fasforwarding a bit.. . since that is where I want to go... one candidate once the motherload position set (domain/space, all of that depends on the clothers or useful restriction/properties/constraints/goodies/etc.../TBD/TBR/TBD-not same D, one for determined, another for discuss, another for discovery, ok, just TBD then).
link memo is also a TODO. One metric hypothesis (or family of them, once I understand). We need more of those ideas.. experience can help, but reasoning and logic upon core rules also needed, so it is not dependent on the creator only, hunches.. hunch made common sensory + reasoining? what does that make, extended reproducible common sensory experience?).
the string is narrow and tyrannic, but it is still how we communicate. so care must be taken for it to not add to the difficulty of communicating about things not string in nature. such as the as least 2D "chess" "problem" (worlds, set of phenomena?, etc?).
at least 32 * 2Dspatial dimensions of choice smallest points or point to point transition (in some appropriate set, with all the needed tools about various subjective points of view about it, goals, features, landmarks, evaluation (many D, including metrics that might be agnostic to ultimate goal evalaution, yet allow the beholder to both think further adding reasoning and other shared common extended sensory expereicen (or common sensory extended experience?).
needs some de-convolution. or as PGN editor would have it.. split and many variants of the post scheme (many posts in one maybe?)..
hmm. note-takers short hands.. (with continuun pen choreography freedom, that ascii+ , here now, can,t give.. sigh.
one day. i will maybe feel confortable.. with strings and only strings... but not today.
oh yes.. tangible hypothesis of metrics for some projection of the motherload target I have been calmly and pausedly working toward. Named Pawn strucures.. Feedback from experiences, interegrated and propagated for the many by Soltis, Flores, and web authors articles (some of those links in jomega notes, overlap with wikipdea, Soltis and Flores, but some slight divergence(s), and that is ok (as honest, and lessloss, of previous experience made shareable raw concepts.. FLORES did some work though beyond enumeration. Hard to explain again. not topic here.. just that I could smell some self-contained PS dynamic stories there.. (emerging frmo the grouping choices and examples parsimony, that kind of transpire from my past discussions with jomega, who is the capable reader, and chess experience ressource. I can't read that by myself, but our discussions have been enough for me to get the book higher level modelling attempts (whether intented or counscious from author, I don,t know. The front matter does hunt of some of that, that there was careful construction.. It is not string of games driven presentation. Which is of the chess communication theory that does not compute well with me. game fragments serve as tangible critical data point illustrating the more abstract statements.
ok delivering my first glimpse of what I might have meant. but which I do not get the implementation of yet. As I am rigid or limited in some cognitive department. or just not trained in string encodings.. Il faut de tout pour faire un monde.
yet. I do see a familiy of those. or a formalism (to be typed, i choose such battles not to be in vain.. given the cost, in typing outside my touch typing radar, vade retro python, e.g. but they all work with delimiters I have to pause on while typing..., even the math.. I can read better than explicit number crunching, memory less procedures (when one forgets where the number come from conceptually). I need my offloaded stuff for fast problem solving of reading math. (so I don,t have to recompute myself, to get what the writer of the math. was really seeing in non-stringified form.
no offense to anyone.. we all have our sub-optimial expertises.. and mine is not about decoding strings, into internal visuo-spatial support imagination. but once I find the brige skills.. I might hope to make sense..
siderite.dev/blog/pawn-structure-feature-in-lichess-tools/this is really not a complaint.. when intergrated over my difficulties which are my own.. objective there. come up with a set notation, no string encoding version, of the propose familiy of similarities or distrance or clustering (hidden perhaps). that this creative effort, already open source code (yes code, i.e. i would need to have the key, but that might be another lifetime of training in another sub-optimal experience set, of which I have only been a selfish tourist in my far past).
this post. . is really for my own eyes.. now that i have rambled more than intended (who am I kidding, I am not in control, I the part that do things, like typing...).
ignoring "language tools" .. neck rest.. and keeping energy for reading plan (axiom stuff). and hot here. Damn the universe is shrinking, like a modern island type of multiplayer games... (only no respawn in this one, well, I assume by occam razor, and other hints of my education in sciences, although who really knows. anyway, I won,t assume any specific otherwise).
so some waltz between abstraction and tangible, while still alone in this. (not blaming the universe or others btw, just looks like I have to assume that, in my planning and pacing... while doing other things more short or medium term rewarding (for me it is discovery emotions, so question, relevant data i can percieve under that "bias" , and more question, reasoning as I can, my own fallible fluctuating best.
While the cooperative yet critical synergistic method of discussion, human humility, competent reasoning become an thing that can persist. (it means accepting our limitations, which is in conflict with another psychologically sticky premissed, of accepting our champion, or clinging to it as the only rewarding muse of the all, that inner champion improver, in the 2 person game social podium, I might even have a sub-conscious version of that, twisted under repreated past individual failures in my objective adequacy in making a life on my own.
So I will keep at it.. Somehow my curiosity and imagination and average logic have survived. I can make a fool of myself, and end up making progress even from that. Being wrong, but having the tools to notice it. Just goes faster when others can lower their ego too. Once the inidividual fallibility accepted, and the super-hero doctrine fades, sorry, things are what they are, and the universe existed before we could ask about it. We can makes sense of it together though. Faillings included. compensatory cooperation (and implied common sensical reasoning competitive communication about it, watching each other chunks of tryng to go fruther..
reproducibility of reasoning constructions bigger than any one of us, by being many discussing in the same direction of unknow fog to thin.. something like that... needs humility.. that is an effort. I have no merit.. myself. I have come to it by life data coming onto my path.. more than once.. humility in accepting that we are all patzers.. some more than others, but not intrinsically, more about the very individual limitation of experience as the only source of data to chew upon. We are wet brain thinkers. Logic is probably a costly emergeant layer that threatens to leak at any reasoning range, (if time damocles trigger fight or flight for example), so even the best working memory oiled wet machine, to be propagated to the many, needs others trying to reproduce the proposition, under the convened rules of reasoning ratchet toward shareable knowledge.. I am running out of synonyms.
I am calling for something... but I can keep at it by myself.. as I have done. until my self-doubt gets the better of me, too shrunken.
this is why I am hopefull about the axiom series.. not for the axioms. but, it seems that in spite of the initial appearances, there is a need for cooperation implied is the careful injection of the axioms, after methodical precautions illustrating steady pace of reasoning, not too many chunk to pile up in one paragraph (I know, not me doing that), isolating the statement progression.
and those words, in essence: "It is very unlikely that anyone would object to accepting the first axiom". so I row, in spite of my forward reading and digestion and interactive prime directive, superceding my want to get past that first axiom...
lots of todays verbage. is going to disappear... here i keep the stuff I will need to keep on the motherload layering thing.
again no ceiling idea. I smell an analogy (only very slack on the chess side compared to the physics side).
That historical chess theory collection of hunches made words (i would say half of those words needing fixing themselves, rather than the people learning needing to fix their intuition to those words, or lichess attempt at not hurting the sensitivities of historicl reverence, but extending (this is actualy a question to Lichess, for once put the intent for chewing among non-dev, because source code, is not doing the intent job, so if there was a purpose of include humans in the tactical theme tagging I would like to know, now it looks half-baked from the user end, and here now more than one person want to "fix" in the wrong direction, for my understanding of learning needs. They might point to the confusion and they might be right.. They would be the historical prime directinve fixes, or asking Lichess to be transparent about the reasons for either automatic tagger differing on the board with the human definition effort (not always in the learning theory direction of mine either, so there might be errors of certain definition tightness, but I also think that there might be an ensemble of theme concern. obviously not all the zoo of all possible named tactical patterns outthere might be the solution to keep reverence to historical illustrious dibs on board patterns and their names.
obviously? I do the same as what I might be reproaching to my critical friends. There is nothing obvious here, logically, lots of subjectivity creeping up from life long time scale of repeated exposure to the same "common sense" foramtted by the same tools.
They start getting their own meaning and get not to be really tools anymore. Thy might even dictate further logic. And then, having later awareness of departure from the logic formatted one way. the givens on that language (and its flaws) never questions, on the learning theory lighting (or different question than history might have constrained when the dibs or coining of word happened first.
that if detecting departure from historical named meaning on board, the default fix, irrespective of any new knowledgre about psychology of leanring, I aim at generalization power of a patter at first exposure, naming and definition, is to choose between the robot tagger and the human proposed defition by Lichess, the one that reconciliate with the illustrious revered past. for it might have been sealed in memory as coming from some auro of authority (I wish i were kidding here, but why else would there be such clinking to the past).
now in physics. while both scaffolds for the complex aimed at being understood are of the scientific method and would agree on common sensory empirical data that they both have in common as target problem to model.
we have the laws of thermodynamics on one hand.
Which I would call the macroscopic physics for its target, also macroscopic worded grasp (or set of handles) on the target problem. I view that, although distorted by reverence and some confusion on the target problem definition, that was not the coining of the word concern, that of learning. (forget improving, it is possibly too vaguely specicic, to the person speaking, their scope of end points about who is improving, and from where, to where, it could be a local statement, assuming uniform mechanisms of learning elsewhere in the learning space).
and statistical mechanics on the other hand. which target world of physics question at least include all of the macroscopic laws of thermodynamics.
This goes way back in my academic eduction, that started in physics.. and actually might have been when I found out I had some aesthetic bias (for the kind of reasoning) for mathematic constructs than for the faster physics construction process, which would have the mathematics, follow it is wake to mop up the kinks if ever upon expected human fallibility, such mathmeatical kinks had to be fixed (ok, I am not sure how, but clearly physics has managed with its intuitive shortcuts using mathematics, and patching gaps with extra laws for a while, or parameter range constraints (on energy), or we would get solutoins that "did not make sense".
This has its own epistemology. That might be a distraction here. We don'T need that other, to explain my statemetns sources. and my biases. I strongly believe that it is alright to use intuition inject into logical construction or discussion, because, anwyay we are always suspect of doing it, and I kind of see it in others all the time, and because its danger with respect to advancing knowledge/understand of agreed and well formed problem target, through logic or empirical truth being cogged into the logic, is that it is not part of the discourse.
like building something axiomatic, but not have made sure the elements that were used undefined were also called out, like the axioms were. I don't know the best way to do that wihtout screwing the efficacy of the commuynicatnoi attempts.
it looks like rambling is the conseqeunce of that intent of mine. to give all my givens with the statment so that readers could make their own mind more celarly. and discuss my statemnts , by havcing the informatino needed to point at my blind spot and or possiblye (as any human, no matter their shiny "medals"), logical errors.
and chat gpt would not see the purpose in presenting such elements of a reasoning, as it has not clue of reasoning that its database might not have made present in the linguistic space of things. if not there, no amount of generative AI would invent it. and If I am sharing something already in search mode (which is almost always with me), it would just scramble the logic in places where I might have had it intended, and if it knew something alread logical as pair of knowledge from humans consistent own voicing through its database, it might be logical where I would need to know, and the mush, would make is random machine creatitivty tripple work.
that complementary experience humans would have sifted through way better. only I can't write it well.
maybe by iteration. hopeing someone keeps reading me, not tiring..
so.. from scratch exercise is good.. here was an example from physics. a hoeful one, because laws of thermodynamics did work for their scope.. onces all there.. for our techonological needs at least.
it shows that a scaffold can have its own realm of validitiy.. But it was under a wheel of science not just hunch theory made words, but as part of the theory, experiement could be desinged in that language or theory being built. and feedback from nature allowing progress.
now I am not going to talk about statistical mechaniscs, for fear of my intuition being only remaining about it, and I would screw the language if I did not first refresh vocabulary from wikipedia.. Although in statistc or mathematical statistics proper, similar tools I might have seen a lot later, I still have doubts about whether the terminologies were the same, and if the association mathematical object had the same ulitmate target problems. but one word comes to mind. characteristic equations.
I think what statistical mechanics does is bridging one scope of physcic to another. quantum mechanics to thermodynamics. but I might have merges things in my hunchfull mind.. (invitiation for the reader to hunt on the internets themselves).
Ok. now on the chess pamphlet (it seems chess is so complex, still, that words are better used still as spalsh in the pool mechanics of commuiniation, or my editorial mind makes for better ramblings in that style. I get noodly on the ceiling otherwise. and we don't want that at all..
Could it be that chess theory has been hampered in its progress, for an overweight sense of supreceding credence of illustrious predecessors creations? that is my current hypothesis. but I have more subjective experience now about chess theory, and it does seem to have been slowed and frozen in places, in time (older opening catalog size for example, no engine?), and never looked back with many eyes, and a well formed target problem .. It is only recently that calmer heads might have raised the point of missing theories of learning (by assumption in each anecdotal mind having made it to the top, that whatever methods they still could be awayre of having consciously followed, might be the reason for the success, when so many others faileds. All the while, no one having a common language to verify anything. as everyone happy not asking the many questions needed to sense the need to.
Everyone having their own assumption that the word they used will be understoood exactly the same by the others.
touch granit. So yes. from scratch, and many times.. not just one splash in the pool.. and not with end point falling back to the historical initial imprint. That might be bad chess theory generalization error. See as a group we might also be learning about chess learning (including chess itself, the board iincluded in the theory of learning target problem, if well formed).
I need to go look at that off-topic. framework. hopeing the buzz words do get defined there. a bit tired of second guessing everywhere.
mopping words and other things in my own trail.
no order intended if not specified by my words of ordering, such as level. The fake verbal obligatory order is a pain in the brain.
level 0: physcics, mathematics, statistics
leve 1: partition, partition-function.
shaie well the above, and voilà you are inside my current mind about those words involving partition. That was the fog i would need to disbanguiate by some wikipedia refresher that do not fly off their own handles in more recent trouvailles... so I would have to do rabbit hole there, while seeking some memory back, in the communicable genere.. I just need some hints, I think. but I can fool myself. won,t know. I am not just sure that this is where I might become part of the chess discussion. So much habits taken as common sense.. It seems incurable. (pretentious no, lol).
null-odds (changing) move. (is about opponent odds i guess, not my point here).
what would a gainful consequence move that is not the maximum gain move, be an error?
do such positions exist with such room.
with mate, this does not really apply. but aren't all games about mate or its provable absence (draw).
so if we had infinit horizon of caclulation, and non-terminal gain, leading to a longer mate would still be ex-awquo mate with a shorter one from perhaps a bigger short-term (same term as the lesser positive gain).
I find that there have been some accumulation of ROTs filrting with obvious hidden assumptions going on.
Not being pragmatic on the theory of learning.. (I actually found the same mistinterpretation of LC0 having dominated in the past).
This is about the real learning ambient space, and it ain't perfect at all. Self-play. And we assume that after enough exploitation of past exploration, coinciding with relative loss of exploration (and possibly not happening from same initial conditions and terminal position territory sampling.
attrition happening faster might be likely a correlate of not being yet an expert. I guess we could work with that as empirical working hypotheses.. easy to do data anlaysis of termination depth per tier or rating. (well maybe consider 2 players this time, a surface holds more information, than binning at first sight, i.e. averaging greedily, at the model building phase).
ok. . these points above smell related somehow..
it is not pragmatic to only consider go fetch the noodle on the ceiling as the main theory of learning.. no way to fix that.. but go full pragmatic and consider the patzer initial conition. (or near), as with respect to evolving remaining unkown in the path of the learner, that is still the same problem.. Warm up methodology for undertimened human time scope of improving, and undertermined initial state of learnedness, and undetermined scope of improvement quanta or quantity or even quality of that, is not really that decidable on the pragmatic scale of value. I opinionate.
we might all be patzer too, then, in that level of unspecified.
power set of empty square mind sand box.. ... is this a eureka.
what if we don't need the designator set intermediate. .(although it might still help for explaining things).
a piece is would be its geometric representant with mobility figure as element of the power set (subsets). some families in the power set to define. glossing over that. but noticing.
notion of combined whole board pressure from the superposition of all pieces of one color . a heat map one the board with the pressure degree from superposed empty square figures....
move a piece move a figure in its plane. is that alreayd in LC0. recalling mobility plane or move plane.. not sure they went formal and also used it in the input planes. or maybe that is equivalent.
but if keeping in the exploded cartesian space, things seems equivalent. we are moving mobility figures in their respective planes.
wow. declic. I might even tickly infinite board again.. for all figures can be define extended. only the center of the figure need be restricted in the 8x8... what amount of working memory pile up in writing the correct math finite "artefacts" of indexing would that save and delegate to implementing some intersection elegant lazy copout of mine? maybe for the fun of it.. but even intersection is a pain to write here. I would have to keep micromanaging input.. and stop thinking while proceduring known steps and making errors.. for the lack of mind carrots....
anway.. static mate compatibility of this point of view I suggest to jomega. if reading this.. or i might do it directly if this does not crumblew in future AFK self-review session.
more joy. precedent: king field.
now any chess robot (modernization of terminology, from old probably English military lingo about soliders being the men then, hmm pure wild guess, showing how I might view some traditions in my preconceptions, when in otherwise unknown territory). I should check other languages. chess men?
chess friends. chess pals. chess mobile units. chess entities. chess minions. chess robots, too close to player bots.
Ok. chess cannon fodder? Chess men. 3 letters. This is an encrypted word, not the natural language you think it means.
knight field. pawn field (gosh forgot about those nasties, conditional fron filed panw filed. so.. burying head in sand). pawn for last.. too much caveat writing, I would spend an hour getting it right. is such hammer based communicatino.. continuous penmanship.
sigh. can't be in my most sustainable posture as i can when mousing or in lesser measure keyboard typing (somehow, arms forward is taxing eventually, while mouse is trackbal. and mouse does not have to be arm forward. not tension needed. Also, somehting about verbal communcation is a pain in my posture.. I can mouse for ever in a lichess interactive board while lying down. not keyboard. I also frown more when wrioting. (genearl upper body frowning eventually, theory it acts as internal maksing noise against distraction from inside or outside.. like a waterfall or other white noise masking machines... proprioception noise wall.
hmm. wonder if anyone have the hypothesis. sounds kind of natural generalization.. but it might be too simple to even consider..
ok. so the field to stroll around becomes a pain to write once for pawns. does that kill my idea? it is the same pain I would have had in the dynamic moblity layer I will have to do. just that as a static figure it might not work with the empty square power set.
or maybe as all actions irrespective of the pawn front 3-slab vector status of all the planes (both sides) the moblity figure is still from the power set of the appropriate familiy within ...
I wonder if I could not got blind on this one and do like the beginner-is-stupid ROT directive theory of learning. The pawn can go to any of those 3 points. Damn the conditions. That is not for beginners to worry about. Stick to getting to the rating plateau iniitiation ritual when logical chess will become a necessity if aiming higher? sorry. I like to make caricatures.. I am not as frustrated as i might sound. just habit of making caricature..
anyway. that was a joke for the pawns.. was it?
beacon: not chess play. motherload ambient position set that can provide an external preferably odd agnostic coordinate system allowing the notoin of distance. (so we can start doing some unsupervised stuff without crossing fingers behind the back or holding caveat upon caveat on some call stack....
so. maximal empty plane mobility figure should be enough.. mind contortions details later. figure first contortions later.
anyway.. status quo is pawn is lower offensive power. The 1,3,3,5,9 might be losing agnostic quality of evaluation. and they might be contingents to playing quality as forcasters of outcomes or odds determinant. Which is why I want to avoid it.
however the mobility figures them selves are core rules. and I don't need the post move contortions. and I just have the potential in abstract plane mobility for the pieces. one can interpret those as real empty boards with only one piece.. but this is not how I see it.
one can define the motherload without even having to be concern with the superposition.. It is definable as exploded, and frankly that is how the first input layer is embedding the position inforjmation (in the mathematical model, before some implementation cleverness, that deepmind seems to think is not really affecting that basic state action formalism I am using. burn this paragrpah after reading...
I coudl not sleep. that must have been itching. reminding myself of my actual priority. I am not talking about chess. but the world it is sitting in. That world does not need to be legal chess. it only need legal chess to be visiting its elements, when other layers allow dynamical stories.. I think I should make an action rule in capital letters.. AGNOSTIC BEACON for extrensic referential toward useful metrics.. and liberation from the tree corsage. or corset. one can look in all directions.. and one does not really need any players to build such world. I wonder it that is shocking. I am expecting some damocles to fall any time now to show me how deluded I ahve been all that time, thinking I might be onto something after all that time, that has not been yet tried... could I be so full of myself?
what have I got to lose. I have been transparent and bask in the peace of mind that accepting my faillibility brings. From there, it can only get better. no pretense of knowing. I just do my best and share my degree of hunch flirting with probable logic. and one day, I will have narrow the hard repetitive work to its mininal risk of rabbit holeness, by having spiraled so many times that I will have filled the conceptual space with my narrow flow... well. depends on time scale. maybe on average my fluctuating trubulent spirals do have a wide cross-section.. blabla from this point..
yep. power set restrictions it might be. (the families). measure and topologies not impossible. etc... but not need to be scared. nothing magical from math. abstract algebra acrobatics or seeking minimal assumptions to use a useful tool (although jomega did check with me, that we needed R2 to get back to known chess as being played, FIDE not specifying or definining certain things in vain, as no one would come up with a knight path scrambled string version of the chessboard would they. for if we did not have the R2 thing, some of the linguistic logicl rules of chess would still be computable logicall by CPUs over any 64 points sa long as the moblility links between points still follow the graph non R2 embedding.. as in the linguistics it is just a graph or did I confuse the conclusion.. later. not important anyway.. no intentions of not using R2.
so back to some scientific reductionist approach. the pawn problem. still not dynamic or or notion of turn or the depth of turn dimension related ruleset latyers.
however, the mobiliity spatial objects can still be deifned without those. I bugged on the pawns are those are the game both sides clock almost as important as the global attrition clock, and or the global attrition imbalance clock (all could have some correlation of positive "projections" onto each other, not daring using any orthogonality, although why not, did I not want euclidian confort, in my agnostic hole grail quest of angle to start from approaching the game bubble? So, I can have all the gizmos better derived and already having a measure tape metric or standard candidate (or be able to ask that that question, and have answers candidate to test and build. If anyone has kept following my process and internal debate made strings painfully for all of us, but with inspiration superceding on my end, then, one might find some hope, in that I am slowly progressing.. oscillating but not in circle, not so in all directions.
so. latest counter counter conunter hope of building clever still agnostic I think argument.
since pawns are funky by consensus.. The only irreversible slow sliders (they slide like the kind can slide, the morally pumped up for making their side great again, first steps, even suing fractional turn, or are those wormholes, maybe, but opposite side pawn can track them, maybe they also have wormhole at last resort on such condition, but the other pieces are oblivious to that in-between times fractions (not kidding, this might have been in other words in some paragraph on programming wiki, or my imagination did a real number on that second hand memory).
So, without further ado. the intent of this new post: pawns are my friends. I will give them their subspace. and make another construct for the type of mobility figure. It might also make sense if I chose the implementation path through pawns placlemetns (some of which are named pawn structures of GM recollection calling out worthiness for the persitent even sided continuiation playability at their level, I guess it might also be at any level..
good question. is a high level draw assessment stilll a draw assessment for lower level. I mean if symetric 2 pairing sampling probablililties, on average the reward or drawish quality would likely be there too. maybe not as draw outcome proportion, but still in combined (usually oder of W D L preserving linear combo) form, near the middle of that number range.
minime. gets the pawn subspace treatment. for its condition mobility figure. which does not need spelling out. what did I read about quantum superpositoin today....
I don't need to invoke the event of the observation to consider all the possibliities existing. well more than that.
but interpreatatoin aside, there is that common notoin of potential or range of the possible in the physics... before we put the problem of the "measurements". here it would be analogous to "move applied".
I just need to have 2 tyhpes of moblidiy figure squares. and not even need to specificy the conditoins yet. as I have just choosing my layers from least restrcition toward some day, do not despair, something that is from the bubble we know and love, even players might be made into the math language (not sure, if I will have a way to not impose it undefined a la game theory).
so. cheating.. or grapevine apparte. or between us, but don't mention it was me that gave the insider information: one would be about what might be blocking in one of the squares, and what might be captured on the oher 2. I guess. i am putting this in case, I will have to put that.. somehwere in some metric later.. I suspect that I might use some of the LT named PS features implied in its mixture of evulation and similarity or distance measure tested and proposed. (congrats btw. on the idea to try something where, none seem to have, maybe not being an expert yet, gives somes thinking freedom, the power of confident and assumed ignorance where it matters... the first step to understanding what we don't know yet... but what is that? kidding. in the unkown, blind are the ones not asking the right questions. and so forth for ages and ages.. let me tell you...
I mean words melts like clocks in Dali painting if I try to keep making sense about the unnkown strategies of what. . "improvement"?
i am glad for my rambling fractalizing (similarity at geometric scale, but about ideas and thought being spread thin through a verbal stream, like 3D line printer, but inverted, I have a a volumetric bundle of thoughts that look logical or hunch they are but then, we only really have crawling way of testing that beyond intuition based probabliity of logic imagination threshold passed into working memory juggling new ball, do to a crawling, expensive in stamina , and error prone process, a crawling protruding into the 3D line memory (my reading my own string growing) (as we are inverse 3D line printing from that volumetric concept).
I guess only my 3D CAD friend my get my point here.. As he does deal with those and the CAD software as well.
In other words. . some might call it a necessary evil procedure. And sorry, but I am not that good, specially while also doing de novo thinking at the volumetric level as I might spot with my leaky logic vetting inspector some need for more hunchjes. and since I am also borrowing some brain juice for the typing task itself, well. noodles get tangled.. etc..
so my previous ramble tangent made me have to think about that other pawn quirk. that there is a rank depency too for its mobility. (or could that be part of how I implement times in the dynamic rule set layers, do I pop a new thought here).
respoding to that pop. another pop. ok. lots of pop. don't need to journal that. in any case. that is being noted in sizeable post fussing with words and strings of characters.. so taxing that i should imprint more than just another pop here or there. and then where are my kitten ideas. in case I need to express that one day to someone interested. or my future self, who would have other pops to deal with. and so, not have to keep looping pops on same groove all the time.. I keep a journal here. thanks you lichess. I have never done that ever before.. the wiggle space zen enough. and self deluding proof. I would not know. but can keep going.
