Always Expect the Unexpected

Comments on https://lichess.org/@/gyllenstierna/blog/always-expect-the-unexpected/zxk4tmuk

Nice overview on your game and how to handle surprises. Thanks!

Instead, we just carry on as if nothing happened, which most often leads to disaster.

first point where I needed to interject. I had no choice actually, I did interject my reading at that point.
impulse to share my glorious angle interjecting ensued
and here or now (then, for the reader) we are.

Tsk, Tsk, don't go call this a disaster. That is the human thing to do, in the learning scope. Accepting human limitations, that it takes time, and that maybe the cognitive load of scratching the now possibly suboptimal imagined plan of the past, is actually maybe still human-de-facto optimal play given the opponent quality.

Put back the referential to the center of mass of each players skill sets (clouds). I leave it a that. Not the celing point of view, that goes with "disaster". Who says? any of the 2 players? or SF? or "42" stutterring machine.

In the learning scope (i.e. posit fallible human driving), it might also be optimal learning to keep to the plan and contort it to the the surprise, and yes, dismiss the offended eyes of SF as not your best teacher. I mean that is what we do.. anyway. Might as well stop calling it a disaster. And be pragmatic about it.. And still consider it an opportunity to learn... Many plans even silly plan.. legal plans...

> Instead, we just carry on as if nothing happened, which most often leads to disaster. first point where I needed to interject. I had no choice actually, I did interject my reading at that point. impulse to share my glorious angle interjecting ensued and here or now (then, for the reader) we are. Tsk, Tsk, don't go call this a disaster. That is the human thing to do, in the learning scope. Accepting human limitations, that it takes time, and that maybe the cognitive load of scratching the now possibly suboptimal imagined plan of the past, is actually maybe still human-de-facto optimal play given the opponent quality. Put back the referential to the center of mass of each players skill sets (clouds). I leave it a that. Not the celing point of view, that goes with "disaster". Who says? any of the 2 players? or SF? or "42" stutterring machine. In the learning scope (i.e. posit fallible human driving), it might also be optimal learning to keep to the plan and contort it to the the surprise, and yes, dismiss the offended eyes of SF as not your best teacher. I mean that is what we do.. anyway. Might as well stop calling it a disaster. And be pragmatic about it.. And still consider it an opportunity to learn... Many plans even silly plan.. legal plans...

Gyllenstierna edited

@dboing said in #3:

Tsk, Tsk, don't go call this a disaster.

I totally agree with what you say about SF and other machinery, but the post wasn't about home analysis with all tools available. It's all about what goes on in your mind during a tournament game. In home analysis there are no disasters.

However, I retain the right to call some some mishaps during the game disasters. Sometimes you're just outplayed by a stronger player. That's no disaster, it's human shortcomings. If, after the game, SF points out your crappy moves and shows you what you should have played instead, it's not helpful. It's only oppressive.

For me, one type of disaster is when I think I'm doing just fine, only to suddenly find that I'm not. Even if it doesn't matter after the game, it's almost impossible to shake off during the game.

@dboing said in #3: > Tsk, Tsk, don't go call this a disaster. I totally agree with what you say about SF and other machinery, but the post wasn't about home analysis with all tools available. It's all about what goes on in your mind during a tournament game. In home analysis there are no disasters. However, I retain the right to call some some mishaps during the game disasters. Sometimes you're just outplayed by a stronger player. That's no disaster, it's human shortcomings. If, after the game, SF points out your crappy moves and shows you what you should have played instead, it's not helpful. It's only oppressive. For me, one type of disaster is when I think I'm doing just fine, only to suddenly find that I'm not. Even if it doesn't matter after the game, it's almost impossible to shake off during the game.

dboing

edited

@Gyllenstierna said in #4:

Tsk, Tsk, don't go call this a disaster.

I totally agree with what you say about SF and other machinery, but the post wasn't about home analysis with all tools available. It's all about what goes on in your mind during a tournament game. In home analysis there are no disasters.

However, I retain the right to call some some mishaps during the game disasters. Sometimes you're just outplayed by a stronger player. That's no disaster, it's human shortcomings. If, after the game, SF points out your crappy moves and shows you what you should have played instead, it's not helpful. It's only oppressive.

For me, one type of disaster is when I think I'm doing just fine, only to suddenly find that I'm not. Even if it doesn't matter after the game, it's almost impossible to shake off during the game.

I think our chess experiences overlap in different ways. Correspondance chess being a hybrid betwee studying and playing. There is plenty time to self-slef-board-self-other player-self-board... analysis make more than one plan etc....

I was talkng about foward play.. with fog ahead. but then also with third obesver with all tools in comparative mode.
I get your point, my bad.. I tend to switch "voice" mid-sentence wihtout warning.... Aah.. Language such a vile approximation. direct style, indirect style (how to write a play, maybe I should train myself to write plays even if I don't reall have any content for it).

@Gyllenstierna said in #4: > > Tsk, Tsk, don't go call this a disaster. > > I totally agree with what you say about SF and other machinery, but the post wasn't about home analysis with all tools available. It's all about what goes on in your mind during a tournament game. In home analysis there are no disasters. > > However, I retain the right to call some some mishaps during the game disasters. Sometimes you're just outplayed by a stronger player. That's no disaster, it's human shortcomings. If, after the game, SF points out your crappy moves and shows you what you should have played instead, it's not helpful. It's only oppressive. > > For me, one type of disaster is when I think I'm doing just fine, only to suddenly find that I'm not. Even if it doesn't matter after the game, it's almost impossible to shake off during the game. I think our chess experiences overlap in different ways. Correspondance chess being a hybrid betwee studying and playing. There is plenty time to self-slef-board-self-other player-self-board... analysis make more than one plan etc.... I was talkng about foward play.. with fog ahead. but then also with third obesver with all tools in comparative mode. I get your point, my bad.. I tend to switch "voice" mid-sentence wihtout warning.... Aah.. Language such a vile approximation. direct style, indirect style (how to write a play, maybe I should train myself to write plays even if I don't reall have any content for it).