my biggest problem given my evolving chess vision in capture chess, is about hidden relative zugzwangs and the big whale of the mate.. I often aim at the big whale, and if even good enough wrong plan like that, I feel like i can on average, get surprises captures from the oppoenent having to still defend against that, but my small brain or lazyness would not have to compute that..
I also solve puzzles that way, and get to be surprised by the replies... loads of fun
There is a real learning problem under that comment.. I could ramble but I would let you figure it out or find a real problem given your experience in coaching.. that would fit better than my not fully expressed thoughts.
well I could see a connection (I am good to an erring extent at that), that of the subjective "expected" or surprise.
but no. not that. I undrestand that "surprise" might have lead you there. But I think it is upstream in the reasoning among defintion world. intermezzo is blatantly in the eyes of the beholder. but what is learning in chess if not evolving the eyes of the beholder.
now "lesser of 2 evils" is also a non-chess prior common type of "reasoning". it might lead a lot of us patzer-leaning learners in evolution (well hopefully in the expanding direction with judicious generalization so we don't have to sample all of chess before getting it), to generalize the strictly definable (in perfect chess land that bondary of the real chess learning problem world) zugzwang.
maybe I should have said instead of "relative", subjective. Puzzles are best at illustrating that internal representation learning problem.
so in puzzle I am rewarded de facto from aiming at high in my poor chess foresight imagination. but I fail all the puzzles where the gain is tiny in material (and I succeed in spite of being wrong in my planning all along at least I don't see it in most precaucious lichess puzzles, which I can also fail, just saying I might not have seen the real gain ever and still solved the puzzles). my problem is more about those where I mistakenly think there is a mate possible, but that aiming at those, I do not see the lesser gain that I will still solve puzzle, because the nook and cranny super human tree searcher on the other side will inevitable find a lesser evil than my limited internal representation dependent forsight planning ruminations of a weaker path to my desirable mate target, would be for it.
ok too much details.. So why do I whine? Well, that means I have not a problem of counting, and I don'T aim at being supra-human exhaustive serch prowess, I aim at teaching my big potentially stupid brain using all my abilities even including critical thijnking dwarf, to better furnish my imagination with stepping stone desirable board features to aim at.. capturing being those. is this just more calculation, or is there some value at maximizing own limited patzer imagination aiming at the big whale. and within that before move mind framework, using and train my counting that is now not an exponential divergence growth nightmare.
First OBIT (Openings, Blunders, Interesting, Takeaway), now CREAM... it's NATE! (Numerous Acronyms Towards Excellence)
Get the Money. Dollar Dollar Bills Y’all.
Nate,
Example 2 seems off. After Bxc6+ Nxc6 Nxe5 Bxd1, Nxc6 is not check at all, and therefore the king need not move, giving black time to move the queen.
Isn't it discovered check from the rook?
In my rather poor defense I made my original comment under the influence of physical exhaustion from spring yard work 😂🙏🏽
This is why you’re an FM and I am not. 😂😂😂 my bad Nate!
This is the perfect illustration of how tricky these positions are!
my biggest problem given my evolving chess vision in capture chess, is about hidden relative zugzwangs and the big whale of the mate.. I often aim at the big whale, and if even good enough wrong plan like that, I feel like i can on average, get surprises captures from the oppoenent having to still defend against that, but my small brain or lazyness would not have to compute that..
I also solve puzzles that way, and get to be surprised by the replies... loads of fun
There is a real learning problem under that comment.. I could ramble but I would let you figure it out or find a real problem given your experience in coaching.. that would fit better than my not fully expressed thoughts.
Do you mean zwischenzugs?
short version: intermezzo? no.
next day thoughts:
well I could see a connection (I am good to an erring extent at that), that of the subjective "expected" or surprise.
but no. not that. I undrestand that "surprise" might have lead you there. But I think it is upstream in the reasoning among defintion world. intermezzo is blatantly in the eyes of the beholder. but what is learning in chess if not evolving the eyes of the beholder.
now "lesser of 2 evils" is also a non-chess prior common type of "reasoning". it might lead a lot of us patzer-leaning learners in evolution (well hopefully in the expanding direction with judicious generalization so we don't have to sample all of chess before getting it), to generalize the strictly definable (in perfect chess land that bondary of the real chess learning problem world) zugzwang.
maybe I should have said instead of "relative", subjective. Puzzles are best at illustrating that internal representation learning problem.
so in puzzle I am rewarded de facto from aiming at high in my poor chess foresight imagination. but I fail all the puzzles where the gain is tiny in material (and I succeed in spite of being wrong in my planning all along at least I don't see it in most precaucious lichess puzzles, which I can also fail, just saying I might not have seen the real gain ever and still solved the puzzles). my problem is more about those where I mistakenly think there is a mate possible, but that aiming at those, I do not see the lesser gain that I will still solve puzzle, because the nook and cranny super human tree searcher on the other side will inevitable find a lesser evil than my limited internal representation dependent forsight planning ruminations of a weaker path to my desirable mate target, would be for it.
ok too much details.. So why do I whine? Well, that means I have not a problem of counting, and I don'T aim at being supra-human exhaustive serch prowess, I aim at teaching my big potentially stupid brain using all my abilities even including critical thijnking dwarf, to better furnish my imagination with stepping stone desirable board features to aim at.. capturing being those. is this just more calculation, or is there some value at maximizing own limited patzer imagination aiming at the big whale. and within that before move mind framework, using and train my counting that is now not an exponential divergence growth nightmare.