In time pressure I'm thinking how unorganized my thinking is. And then I blunder.
Hope that helps.
Hope that helps.
what is even meant by "can i win pieces i just captured?"
@jesgluckner well if it's an exchange, the question would be can I keep the piece without giving the piece in exchange.
<Comment deleted by user>
@Triangel yes less questions are better, its the players task to select only a few relevant questions. Even if its subconscious. Thank you for taking the time to answer.
I really like the Second weakness rule: go with the opponents attack but add a twist to it so that you win. Easier said than done though.
I really like the Second weakness rule: go with the opponents attack but add a twist to it so that you win. Easier said than done though.
#33 People have worked on ways to figure out that exchange question statically; i.e. without look-ahead. They did that to speed up chess playing programs. The first people I know to have looked at this were the Spracklens; for the Sargon program. Today I see that in chess programming the idea is sometimes called SEE (static exchange evaluation).
See: www.chessprogramming.org/Static_Exchange_Evaluation
GM Lev Alburt taught exchange evaluation rules in one of his beginner books; but I cannot remember the name of the book. The rules are complex because one must take into account piece value, piece ordering, pinned pieces, released pins, and special rules for the King. Positions can get so complex that adding extra rules to cover the cases seems less efficient than look-ahead calculation.
Today, you'll see many videos where the presenter draws arrows on the board in an attempt to show what is happening with respect to questions like this.
See: www.chessprogramming.org/Static_Exchange_Evaluation
GM Lev Alburt taught exchange evaluation rules in one of his beginner books; but I cannot remember the name of the book. The rules are complex because one must take into account piece value, piece ordering, pinned pieces, released pins, and special rules for the King. Positions can get so complex that adding extra rules to cover the cases seems less efficient than look-ahead calculation.
Today, you'll see many videos where the presenter draws arrows on the board in an attempt to show what is happening with respect to questions like this.
Has it occurred to the random only thinking proponent*, that years passing might have rendered the conscious mind non-aware of how it was before the fast intuitive NON-conscious mind was actually not a blundering generator?
i think that the longer the years have passed since the reflex speed intuition keeps interupting the slow concsious one by proposing best move faster, have faded those distant memorie of when conscious was scaffolding and helping the intuitive one getting a more covering and flexible understanding to the chess reality that the experience player has made many times the trip around (assuming no new positions would require intuition tuning. and all positions a answered by reflex... lot of experience). what point would there be of keeping the slowing memory of that scaffold?
when does one not need a scaffold. do we all have early intense exposure or time to put enough to neglect the quality of the scaffolds we consider? I am glad that there is no platonic illusion anymore, and that theory and experience are considered on equal footing, but why go full amnesic? I am sorry if those times were only part of the childhood, more difficult to remember if not needed later in life, such as communicating outside the board about chess, because then, i would not think this to be rhetorical blindness.
* forgot which post, but he is consistent, yet concise bordering cryptic at times, but the many posts end-up converting the concise into something understandable, ambiguities from minimalist bursts get to cancel each other, and I am thankful for his pillar thesis, as the opposite thesis can be self-satisfied very easily, seduced by the apparent rational aspect of rules.
i think that the longer the years have passed since the reflex speed intuition keeps interupting the slow concsious one by proposing best move faster, have faded those distant memorie of when conscious was scaffolding and helping the intuitive one getting a more covering and flexible understanding to the chess reality that the experience player has made many times the trip around (assuming no new positions would require intuition tuning. and all positions a answered by reflex... lot of experience). what point would there be of keeping the slowing memory of that scaffold?
when does one not need a scaffold. do we all have early intense exposure or time to put enough to neglect the quality of the scaffolds we consider? I am glad that there is no platonic illusion anymore, and that theory and experience are considered on equal footing, but why go full amnesic? I am sorry if those times were only part of the childhood, more difficult to remember if not needed later in life, such as communicating outside the board about chess, because then, i would not think this to be rhetorical blindness.
* forgot which post, but he is consistent, yet concise bordering cryptic at times, but the many posts end-up converting the concise into something understandable, ambiguities from minimalist bursts get to cancel each other, and I am thankful for his pillar thesis, as the opposite thesis can be self-satisfied very easily, seduced by the apparent rational aspect of rules.
Are there attacks to the queen?
Are there attacks to a rook?
Are there attacks of pawns to minor pieces?
Are there attacks to undefended pawns or pieces?
What is weakened by the last move?
Are there attacks to a rook?
Are there attacks of pawns to minor pieces?
Are there attacks to undefended pawns or pieces?
What is weakened by the last move?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.