@Craze said in #3:
> Thus far, the framework reminds me of step two of my own '3-Step Process For Game Analysis' - which states that we should figure out what moves we had to see or what we had to appreciate in the position (evaluation) to find the best move.
>
> I had just been thinking of writing a 'First Principles' book on chess. I've found that the engine's 'logic' behind moves often deviates from more 'conventional' principles from the pre-computer era (as Willy Hendriks already started to indicate in 'Move First, Think Later'). It will be interesting to see how the first principles approach evolves from here.
Thanks for reading Max! In a later post I'll discuss how to use these ideas to review games/categorize one's mistakes - which sounds like it will have some overlap with your 3-Step process.
I'd encourage you to write that book :) I'd definitely enjoy reading some chess content along those lines.
> Thus far, the framework reminds me of step two of my own '3-Step Process For Game Analysis' - which states that we should figure out what moves we had to see or what we had to appreciate in the position (evaluation) to find the best move.
>
> I had just been thinking of writing a 'First Principles' book on chess. I've found that the engine's 'logic' behind moves often deviates from more 'conventional' principles from the pre-computer era (as Willy Hendriks already started to indicate in 'Move First, Think Later'). It will be interesting to see how the first principles approach evolves from here.
Thanks for reading Max! In a later post I'll discuss how to use these ideas to review games/categorize one's mistakes - which sounds like it will have some overlap with your 3-Step process.
I'd encourage you to write that book :) I'd definitely enjoy reading some chess content along those lines.