find all phrase with the word bishop in it. or that invovle a bishop in mind.
examples: pair, swap, good, bad, meh (hehe, kidding), light square, QB, KB, dark square, diagonal (light or dark), segment of diagonal (kidding, or am i, it does not exist yet, would go with meh!).,
weak squares (remote association in my mind, as not a naked board bishop concept, and only as a potential bishop task to prevent..
so there might be levels of concepts that would actually help in how parsimonious we should be in making a human consistent enough plan level language flexible enough yet specifrica enough to do what exactly. i need to verbalize that. I have no more juice from doing that against the wind (it seems to me).
but here. I will just scoure the internets and a few chosen pdfs, I know that put themes, and ideas first. if you see missing concepts even if some neigbor here. I want to go wide, and never have to think i missed a spot. please contact me.
resction. postiional features valued or objective that depend in any way to having a bishop in mind nearby and on the board still....
good
bad
ugly
meh
(goes with disjoint union of of diagonal segments that are within sliding reach, closed segment if including the boundaries that are not empty squares).
pair
swap
QB = shade of diagonal
KB = anti-shade of diagonal
is white QB opposite shade diagonal of black QB. i vote yes. so above to reduce typing. flip things and there you go.
for directly attached to B presence. that is all (I did not sleep enough though.. i might be very leaky memory wise)...
hhmmm.. indirect stuff other post
fianchetto (may not come in text with bishop explicit in string proximity).
indirect stuff (or role, maybe, although i am still working on that study to tune my violin, later, not stuff and things safer now, that i am in inventroy of the chess theory universe mode...
pawn island placement 1
pawn island placement 2
pawn island structure
pawn structure
pawn placement
same color island lateral placement/location/stucture
named versions as above is my natural language version
all of the above lead to other notions which then are association in some board logic way to bishop, not the word but the instance on board. while I am also seeking the word wilderness, here is more about neighboring board concepts.
weak square
weak square comles
fianchetto
(should also be above, it does what i mean about the previous2, see i work with association, not enumaration from raw memory whatever that is, too foreign to me).
using FLORES pawn structure, and PCC point count chess. and possibly some Sillmena encyclopedias of chess theory.
I also need the words defintion that tangle objective board features, like a pin, and the valuation of a board feature, like a bad pin or a good pin. The valuing being an obejct of leanring, not an objective common sensory experience. sorry for the clinical words, but they seem to be needed to cut through the molasse.
Roles of chessmen in plans: Introduction: Roles of chessmen in plans
lichess.org/study/9mH83EYb/kw9L1dTK/missing words typos are the worst. I meant to filter out the tangling, as perhaps an attention sustaining long arc questoin. that apply to other feature defitions as well.
like instead of only considering the subjective or very obvious cases of good and bad, consider those as limit cases of a chess dynamics variable feature. consider more the board features that would make any bishop less purposefully active within some depth window.
I think better to consider the cause of the goodness than the limit cases. then one might consider that the pawn structure gives us clues about which bishop is likely to move easily or not for the duration of that pawn strucure effect on that type of diagonal..
something with degree, that can be estimated faster than experience without reason to guide would.. just good in one small region and bad in another, and then what about the other positions. in real games of the learner level for example, one still want to learn how to play then.. real games.. not games in some future life when one would play as tight as the game models examples, of best play. or engine oracle imitation. Why isn't the ablility to reason from board signal in ones face, not taken into account in the simplifcation. Is that an artefact of the myth of calculation. that everyhing has to look exact, at the risk of not being able to reason in between.. I do not know why there has not been evolution since the time it was thought to be a good idea to see when. I know one can argue to hunch fill that gap.. but why not use available resouces of 2d board perception.
even counting empty squaes of the right connectivity, if really wanting to look like calculating, but we already have estimators of space on board without much chess experiecnce.. it would not be twilight zone theory of learning to take about more fine grain notion. so not just good bad, and meh... but fleeting degree of activities on squares that matter toward goals themselves already learned as conducive to the ultimate one. why be shy with reasoning as part of the chess theory teaching.. give the notions and the tools to not get stuck patns down at the next exception.... but realize meh bishops might be the fluctuating reality when put in planning imagation and selection context.. I think that may not be so experience dependent, that board thinking resource most patzer like me bring with them, natively (non-chess, even)..
otherwise on gets responses like this thread. tryng to figure out why so restricted into only good or bad.. so, what about the other positions? I would rather work on the adjustment of the evaluation, given what I see, in any position, than just have a story for some, (maybe hindsight clarity of mainline explanation, might make it more natural to have such yes or no explanations). maybe I am really not target audience.
