chess theory and in chess theory of learning; which are never called that way, as we are still deep in individual source school of thought dialogizing mechanics, but not really aware of that, one blog by ChessRaisemate, gave me this vocabulary. I think this blog is relevant here.
There are also, some recent blogs wanting to work with the notion of getting "practical", or working on the accumulated blind spots or alleys, in a more sustainable and autonomously applicable by the learner over more positions than the examples used to palliate for the state of proverbs not existing, i.e. the exceptions that grow around the holes.
But what is one individual gonna do about such a big research needed problem, and no verifiable language to bridge the common sensory at least 2D conditional information to start being practical about. Given all the past surfing on unverified hypotheses being propagated, with hindsight anecdotal proof by champion or high-performance credentials?
> Back to trying to understand the direction of your comments:
You are saying that it might be the reentrant in end-games that does not make in shogi, such categorical zoom in through endgame classification by material left. It would not simply the foresight problem to think in attrition and voilà, simplified to something "known" before the game. So there are no proverbs in shogi endgame as there might be in chess endgames. So what is the blog referring to that shogi has more reliable than its counterparts in chess.
Bubble:
There is a chess variant with re-entrant material, no? It would have the same smaller board, and the same powerful pieces that extend in all its mobility center-symmetric figures directions (but for the knight piece, no lines or sliding through the board empty squares that one).
This is not well structure, I put headers. Fixing would mean more rambling from more angles or parentheses, while proceduring.
@watford said in #15:
> @dboing Ok, perhaps shogi is both more strategic and tactical compared to chess. My point is there is no end game theory as pieces are never removed from the game due to the shogi drop rule. So no situations such as bishop versus knights, coloured squared bishop, etc that a player could strategically position themselves .
Well not those strategic choices but whole bunch of others. In opening player has too what kinda fortress he is going to build how much pieces to allocate on attack.
There is endgame but is very different. Since real defense is really not an option as both sides (even game) will start attack towards opponents king and endgame is furious attempt to checkmate first. Shogi puzzles are usually mating problems and in correct solutions all moves are checks. Because typically giving up a single tempo will result opponent launching final mating attack.
So which has more strategy? I do not know. Both have plenty and more than most people can handle well
@petri999 said in #17:
>
thank you much and watford too, for bringing more elements. I think the main quesitno of the blog is not really which has more strategy (although it might be a sub-argument about the immediacy and intensity of calculation skill priority per unit depth of play), but why one can't rely as much on chess emergent and propagated for long-time rules of thumbs, which have limited conditionals (phase or very coarse dependencies on position information) to check when they work or not. It is often wide range, and some people, about the chess version, end up conflating general with vague in the connotation. I.e. vague is general and not useful, but general can also be useful, and truly broad application.
Why are there such general actions proverbs in one ruleset-based culture that are also widely valid, so general but not vague. And not in chess. The sub-argument of tactical might not need to be used, the sub-sub-argument of powerful movers and smaller board (and smaller number of movers with it), might be enough or an agreeable factor to explain the knowledge bases battle growing domination in the first part of blog about the dominating improvement or survival strategies (in real chess, definitely, then in all the high-rated chess, including 2D chess maybe, tournament subgroup or not).
I am sure one can find (or even maybe steer) either game into different kinds of play, in the subjective categorizations using tactical versus strategic.
I would rather talk in tangible of the game ruleset, like turn by turn versus not turn by turn . For example. I think tactical is the incompressible core ruleset game clock things (immediate). And then there is the other type of needed foresight imagination, goal discovery and setting, oh and yes decision about which tactical pattern among the many to use, in other words planning, but that part is not distinct from the turn by turn. One can find the same individual cognitive tasks in both, it seems to me to be about certainty and term-definiteness.. We can get lost in language about the board. I do.
So. I might prefer the part of the blog about why in one we have less exceptions to long-lasting proverbs than in the other. The powerful "density" or concentrated power in fewer material species and smaller board does not need settling the tactics versus strategy thinking problems proportions.
But it might explain the exception invocation prevalence that has kept growing. I also propose that it means that things happening faster in odds amplitude quanta per single ply choice of thing moved, means paying more attention to the specifics of the positions and their features (static) as equal necessary part of the proverb to propagate. As there is a denser superimposition of overlapping high-pressure activity from such powerful pieces, changing their location in one ply can change the scenery causal mechanics like removing the carpet from under someone's feet (for a gratuitous non argument analogy, just making sure my intent is not diverging too much, since I borrow from my background jargon, and it might be weird to many readers).