<Comment deleted by user>
knight early. why but why? well. if we were not in a hurry to always win, we might have time to ask oneself. Preferably on the defending end, not putting own knights into the fray, and looking at the more motivated opponent bring the knights early.
one way to do that is to keep one's repertoire into an open game I guess..... that requires breaking the phalanx in harmonious places for the diagonal sliders...
but what if we pushed the cramping (opposite of "open") to its limits and tried to feel the meaning of space behind the pawn "front" however smooth it might be (its contours is initially a single 8 pawn phalanx). what if we went unenterprising systematically to chew on the foggy, but not necessarily out of meaning, concepts that persist in chess (persistence, without much counterchecking method of communication, but that is an exasperating topic, tchou-tchou, moving on for now).
space the final frontier.. hmmm... why that pop up... space, and frontier, but no "the". there is more than one "space".
so.. let's push the phalanx just one rank.. what gives.. then let's compromise and do some piece moves in between.. but keep that notion.. of testing the board, oneself and some range of self-like opponents (if human we can count of diversity of initial conditions, and hopefully not too much confirms to the great cyclop implicit dogma of learning, ooops, that steam needs more let out)..
so.. knights = not only hard to block. the same low level mobility-geomtery.. means hard to defend from their attack.. in a tight behind the pawn front space.. (i prefer to not coin any name, bad chess theory habits, given the eager to drink the cool-aid context).
just use qualifiers on top of preferably natural language words that end up leaving no room for wobble and its spread across the individual and their diversity (if any left).
in thight space.. knights can still find alternate route, and it does not matter if defended or not, small space means the target are near, and juicy ones.. if close to center (not too peripheral, although in smal veritcl directoin "space" even peripheral (lateral) is closer to juicy target.. and there goes the defender compounded lack of choice in development.. there may be the minimal occupancy room, and some magically order placements that would eventually make the one rank pushed phalanx defensible.
but if opponent had taken the center and pushed further with enough knight in viscinity.. the annoyance or distraction power of those knights will not let one just push a phalanx upward..
this is where my vile babbly internal theory of my chess so far has been narrating deliberately.. I do deliberate quite a bit, just not in SAN.. I need to see more than just the change of coordinate of the transitions...
So back to my mind's kid. imagination because we accept that there is a big unkown to explore.... that is the assumed and comfortably so premise of child play.
So they can even become champions, in spite of the anecdotal training methods, with enough tunnel upbringing early, the play can overcome a lot of dogma (well, if they love it, why not, just hope it is not too much parental indoctrination, like the other indoctrinations of global self-destructive consequences we have to keep exponentially growing, for it might be written or forefather glorified, yes I would bet the "father" is important there... that is the model, that half chromosome pair gender, of which I am too, but I don't see the point of making that the glorious black hole it have spread to be).
"Leave the kids alone" from pink floyd resonate. Not fluff finally. A sentiment. but back to adults. We need to do that consciously, can't rely on play instinct anymore (I am retarded with the play instinct, and selling that as my anecdotal philosophy of learning, because I have no other choice, and I don't have the rating glory to show for it, just logic, intuition of my learning (so many years working with complex but a priori logicl well enough problems, including my own sanity and global health).
one way to do that is to keep one's repertoire into an open game I guess..... that requires breaking the phalanx in harmonious places for the diagonal sliders...
but what if we pushed the cramping (opposite of "open") to its limits and tried to feel the meaning of space behind the pawn "front" however smooth it might be (its contours is initially a single 8 pawn phalanx). what if we went unenterprising systematically to chew on the foggy, but not necessarily out of meaning, concepts that persist in chess (persistence, without much counterchecking method of communication, but that is an exasperating topic, tchou-tchou, moving on for now).
space the final frontier.. hmmm... why that pop up... space, and frontier, but no "the". there is more than one "space".
so.. let's push the phalanx just one rank.. what gives.. then let's compromise and do some piece moves in between.. but keep that notion.. of testing the board, oneself and some range of self-like opponents (if human we can count of diversity of initial conditions, and hopefully not too much confirms to the great cyclop implicit dogma of learning, ooops, that steam needs more let out)..
so.. knights = not only hard to block. the same low level mobility-geomtery.. means hard to defend from their attack.. in a tight behind the pawn front space.. (i prefer to not coin any name, bad chess theory habits, given the eager to drink the cool-aid context).
just use qualifiers on top of preferably natural language words that end up leaving no room for wobble and its spread across the individual and their diversity (if any left).
in thight space.. knights can still find alternate route, and it does not matter if defended or not, small space means the target are near, and juicy ones.. if close to center (not too peripheral, although in smal veritcl directoin "space" even peripheral (lateral) is closer to juicy target.. and there goes the defender compounded lack of choice in development.. there may be the minimal occupancy room, and some magically order placements that would eventually make the one rank pushed phalanx defensible.
but if opponent had taken the center and pushed further with enough knight in viscinity.. the annoyance or distraction power of those knights will not let one just push a phalanx upward..
this is where my vile babbly internal theory of my chess so far has been narrating deliberately.. I do deliberate quite a bit, just not in SAN.. I need to see more than just the change of coordinate of the transitions...
So back to my mind's kid. imagination because we accept that there is a big unkown to explore.... that is the assumed and comfortably so premise of child play.
So they can even become champions, in spite of the anecdotal training methods, with enough tunnel upbringing early, the play can overcome a lot of dogma (well, if they love it, why not, just hope it is not too much parental indoctrination, like the other indoctrinations of global self-destructive consequences we have to keep exponentially growing, for it might be written or forefather glorified, yes I would bet the "father" is important there... that is the model, that half chromosome pair gender, of which I am too, but I don't see the point of making that the glorious black hole it have spread to be).
"Leave the kids alone" from pink floyd resonate. Not fluff finally. A sentiment. but back to adults. We need to do that consciously, can't rely on play instinct anymore (I am retarded with the play instinct, and selling that as my anecdotal philosophy of learning, because I have no other choice, and I don't have the rating glory to show for it, just logic, intuition of my learning (so many years working with complex but a priori logicl well enough problems, including my own sanity and global health).
engine evolutin hypothesis.. via the bottleneck selection pressure, possible lack of imagination. Now that humans have done it, maybe they could too. (if not done already.). not my priority. just continuing previous understanding.. not time to update myself. and did not hear any news about engine tournaments going explorative.. I find chess culture to be very "solid" in its traditions. But that might be my chess reading fatigue... I might be needing more chess in the face.. still.
edited from my last public post. in blog discussion about armaggeddon thing.
Their problem is not speed or stress from time pressure, it might be having found the solution to that by avoiding exploration as a sure thing for speed beat strength if strength is not gradual with time damocles (i.e. the full min-max of given depth is cut in some artbitrary ordering that is meant to reach a finite programming step).
While LC0 and A0 also have to make covering of chess wilderness compromise, it is not directely about speed of exploration, as that is done off-line during training. But as more costly engines in CPU categories, they might also have to cut on their criteria of search breadth to keep withing time constraint, and their adverse hardware constraints might be also about strenght. Augmenting both side time control equally, would still repeat the same thing. .So, 2 possible new competitions dimensions. which the exhaustive agressive pruning and leaf eval. improvement (but possibly more resolution or less feature set reduction, or other normally regression testing deadends in the current dimension of code optimization, prior to ELO. Or letting the heavy leaf eval engine some room to serve more positions to the exhaustive and improving leaf eval evolving SF and cousins pool of engines.
edited from my last public post. in blog discussion about armaggeddon thing.
Their problem is not speed or stress from time pressure, it might be having found the solution to that by avoiding exploration as a sure thing for speed beat strength if strength is not gradual with time damocles (i.e. the full min-max of given depth is cut in some artbitrary ordering that is meant to reach a finite programming step).
While LC0 and A0 also have to make covering of chess wilderness compromise, it is not directely about speed of exploration, as that is done off-line during training. But as more costly engines in CPU categories, they might also have to cut on their criteria of search breadth to keep withing time constraint, and their adverse hardware constraints might be also about strenght. Augmenting both side time control equally, would still repeat the same thing. .So, 2 possible new competitions dimensions. which the exhaustive agressive pruning and leaf eval. improvement (but possibly more resolution or less feature set reduction, or other normally regression testing deadends in the current dimension of code optimization, prior to ELO. Or letting the heavy leaf eval engine some room to serve more positions to the exhaustive and improving leaf eval evolving SF and cousins pool of engines.
The RL problem can be fixed. at least deepmnd explored the possiblioy that their zero-knowledge initial condition in RL batch self-play learning, might have suffered from the expected dilmeman in all RL training.
The E. effect might not be a pathology or human stiffness of some kind. but a necessity. The wilderness scope usually never being known in advance (but in chess it could, if we started being real with handling ignorance and uncertainty as dynamics objects in our theories). not as outside our radar calamityies. that we don'T talk about. or black box. with assumption that we know what it does.
So. Deepmind paper again. seems to be the key for my exasperatoin. I should make a blog. but this is so exhausting being alone. no moral support. always imagining the chess culture borg, skeptical to the bone about not already knowing it all. because they have EL and champions as evidience of something not defined. but wihout any doubt deposity of something called "accuracy". the continued existinece of even one single champion is proof that all is contorlled.. chess is known. theory of learning is a no brainer. not even a theory. ELO winner being the proof. that we know it all.
this has been the unspoken assumptions of all writers from above, from performance proof. whitout ever checking on what might accuracy be depending on, and how floating have all our never asked but taken for granted so much that not even considered.
I don't know. but I see a slide self content self consistent culture. that does not see that internal competition always finding champions does not say as much as they don't even ask, but call accuracy.
the problem might still be about the finiteness of the move choices, and the rule set. and the lack of human rational humility. (not being helps for the individual performance glory showering our champtions and cohorts, as confirmation of not having anything to say otherwise. If you are the top, what kind of occam razor would let you need to keep some doubts about your own set of persisting beliefs about causality of things that got you there.
That there is nothing after you. or after you, the deluge.. This is surely not conscious. and it might be not the persons themselve but how they are perceived. Like doctor getetig the god complex from the patients being at their "mercy" of complete responsibility or trust, it creates side-effects I am sure.
anwya.. I don,t need to diagnose right.. I just need to calm down.. and find where to keep updating. I won't change the borg.
the inertia thought is there. for whatever ancestral culture mental grip reasons.. or mecanisms. I suspect human glory and need for hero stories. and simple answers. and confort in denying unkopwn by the next available shared occam razor story...
but what if it is also occam to always keep some humility about what we know. .. how much can we handle of unknown and still hope to keep at learning more..
The E. effect might not be a pathology or human stiffness of some kind. but a necessity. The wilderness scope usually never being known in advance (but in chess it could, if we started being real with handling ignorance and uncertainty as dynamics objects in our theories). not as outside our radar calamityies. that we don'T talk about. or black box. with assumption that we know what it does.
So. Deepmind paper again. seems to be the key for my exasperatoin. I should make a blog. but this is so exhausting being alone. no moral support. always imagining the chess culture borg, skeptical to the bone about not already knowing it all. because they have EL and champions as evidience of something not defined. but wihout any doubt deposity of something called "accuracy". the continued existinece of even one single champion is proof that all is contorlled.. chess is known. theory of learning is a no brainer. not even a theory. ELO winner being the proof. that we know it all.
this has been the unspoken assumptions of all writers from above, from performance proof. whitout ever checking on what might accuracy be depending on, and how floating have all our never asked but taken for granted so much that not even considered.
I don't know. but I see a slide self content self consistent culture. that does not see that internal competition always finding champions does not say as much as they don't even ask, but call accuracy.
the problem might still be about the finiteness of the move choices, and the rule set. and the lack of human rational humility. (not being helps for the individual performance glory showering our champtions and cohorts, as confirmation of not having anything to say otherwise. If you are the top, what kind of occam razor would let you need to keep some doubts about your own set of persisting beliefs about causality of things that got you there.
That there is nothing after you. or after you, the deluge.. This is surely not conscious. and it might be not the persons themselve but how they are perceived. Like doctor getetig the god complex from the patients being at their "mercy" of complete responsibility or trust, it creates side-effects I am sure.
anwya.. I don,t need to diagnose right.. I just need to calm down.. and find where to keep updating. I won't change the borg.
the inertia thought is there. for whatever ancestral culture mental grip reasons.. or mecanisms. I suspect human glory and need for hero stories. and simple answers. and confort in denying unkopwn by the next available shared occam razor story...
but what if it is also occam to always keep some humility about what we know. .. how much can we handle of unknown and still hope to keep at learning more..
medium.com/applied-data-science/how-to-calculate-the-trappiest-openings-in-chess-2bc24a6345f7
> A trap is a position where a player is likely to play a move that when followed by the optimal response, results in a position where the player is likely to lose.
> This means that the quality of a trap can be judged by two scores:
> Probability
> How likely is the player to play the next move in the trap sequence?
> A good trap should have a high likelihood that the next move in sequence is commonly chosen.
> Potency
> How likely is the player to lose after they have fallen into the trap?
> A good trap should be deadly once your opponent has fallen into it!
Ok. That is one angle. would everybody have the same definitions or if never tried to even ask one self for an automatic definition like that, does every one who ever used or through the word trap in some chess conversation or discourse. agree with that.
That? is that very restrictive anyway. I have not read the example based presentation, that puts specifices in the room left above.
But I can guess, that it would be sequence of move alternance based for the first part.
but then based on what.. populatity of moves given a positions, or given a recent segment (few previous moves) that in other complete branches of the opening theory or repertoire specializatoin most popular in at the time of application of above definition, are sound, but then some position details in this other branch might not warrant the same moves sequence?
the second part about the trap snapping irreversibly (reasonably about the chess itself trapping side, even if not intent of it, quality of move relevance to the whole position information).
I head someone else answer the same kind of question I had earliy in my chess culture expsoure that started in 2019 on lichess.
Someone I like the critical mind point of view on chess, and which I made my preferred filering of the vast amount of sources of chess culture that can be shared. For we do not have the noise of confusion between performance credibility and theory of learning problem thorough quest for the pragmatic priority, and respect of the learner availabvle tools (adult maybe).
That was about 2 prong definition.. A temptatation and then an irreversible adverse commitment.
Then the work is to define temptation.. and irrervesible and adverse (commitment imply irresversible, i put it there for emphasis).
I find that there are plenty floating variables (not just quantitative, but even factors). one being to whom.. is is temptation and same for the rest.
the player not being part of the defintiion (I guess game theory does not make it easy, as it is mostly undefined, unless in a pool of competitors with outcome data as only ground level information). no model of learning or its evolution.
then there is self-play. assumptoins. ok i skipped best play continuiation assumption as somehow I don't think best play on both sides has room for the notion of trap. best paly assumes no fog in knowledge of the complete tree. so a trap? does not compute.
i find self-play. or in abstract same player learning model state at time of trap concept definition building.. whatefver we are doing here. or that paper is doing. or my chess culture interpreter friend was trying to figure out...
I would ever need same average win ratios but different sub-optimmal chess position wilderness familiarity (all the types of familiairites, if we had such tools already in common to talk about... so pile that up in your reading working memory..sorry).
sub-domains such that on average in random pairing the 2 players still get same rating. but still have room to "trap" each other. from disting domain support of their better play function, the learning model representation I could think of, really, been doing that for the past years, and does not hit a dissonance much yet, only that I don't know how to make that not sound from outerspace given the solidity of the chess culture, not having had much exposure it seems to that kind of mathematics.
but in five year I have seen odds not create the same schocked reactions as before.. so.. in theory. I could keep thinking that way, and doubt less about being deluded. happily so, while not trying to explain it... which has been somehow my implicit task.
I know there exist people who might even have already cosntructed what I am trying to do, from my limited humble world of babbling.. integrating sources of informations by chunks, and fill in gaps of my memory and what I read.. But I don't have access to them for plenty of reasons.. and they are not having the same dedication to human chess as I might have. using machines for human chess.. is my common core agreement with my chess mentor I mentioned.. I do not see the incompatibility, just that the attitude at the theoritical level on how one relates to the other, seems to have lots of hang ups to demystify..
I have rambled my share.. i might be losing energy.. and mental acuity meanwhile. it might be time for me to go tangible like prevoiusly expalin.. but it might mean reducing my altready time filling chess and social activities. without cutting bridges for future come back to it.
I would like to work on my weird stuff until I can show reasults. without having to instill in others the thinking that might make what I think reasonable. and maybe just being minimal concise and expressive to my own understanding while giving still something for others to not need my explanations in this verbal inadequate language I do not wield well enough to be real time thinking and writing.
> A trap is a position where a player is likely to play a move that when followed by the optimal response, results in a position where the player is likely to lose.
> This means that the quality of a trap can be judged by two scores:
> Probability
> How likely is the player to play the next move in the trap sequence?
> A good trap should have a high likelihood that the next move in sequence is commonly chosen.
> Potency
> How likely is the player to lose after they have fallen into the trap?
> A good trap should be deadly once your opponent has fallen into it!
Ok. That is one angle. would everybody have the same definitions or if never tried to even ask one self for an automatic definition like that, does every one who ever used or through the word trap in some chess conversation or discourse. agree with that.
That? is that very restrictive anyway. I have not read the example based presentation, that puts specifices in the room left above.
But I can guess, that it would be sequence of move alternance based for the first part.
but then based on what.. populatity of moves given a positions, or given a recent segment (few previous moves) that in other complete branches of the opening theory or repertoire specializatoin most popular in at the time of application of above definition, are sound, but then some position details in this other branch might not warrant the same moves sequence?
the second part about the trap snapping irreversibly (reasonably about the chess itself trapping side, even if not intent of it, quality of move relevance to the whole position information).
I head someone else answer the same kind of question I had earliy in my chess culture expsoure that started in 2019 on lichess.
Someone I like the critical mind point of view on chess, and which I made my preferred filering of the vast amount of sources of chess culture that can be shared. For we do not have the noise of confusion between performance credibility and theory of learning problem thorough quest for the pragmatic priority, and respect of the learner availabvle tools (adult maybe).
That was about 2 prong definition.. A temptatation and then an irreversible adverse commitment.
Then the work is to define temptation.. and irrervesible and adverse (commitment imply irresversible, i put it there for emphasis).
I find that there are plenty floating variables (not just quantitative, but even factors). one being to whom.. is is temptation and same for the rest.
the player not being part of the defintiion (I guess game theory does not make it easy, as it is mostly undefined, unless in a pool of competitors with outcome data as only ground level information). no model of learning or its evolution.
then there is self-play. assumptoins. ok i skipped best play continuiation assumption as somehow I don't think best play on both sides has room for the notion of trap. best paly assumes no fog in knowledge of the complete tree. so a trap? does not compute.
i find self-play. or in abstract same player learning model state at time of trap concept definition building.. whatefver we are doing here. or that paper is doing. or my chess culture interpreter friend was trying to figure out...
I would ever need same average win ratios but different sub-optimmal chess position wilderness familiarity (all the types of familiairites, if we had such tools already in common to talk about... so pile that up in your reading working memory..sorry).
sub-domains such that on average in random pairing the 2 players still get same rating. but still have room to "trap" each other. from disting domain support of their better play function, the learning model representation I could think of, really, been doing that for the past years, and does not hit a dissonance much yet, only that I don't know how to make that not sound from outerspace given the solidity of the chess culture, not having had much exposure it seems to that kind of mathematics.
but in five year I have seen odds not create the same schocked reactions as before.. so.. in theory. I could keep thinking that way, and doubt less about being deluded. happily so, while not trying to explain it... which has been somehow my implicit task.
I know there exist people who might even have already cosntructed what I am trying to do, from my limited humble world of babbling.. integrating sources of informations by chunks, and fill in gaps of my memory and what I read.. But I don't have access to them for plenty of reasons.. and they are not having the same dedication to human chess as I might have. using machines for human chess.. is my common core agreement with my chess mentor I mentioned.. I do not see the incompatibility, just that the attitude at the theoritical level on how one relates to the other, seems to have lots of hang ups to demystify..
I have rambled my share.. i might be losing energy.. and mental acuity meanwhile. it might be time for me to go tangible like prevoiusly expalin.. but it might mean reducing my altready time filling chess and social activities. without cutting bridges for future come back to it.
I would like to work on my weird stuff until I can show reasults. without having to instill in others the thinking that might make what I think reasonable. and maybe just being minimal concise and expressive to my own understanding while giving still something for others to not need my explanations in this verbal inadequate language I do not wield well enough to be real time thinking and writing.
i thought i had a thread about pawns, but now it might not have been relevant.
pawns are really hard for me, to internalize their dynamics as a group. yet, i am intrigued. so what a wonderful world.
could it be that neither phalanx or wedge is something to base a plan on. it would be only a transient static thing, but it is the dynamic of their alternance (one sided thinking of course here, but abstracting-hunching pop up.. my failed early phalanx testing, might still linger is me wanting to play with full initial pawn "front" and the notoin of space behind that.
phalanx, wedged islands what gives.. well. still asking that. but seems it might be a marching theme.. not clear at alll. but now. i won'T forget that budding hypothesis of nothingness.
pawns are really hard for me, to internalize their dynamics as a group. yet, i am intrigued. so what a wonderful world.
could it be that neither phalanx or wedge is something to base a plan on. it would be only a transient static thing, but it is the dynamic of their alternance (one sided thinking of course here, but abstracting-hunching pop up.. my failed early phalanx testing, might still linger is me wanting to play with full initial pawn "front" and the notoin of space behind that.
phalanx, wedged islands what gives.. well. still asking that. but seems it might be a marching theme.. not clear at alll. but now. i won'T forget that budding hypothesis of nothingness.
small sacrifices as threats to break an apparent balance, but hiding the material imbalance (hiding because i don't have the skill to foresee it). lingering from that past early wide phalanx that was about what is wrong with that.
my pros hyp was that if I can have each pawn once guarded it meant that to break that with piece one side would have to put some piece for pawn first. would that not be a small sac. I should look at how it happend.. pawn and knights only against once guarded wide phalanx.. (maybe there are to be a long range backer. but my hypothesis, was to clear my backrank I would have to dangle expensive stuff within reach of the knights (well rank2 is withing fewer tempi than rank1, the board being so small, it makes everything at least tactical, the strategy being superimposed.
my pros hyp was that if I can have each pawn once guarded it meant that to break that with piece one side would have to put some piece for pawn first. would that not be a small sac. I should look at how it happend.. pawn and knights only against once guarded wide phalanx.. (maybe there are to be a long range backer. but my hypothesis, was to clear my backrank I would have to dangle expensive stuff within reach of the knights (well rank2 is withing fewer tempi than rank1, the board being so small, it makes everything at least tactical, the strategy being superimposed.
so i think my idea was if not using piece for small sac "breaking phalanx" later possiblilty. it would have to become pawn battle testing. Which I seek. that notion of "front" (only partly described by islands, which are just whole file sets connected by pawn in them, it does not specify rankness.. and while file-holes (yep, i tell it like I see it, damn the torpedoes, or better pawn front holes, file-hole was wishy washy compromise for semi-open on my side). described pawn features by other piece mobility aspect.
I guess that is another entanglement in the theory concept coining. I think the common sensory learning aware theory, should favor the descriptive and then the logic from it. here from my prideful patzer point of view (which ought to be in any real theory of learning), I find pawn based descriptor to be a better condition, one step under the functionality of it from just the rook type of movers (sliders, that can be blocked by pawns).
and rankness tells of diagonal sliders.. so whey priviledge rook type in pawn structure features..
rooks (not queen, but queen for its offensive power, is not something to lose in early tactics) tend to be active in late game. which makes a slow pawn sturcture changing aspect, or the irreversibility of it (unless some luck of piece getting captured by pawn, but then it is a shift of the pawn front hole (and rook highway). semi open or open can go back to bed.. I look under that.
it allows some mechanical story or hypothesis of chess logic to stand on its own without the standonly part memory load. (like ROTS are until deconstructed for their board logic/chess logic.
I am just doing what I know is best for me. and is naturally waht comes to mind... so yes. chess theory of the frozen kind can still be useful.. but one needs to break the frozen chains, for themselve. if you can do any memory castle thing out of any memory without it need mecaniscal associations. the Manual is for you. good for you. me not that. i need logic or causal hyp. glue... both my brains.
I guess that is another entanglement in the theory concept coining. I think the common sensory learning aware theory, should favor the descriptive and then the logic from it. here from my prideful patzer point of view (which ought to be in any real theory of learning), I find pawn based descriptor to be a better condition, one step under the functionality of it from just the rook type of movers (sliders, that can be blocked by pawns).
and rankness tells of diagonal sliders.. so whey priviledge rook type in pawn structure features..
rooks (not queen, but queen for its offensive power, is not something to lose in early tactics) tend to be active in late game. which makes a slow pawn sturcture changing aspect, or the irreversibility of it (unless some luck of piece getting captured by pawn, but then it is a shift of the pawn front hole (and rook highway). semi open or open can go back to bed.. I look under that.
it allows some mechanical story or hypothesis of chess logic to stand on its own without the standonly part memory load. (like ROTS are until deconstructed for their board logic/chess logic.
I am just doing what I know is best for me. and is naturally waht comes to mind... so yes. chess theory of the frozen kind can still be useful.. but one needs to break the frozen chains, for themselve. if you can do any memory castle thing out of any memory without it need mecaniscal associations. the Manual is for you. good for you. me not that. i need logic or causal hyp. glue... both my brains.
forgot. the rankness and diagonal movers thought corollary (in the world of hypotheses of mine, it acts as such, but with ?)
well that can change faster than pfront-holes. still because of the island potential pawn level mutual defense (chains), it is not that fast. I guess many time (chess clock, not human) scale of dynamic abstraction possible. (should chew on that back in FLORES pawn structure level "dynamics". even if this is BS, it is scaffold for me. finding that it has no relevance might be the reward. but at least I have a mecanistic question as dangling or long arc motivate carrot.. and a place to restrict or reinforce association of that kind later.
what would be the completement? well another hypothesis or set of them later I would answer with another salvo... the joy of chess as mind food.
well that can change faster than pfront-holes. still because of the island potential pawn level mutual defense (chains), it is not that fast. I guess many time (chess clock, not human) scale of dynamic abstraction possible. (should chew on that back in FLORES pawn structure level "dynamics". even if this is BS, it is scaffold for me. finding that it has no relevance might be the reward. but at least I have a mecanistic question as dangling or long arc motivate carrot.. and a place to restrict or reinforce association of that kind later.
what would be the completement? well another hypothesis or set of them later I would answer with another salvo... the joy of chess as mind food.
I wonder if a single position chapter with drawing, when adding a chapter, without any new input source, if it takes the position from previous chapter with its drawings? I am thinking that it is part of Lichess study internal PGN like data structure, for, at least upon chapter export, the PGN file I get does keep it, and re-upload into chapter does display it, even if it lost the human visual tree graph, as it seem not kept thought that process****, so whatever different user invisible data-structure it seems to keep that, And I say that is the internal data structure working hypotheses from where I stand and need to understand the internal logic consequences back to user land information.
Fine print:
***
and I usually make the step, as good enough working hypothesis or my internal model of under the hood, say good enough, claim of mine, I would not need to ramble such a disclaimer, but Lichess is part of the internet, and my experience and need to talk to more than one tribe, well. I compromise at the risk of TLDR, and that is a risk also for the quality of the rambling, once it has reach TLDR for me as well. What can you do. Just remember my alias, and skip premptively I would say, that is what I do also, because of this circular doom logic of words upon words. and unknown audience "expertise" groove (or depth, and mental energy potential of that groove, can one look from another point of view in terms of grooves). did I spam again. how selfish. Is sin admitted half forgiven? or it is about insanity?
****
The empty variations allowed by the PGN standard, even the minimal one , I saw on the web, does allow it in the RAV noodle version of the tree graph (it becomes a computer data structure, can be traversed efficiently with CPU based algorithmic science, but the graph mathematical object, I think is the planar version, where parentheses, are not having any meaning. Yes, nitpicking for effect.
If I have to be anyway, not making sense, I might as well, go all the way. To minimize iterations, per my abilities to understand my past shared points. I would just have to elucidate further for the actually curious.
maybe a theme of mine is to suggest that there are model levels and that some of those might be reducing the communicanoi problems across points of views. From chess to source code. There are levels of insight full models that do not require the same amount of previous life-time experise in both the chess and the writing or engineering of the source code base. That is spam, this paragraph, to some, surel. but I do not think to others, it sure should mean somethng even if one would not agree..
Fine print:
***
and I usually make the step, as good enough working hypothesis or my internal model of under the hood, say good enough, claim of mine, I would not need to ramble such a disclaimer, but Lichess is part of the internet, and my experience and need to talk to more than one tribe, well. I compromise at the risk of TLDR, and that is a risk also for the quality of the rambling, once it has reach TLDR for me as well. What can you do. Just remember my alias, and skip premptively I would say, that is what I do also, because of this circular doom logic of words upon words. and unknown audience "expertise" groove (or depth, and mental energy potential of that groove, can one look from another point of view in terms of grooves). did I spam again. how selfish. Is sin admitted half forgiven? or it is about insanity?
****
The empty variations allowed by the PGN standard, even the minimal one , I saw on the web, does allow it in the RAV noodle version of the tree graph (it becomes a computer data structure, can be traversed efficiently with CPU based algorithmic science, but the graph mathematical object, I think is the planar version, where parentheses, are not having any meaning. Yes, nitpicking for effect.
If I have to be anyway, not making sense, I might as well, go all the way. To minimize iterations, per my abilities to understand my past shared points. I would just have to elucidate further for the actually curious.
maybe a theme of mine is to suggest that there are model levels and that some of those might be reducing the communicanoi problems across points of views. From chess to source code. There are levels of insight full models that do not require the same amount of previous life-time experise in both the chess and the writing or engineering of the source code base. That is spam, this paragraph, to some, surel. but I do not think to others, it sure should mean somethng even if one would not agree..
Join the Dboing's Musings team, to post in this forum