lichess.org
Donate

Mastering Mini-games

me likey plan discussions. and also the notes on plans about studying plans.
<Comment deleted by user>
<Comment deleted by user>
Thank you for making the examples available is a study, good for consolidating the reading, and combining our rational understanding with experiencing the positions (building intuition corresponding abstractions).

You used pawn explicit examplars, asking us to imagine other positions possibly that are compatible. In reading carefully, it seems to me that this kind of plan candidate discussion is about middle-game (or earlier) planning needs.

This is just a reminder that examplars can be useful to cover many cases, and should not be taken as positions complete information. In a sense, this brings back the notion of generalization and overfitting.

Edit: I fast-forwarded through the 1st game in the study, to look for pawn weaknesses based plans, and I could not see one where the pawn is not just used as some kind of leverage, one of the plan flows you mention. So, this shows that it would be difficult to learn from what is explicit in a master game, and what is not consumed, if not knowing in advance that it was the leverage. Maybe leverage not the appropriate term. This is not like a tactical pattern alternative but a remote possible loss, a pressure, being worked around in alternance on both sides.

It is not telling much about what is happening around it, at my current experience level, but I store your explanation for future light on my experience. I will keep thinking about those pawn weakness as being pivots. As a hypothesis behind the plans. I am learning you see.. I like arguments that mobility and board features can explain de visu (exemplars), but i am also critical of them, not negatively, just I won't latch onto them as truth, prematurely with respect to my board vision or overall chess understanding (that being my real goal). Even if true, if I do not have the level to see it in-game, i will hold it as hypothesis, given my level.

Maybe when i get through the other plans of the blog, not the games, but your blog ideas, the contrast might help me consolidate the plan C explanation. not yet there. another day.
@dboing said in #6:
> Thank you for making the examples available is a study, good for consolidating the reading, and combining our rational understanding with experiencing the positions (building intuition corresponding abstractions).
>
> You used pawn explicit examplars, asking us to imagine other positions possibly that are compatible. In reading carefully, it seems to me that this kind of plan candidate discussion is about middle-game (or earlier) planning needs.
>
> This is just a reminder that examplars can be useful to cover many cases, and should not be taken as positions complete information. In a sense, this brings back the notion of generalization and overfitting.
>
> Edit: I fast-forwarded through the 1st game in the study, to look for pawn weaknesses based plans, and I could not see one where the pawn is not just used as some kind of leverage, one of the plan flows you mention. So, this shows that it would be difficult to learn from what is explicit in a master game, and what is not consumed, if not knowing in advance that it was the leverage. Maybe leverage not the appropriate term. This is not like a tactical pattern alternative but a remote possible loss, a pressure, being worked around in alternance on both sides.
>
> It is not telling much about what is happening around it, at my current experience level, but I store your explanation for future light on my experience. I will keep thinking about those pawn weakness as being pivots. As a hypothesis behind the plans. I am learning you see.. I like arguments that mobility and board features can explain de visu (exemplars), but i am also critical of them, not negatively, just I won't latch onto them as truth, prematurely with respect to my board vision or overall chess understanding (that being my real goal). Even if true, if I do not have the level to see it in-game, i will hold it as hypothesis, given my level.
>
> Maybe when i get through the other plans of the blog, not the games, but your blog ideas, the contrast might help me consolidate the plan C explanation. not yet there. another day.

Bro was waiting his whole life to write this. /s Just a joke , I too liked the study
@HealerHeals said in #7:
> Bro was waiting his whole life to write this. /s Just a joke , I too liked the study

I am not finnished with the blog.. I work slow.. My comment about ideas is more of an attitude.. Often focusing too much on the first exposure to an idea, to be the truth can lead to bad generalization... Words are limited.. the board is less limited.. so ideas are helpful, but they have to stick to the status of ideas when receiving them. I don't think the author will fault me for saying so, and I suspect, given the presentation, would rather one takes all the alternative plans as plans, not as truth stuck in concrete.. We have to be critical and make our own adjustments to the words being sent to our brains.. they are mere approximations of the pure reality of the chess board.
@dboing said in #8:
> I am not finnished with the blog.. I work slow.. My comment about ideas is more of an attitude.. Often focusing too much on the first exposure to an idea, to be the truth can lead to bad generalization... Words are limited.. the board is less limited.. so ideas are helpful, but they have to stick to the status of ideas when receiving them. I don't think the author will fault me for saying so, and I suspect, given the presentation, would rather one takes all the alternative plans as plans, not as truth stuck in concrete.. We have to be critical and make our own adjustments to the words being sent to our brains.. they are mere approximations of the pure reality of the chess board.
Dude it was a joke , I like the work. It's really helpful
"The minority attack is when, in a structure like this, White advances the b-pawn until it comes in contact with Black’s b-pawn" - most know what you intended to say, but could be confusing for some beginners?