@NatalijaFirenkova said in #15:
> I can also design the perfect strategy book as long as I don't have to actually write it.
>
> For instance, one of the problems that could easily appear in this structure is the entanglement between many topics surrounding pieces and pawns. For instance, how are you going to explain the strength of the d5 knight in 1r1q1r1k/7p/2np2p1/p2Npb2/R1B5/1PP5/5PPP/3Q1RK1 b - - 1 21 if you haven't talked about pawn structure weaknesses yet?
This is a problem with any structure. Everything in chess is connected, but you have to start somewhere.
@CheckRaiseMate said in #21:
> This is a problem with any structure. Everything in chess is connected, but you have to start somewhere.
Perhaps have some map (or network) of such interconnections at first level, and not getting stuck in the physicla linear constraint as the top level strucutre of the book.
A book does not have to be a novel or linear from A to Z. I would again suggest looking at FLORES. I definitely am not of the level to read that through and through. I do not ever think I should read that in one passage through and trhough, and many times of that. It is more about being able to have a coarse but logical view in one past of the book intended content strcuture.
The names PS abstracted level dynamics not being of the turn by trun level, allows the authors to start from 5 families (I don,t need to know them to understand that), there is some leakage of course and a steam valve chapter at the end for some leftover, that might tie in back in the coarse structure not in the order/grouping/separation persented. but at least there was that structure.
I could get an understanding of that level of the whole book, without having to go through each and every example.
That has become for me, a potential study structure. It may be that I am not in a hurry. but i find that a book well conceived (not prefect, i though the TOC, but maybe more the index wasted on player name, could have been more about the plan objects that might be neiborghing each other (the elements that might be share of board issues) across the topmost hierarchy.
But I could understand the story of one names PS evovling into others. And having opening names only as secondary addreess in the structure does a lot. It has a transveral viewpoint. .
It might be that pawns structures lend themselves to that. But I find inverting the usual table of name then prefix then idea one line at a time, is not going to be a strategy of teacnhing about non-turn by turn chess.
Could be discuss that tanglie one of a kind book of chess. Strategy it looked to be for me. A patzer, non OTB, chess enthousiast who digs abstractions.. and like to learn from them (not exclusively, but this is always what I find missing in example buried strategy teafching). Look at FLORES parsimoniuos use of examples. There are examples yes. but they come as illustration not definitions. They come to seal the deal that the more abstract entry into the material might have left to consolidate with all the noise that full explcit position examples (fropm many lines with different prefixes) might have.
I find curious that buried example tradition of definition of absrtact concepts. I love that the first thing in the chapters is the abstracted concept of pawn structure (not a real position). I would also refer to nimzo, for similar usage of more abstracted positions in 2D to pull on all our small brain 2D spatial abilitlies to get it.
Why is there none of that curiosity about the abstraction-exemplar-exemple-definition and more importantly the generalization problem, from limited exposure to uncontrolled testing in any game (not from a predertimined prepable pool of players maybe).
Edit: where did I say not to be read in many passes through and through. I think I forgot to end that thought for its main point, which is to be read in many passes, but different depths or layers each time... As the layers are some kind of explicit and follow a certain logic themselves. Not just a catalog shift of adressing clump arbitrary (but possibly historical discovery constrained) groupings by sequence prefixes. But tying back to that adressing still, as why not. But the chess emergent logic that seems to be tucked in all some of individual expertise levels, without no common language on par with the physcis of chess own reasonability (I would say logic, but some might require immediate logical certainty on either true or false, and we have probabilistice "logic" in the non-endgame (meaning near ruleset outcome). probability not mean uniform random, but still having to face our small brains can compute it without facing uncertainty of the board as we think about it, single game many games.. all of it.
Glad you think so highly of Ludek Pachman's seminal work: Complete Chess Strategy:
https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Chess-Strategy-Planning-Pieces/dp/4871874907/
Etc.
A great work for sure, and the structure could not be clearer.
@NatalijaFirenkova said in #15:
> I can also design the perfect strategy book as long as I don't have to actually write it.
>
> For instance, one of the problems that could easily appear in this structure is the entanglement between many topics surrounding pieces and pawns. For instance, how are you going to explain the strength of the d5 knight in 1r1q1r1k/7p/2np2p1/p2Npb2/R1B5/1PP5/5PPP/3Q1RK1 b - - 1 21 if you haven't talked about pawn structure weaknesses yet?
AFAIK there is no obligation to use that position to teach the value of a knight outpost, so the answer is: Choose another one.
Re-read my last long post from a month ago. Some of my sentences I now find hard to read. Glad some of the phrases (not the full sentences) might still make sense anyway, even if there are words there I have no clue what I was thinking.. A month timescale to forget where I was when writing. It might be a "fill in the blanks" type of reading (I do that myself most of the time anyway). Apologies, a month later, for the lack of proper conscious stream of thought note-taking quality. But I think that is all I can do.
@SubtleOne said in #24:
> AFAIK there is no obligation to use that position to teach the value of a knight outpost, so the answer is: Choose another one.
Then you're missing out on one of the finest examples on what a great knight is
I am quite certain one can come up with plenty of great examples of knight outposts that don't cause problems due to overlapping themes. Pachman did so in his magnus opus, and so did Euwe and Kramer in their work, to name but a few.
@dboing said in #25:
> Re-read my last long post from a month ago. Some of my sentences I now find hard to read. Glad some of the phrases (not the full sentences) might still make sense anyway, even if there are words there I have no clue what I was thinking.. A month timescale to forget where I was when writing. It might be a "fill in the blanks" type of reading (I do that myself most of the time anyway). Apologies, a month later, for the lack of proper conscious stream of thought note-taking quality. But I think that is all I can do.
You are being way too hard on yourself. I had no issues with it frankly, other than to note that your idea of how a series of works should structure teaching positional play to players has been done. I cannot comment on whether the execution will be to your liking, but the layout will. Check out Ludek Pachman's three-volume work "Complete Chess Strategy". Just be warned the translation is pretty bad.
Maybe you meant: Modern Chess Strategy ... Ludĕk Pachman
@dboing said in #29:
> Maybe you meant: Modern Chess Strategy ... Ludĕk Pachman
No, I meant Complete Chess Strategy in 3 volumes by the very same.
https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Chess-Strategy-Planning-Pieces/dp/4871874907/
https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Chess-Strategy-Principles-Center/dp/4871874915/
https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Chess-Strategy-Play-Wings/dp/4871874923/