<Comment deleted by user>
I really enjoyed reading this series. Thanks for sharing your great work!
<Comment deleted by user>
part 4?
@q109
Would you like a part 4?
I would need to come up with new material for that. And hopefully a bit less technical than part 3.
Would you like a part 4?
I would need to come up with new material for that. And hopefully a bit less technical than part 3.
@arjun18_PM said in #6:
> Is it possible to have a vampire but with no pawns on the board?
Wow, this is a cool question! I wanted to take a deeper look at see if maybe one of the pawns could be promoted, then there would be no pawns!
> Is it possible to have a vampire but with no pawns on the board?
Wow, this is a cool question! I wanted to take a deeper look at see if maybe one of the pawns could be promoted, then there would be no pawns!
@Kings_Army said in #16:
>
There are many questions of explorative nature left that this initial series seems to bring about.
And now an opinion piece, somehow related to above.
Some may not care about the not-only competitive chess nature of this more legal chess (and dual too) mathematically flavored type of problem.
But:
I think that weeding out the classes that can be made invariant within, and the subset of chess "physics" needed to cross or not such boundaries** is a step closer to shedding light of expanding fog of chess; what could only be internalized by intuition learning to fill in the gaps of chess theory***, up to now. This is a an opinion/impression/oracle prediction (kidding, I meant hunch).
** (be it legality, or any other question of tempo imbalance exact preservation, the general case of vampires, if I could suggest)
*** (not a failure of theory, just how far it could get, one expert book at a time, and I don't mean opening construction data, but the ideas and the plans and the desirable competitive objectives based on board features here and putative plan deeper).
This like looking at any endgame problem for its human chess approachable aspects, not just whether it is likely for the one-game problem. but for the study part of playing chess that is not short term performance time scale, or population scale. This is the stuff that is likely not on any game-tree (the undefined tree=game of some game theory subset, even combinatorial game-thoery). That is another hypothesis of mine I am nurturing now, after having had some friend help on things about mathematical languages. a consolidation, that makes me more confident verbalizing this now. In the past it was only nagging disconfort with game theory point of view, now I understand a bit more that it may be a languge admissible problem.
And this vampire question, is an example of looking really at the board game for its core foundations. I might not be good at the construction part of it, but with the crumbs I read, and the few examples I could sustain reading attention with, I get this sense that is about finding some kind of timing imbalance constraints on how much expansions can our competitive move lead to.. To spot timiing losses or switghing, or actully find out that not only kings can lose timing or gain spatial appropriate timing in endgame things.. having such ability.. any piece but thre pawns can have their own spatial scale of triangulation.. (and the exact shapre does not have to be a triangle, but the # of move being about 3 placement?.).
sometimes words can be generalization prisons, if they are taken too seriously and frozen from having been read or used by past experts transmissions across generations, in some one book.. I think chess is a game of generalization, specially if not having the luck of birth to consacrate the non-rational first experience accumulation approach. kids are also great generalization machine that just recently in that development time window, have freshly learned to locomote in the 2D/3D world (including their many degree of freedom proprioceptive motor map and action world).
>
There are many questions of explorative nature left that this initial series seems to bring about.
And now an opinion piece, somehow related to above.
Some may not care about the not-only competitive chess nature of this more legal chess (and dual too) mathematically flavored type of problem.
But:
I think that weeding out the classes that can be made invariant within, and the subset of chess "physics" needed to cross or not such boundaries** is a step closer to shedding light of expanding fog of chess; what could only be internalized by intuition learning to fill in the gaps of chess theory***, up to now. This is a an opinion/impression/oracle prediction (kidding, I meant hunch).
** (be it legality, or any other question of tempo imbalance exact preservation, the general case of vampires, if I could suggest)
*** (not a failure of theory, just how far it could get, one expert book at a time, and I don't mean opening construction data, but the ideas and the plans and the desirable competitive objectives based on board features here and putative plan deeper).
This like looking at any endgame problem for its human chess approachable aspects, not just whether it is likely for the one-game problem. but for the study part of playing chess that is not short term performance time scale, or population scale. This is the stuff that is likely not on any game-tree (the undefined tree=game of some game theory subset, even combinatorial game-thoery). That is another hypothesis of mine I am nurturing now, after having had some friend help on things about mathematical languages. a consolidation, that makes me more confident verbalizing this now. In the past it was only nagging disconfort with game theory point of view, now I understand a bit more that it may be a languge admissible problem.
And this vampire question, is an example of looking really at the board game for its core foundations. I might not be good at the construction part of it, but with the crumbs I read, and the few examples I could sustain reading attention with, I get this sense that is about finding some kind of timing imbalance constraints on how much expansions can our competitive move lead to.. To spot timiing losses or switghing, or actully find out that not only kings can lose timing or gain spatial appropriate timing in endgame things.. having such ability.. any piece but thre pawns can have their own spatial scale of triangulation.. (and the exact shapre does not have to be a triangle, but the # of move being about 3 placement?.).
sometimes words can be generalization prisons, if they are taken too seriously and frozen from having been read or used by past experts transmissions across generations, in some one book.. I think chess is a game of generalization, specially if not having the luck of birth to consacrate the non-rational first experience accumulation approach. kids are also great generalization machine that just recently in that development time window, have freshly learned to locomote in the 2D/3D world (including their many degree of freedom proprioceptive motor map and action world).
@ambrona yes,please