can you go back to the the moral of that story. i skipped over the part into the turn by turn, was expecting some conclusion about the planning.. or was it inside the turn by turn detailed story.. depending on the conclusion stimulation, I might have found the energy to find arguments within...
for now I am left with the adjustable depths of analysis of board features to consider, and then the expereince player assessment of them needing to be a specifi wieighing based on more arguments, visible too on the board. but the incoming expert information that one feature beats another, is perhaps not learnable from the post, just needs to be accepted. or is the turn by trun the low level logic example justifying that queen feature being consider one side advantage, for one, and enough asset in that direction to outweight the others. It is possible that you deliver more generalizable juice within the turn by turn... But a conclusion back to the higher level reasoning would have made the dive in one example at lowere level more motivating.. for my lazyness.
I suppose the moral is that White was too lazy to evaluate the position (or didn't understand how to evaluate) and too lazy to calculate their best candidate moves, so opportunities were missed.
It took a miracle, but that’s a fun castle-storming right there.
See you at the bar!
And if you're playing a game of chess for your life, don't open with 1. e4.
...
...
...
"Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line"
can you go back to the the moral of that story. i skipped over the part into the turn by turn, was expecting some conclusion about the planning.. or was it inside the turn by turn detailed story.. depending on the conclusion stimulation, I might have found the energy to find arguments within...
for now I am left with the adjustable depths of analysis of board features to consider, and then the expereince player assessment of them needing to be a specifi wieighing based on more arguments, visible too on the board. but the incoming expert information that one feature beats another, is perhaps not learnable from the post, just needs to be accepted. or is the turn by trun the low level logic example justifying that queen feature being consider one side advantage, for one, and enough asset in that direction to outweight the others. It is possible that you deliver more generalizable juice within the turn by turn... But a conclusion back to the higher level reasoning would have made the dive in one example at lowere level more motivating.. for my lazyness.
I suppose the moral is that White was too lazy to evaluate the position (or didn't understand how to evaluate) and too lazy to calculate their best candidate moves, so opportunities were missed.