@lecw said in #30:
>
So good enough winning strategy for some while. The attrition game (with imbalance nibbling along the way). I am being told that or reading that regularly. I just find that most of my onboard in game curiosity is about questions looking around that strategy. But I am not using the rating level as a reference.
I might have become nonchalant with the winning prime directive. Confusing playing with studying. That might happen when the rating increments are far from each other in relation to the questions. Even the win or not, is far in my chess groove. So I might be using other criteria of strategy that is blending winning goal and learning goal.
I do not doubt the soundness of reducing mobility by taking out the dimensions of choice, and possibly in a more damaging way regarding the remaining space for the opponent. I was also thinking in more abstract/general chess practice or activity terms than in the op context. Right.
Just to be clear. So I am in constant learning opportunity edge and conflict with the winning official goal of playing. But I just spent days thinking about the same game contiguously from the recorded move on the growing mainline. I find it is an opportunity, or I manifestly seem to behave as if I want to augment my learning at every corner of the game, and I find, that might conflict with the reduction to known winning games. I even might suggest that as a learning strategy, that might be a force of convergence within the body of knowledge so far, and avoiding extending boundaries of familiarity. Maybe that is it, study and performance are different contexts of playing behaviour. I guess that was obvious then. I may be slow to catch certain implicit truths at times.
And since I am very aware of my ignorance by the number of questions that popup all the time. Well. It seems to be why I might find so many known endgames (to others as one way or another outcome), fascinating playing curiosity.
Because of my ignorance or inexperience levels in gaps of familiarity with the positions possible out there, where I still find joy in learning about how rich chess can be. The human opponent doing the social motivation instinct recruitment that a dumb engine would not provide, or that playing myself both sides would numb.
Ok. off-topic. But when do we get to talk about chess in a more realistic demographics' context? I am the voice of that. OTB is not all chess. And ratings are not necessary the ubiquitous measure of what might be going on the chessboard. But I admit, the blog was not saying that. .and was an interesting point of view or well specified context. I just can stop wanting to explain where I come from and why I am still reading such blog, in a pan chess user case mentality, I guess. :) Also, the blog offer on the lobby is heavy-handed on that restricted view of chess appeal.
>
So good enough winning strategy for some while. The attrition game (with imbalance nibbling along the way). I am being told that or reading that regularly. I just find that most of my onboard in game curiosity is about questions looking around that strategy. But I am not using the rating level as a reference.
I might have become nonchalant with the winning prime directive. Confusing playing with studying. That might happen when the rating increments are far from each other in relation to the questions. Even the win or not, is far in my chess groove. So I might be using other criteria of strategy that is blending winning goal and learning goal.
I do not doubt the soundness of reducing mobility by taking out the dimensions of choice, and possibly in a more damaging way regarding the remaining space for the opponent. I was also thinking in more abstract/general chess practice or activity terms than in the op context. Right.
Just to be clear. So I am in constant learning opportunity edge and conflict with the winning official goal of playing. But I just spent days thinking about the same game contiguously from the recorded move on the growing mainline. I find it is an opportunity, or I manifestly seem to behave as if I want to augment my learning at every corner of the game, and I find, that might conflict with the reduction to known winning games. I even might suggest that as a learning strategy, that might be a force of convergence within the body of knowledge so far, and avoiding extending boundaries of familiarity. Maybe that is it, study and performance are different contexts of playing behaviour. I guess that was obvious then. I may be slow to catch certain implicit truths at times.
And since I am very aware of my ignorance by the number of questions that popup all the time. Well. It seems to be why I might find so many known endgames (to others as one way or another outcome), fascinating playing curiosity.
Because of my ignorance or inexperience levels in gaps of familiarity with the positions possible out there, where I still find joy in learning about how rich chess can be. The human opponent doing the social motivation instinct recruitment that a dumb engine would not provide, or that playing myself both sides would numb.
Ok. off-topic. But when do we get to talk about chess in a more realistic demographics' context? I am the voice of that. OTB is not all chess. And ratings are not necessary the ubiquitous measure of what might be going on the chessboard. But I admit, the blog was not saying that. .and was an interesting point of view or well specified context. I just can stop wanting to explain where I come from and why I am still reading such blog, in a pan chess user case mentality, I guess. :) Also, the blog offer on the lobby is heavy-handed on that restricted view of chess appeal.
