> Objectively, Black still stands better in both of these cases, but...
Many livestreamers use this "better" term (or "winning"), but I am no longer sure what it means.
Many livestreamers use this "better" term (or "winning"), but I am no longer sure what it means.
Thank you for introducing abstractions to how we can see the board. I only looked at the first example so far. I see that inevitability is about long term current imbalances that can be analysed statically, but that dynamic analysis (?) could trump that.
I guess I don't have enough experience in being able to see that. I confuse dynamics with calculation.
How much of the dynamics of more immediate viscinity can be projected back into the static analysis, is something I struggle with, in my amateur realm, keen on understanding before improving (because that is my immediate reward system, for a short attention span, sustaining it that way). If all dynamics not only long term could be actualized at current position, without calculations, then inevitability would be hard to coin. so in some way, inevitability seems to be about that room between long term and short term, static analysis not too strong on the alternating immediate "leaks" in the long term landscape.
I hope my blahblah, probably not using the correst language in parts is readable nonetheless. Thanks for allowing abstractions as something all of us can attempt to play with...
I guess I don't have enough experience in being able to see that. I confuse dynamics with calculation.
How much of the dynamics of more immediate viscinity can be projected back into the static analysis, is something I struggle with, in my amateur realm, keen on understanding before improving (because that is my immediate reward system, for a short attention span, sustaining it that way). If all dynamics not only long term could be actualized at current position, without calculations, then inevitability would be hard to coin. so in some way, inevitability seems to be about that room between long term and short term, static analysis not too strong on the alternating immediate "leaks" in the long term landscape.
I hope my blahblah, probably not using the correst language in parts is readable nonetheless. Thanks for allowing abstractions as something all of us can attempt to play with...
Nice blog
There is something in the concept being worded in that blog.
It comes back in the notion of playing lines repertoires made of very long sequences obtained by meticulous exploration of the alternating legal possibilities, and it also comes up with engine style, meaning post-AB engine style.
That no matter the human statically visible odds from chess theory or opening ideas (some intersection between chess theory and opening theory (which is more that just theory, or i do not understand the word)), there may be leaks in that human static analysis (given its current power of separation or differentiation of board signals, that is, see PCC for some ideas about more discerning power ideas, imho).
So people have to use engine of out-of-game cumulative analysis all of the alternating dynamic kind, to find those...
I find that A0 and LC0 bring the question of how much can static analysis differentiate or discern of the board given its implementations and training games sets (that it generates "it"self).
ok i could not resist fly off the handle on this one. Because of @Toadofsky post. in parts. I was repressing this post until i read it.
EDit: by alternating I mean alternating with ply (half-move) clock
It comes back in the notion of playing lines repertoires made of very long sequences obtained by meticulous exploration of the alternating legal possibilities, and it also comes up with engine style, meaning post-AB engine style.
That no matter the human statically visible odds from chess theory or opening ideas (some intersection between chess theory and opening theory (which is more that just theory, or i do not understand the word)), there may be leaks in that human static analysis (given its current power of separation or differentiation of board signals, that is, see PCC for some ideas about more discerning power ideas, imho).
So people have to use engine of out-of-game cumulative analysis all of the alternating dynamic kind, to find those...
I find that A0 and LC0 bring the question of how much can static analysis differentiate or discern of the board given its implementations and training games sets (that it generates "it"self).
ok i could not resist fly off the handle on this one. Because of @Toadofsky post. in parts. I was repressing this post until i read it.
EDit: by alternating I mean alternating with ply (half-move) clock
Very interesting concept. I need to think about it and try it couple of times.
Also <3 for not putting any gifs in the article. That is really apreciated by me.
Also <3 for not putting any gifs in the article. That is really apreciated by me.
<Comment deleted by user>
@Toadofsky said in #2:
> Many livestreamers use this "better" term (or "winning"), but I am no longer sure what it means.
I think people are coming to be careful about using best and perfect play claims. I find it good news. The notion of odds making its way slowly. Long way to go?
This is about making a difference between various early board characteristics we value as forecaster of legal outcomes, and realizing that the quantities that might matter, might be about many games outcomes, so odds. Perhaps an acceptation of how big the chess world is still.
In other words, accepting that we do not have complete knowledge of the whole chess tree, and have to deal with uncertainty, even starting to discern degree and types of uncertainty. So, good, I am not sure either. But, while sure is 100%, there is a lot of possibility in the "not sure" region.
So, real chess ain't perfect chess, in that we have uncertainty, in our cognitive resources, not from the board logic, which is still having the determinacy (or whatever) and information set definitions game theory assumes.. So we have to manage uncertainty and even try to characterize it.. I like the fog analogy for it.
> Many livestreamers use this "better" term (or "winning"), but I am no longer sure what it means.
I think people are coming to be careful about using best and perfect play claims. I find it good news. The notion of odds making its way slowly. Long way to go?
This is about making a difference between various early board characteristics we value as forecaster of legal outcomes, and realizing that the quantities that might matter, might be about many games outcomes, so odds. Perhaps an acceptation of how big the chess world is still.
In other words, accepting that we do not have complete knowledge of the whole chess tree, and have to deal with uncertainty, even starting to discern degree and types of uncertainty. So, good, I am not sure either. But, while sure is 100%, there is a lot of possibility in the "not sure" region.
So, real chess ain't perfect chess, in that we have uncertainty, in our cognitive resources, not from the board logic, which is still having the determinacy (or whatever) and information set definitions game theory assumes.. So we have to manage uncertainty and even try to characterize it.. I like the fog analogy for it.
Great article, thx! I have a question..
In the original example, white plays Nf4 after ..a5. Why is this his move? The knight has moved already, moving it twice loses e4. Why not Bg2? It is the natural move, prepares castles (or Kf1 if necessary) defends e4! If black plays ..Bxh3 white has the bishops. It strikes me that white gets in trouble because he is abandoning opening principles and moving a piece twice.
In the original example, white plays Nf4 after ..a5. Why is this his move? The knight has moved already, moving it twice loses e4. Why not Bg2? It is the natural move, prepares castles (or Kf1 if necessary) defends e4! If black plays ..Bxh3 white has the bishops. It strikes me that white gets in trouble because he is abandoning opening principles and moving a piece twice.
@CheckRaiseMate said in #1:
> Comments on lichess.org/@/checkraisemate/blog/inevitability/5IyPfLeZ
mono r aggro
> Comments on lichess.org/@/checkraisemate/blog/inevitability/5IyPfLeZ
mono r aggro