Lichess has visually expanded into parallel board the line first opening explorer

me likey. Should I make a thread in feedback? to laud this epiphany of mine.
I find it very compatible for exploring without overloading gratuitously with namology my understanding of chess.
It also reduces the forward line "tatonnement" branch after branch from growing a single game line, I have limited daily allowance of stamina**, and it comes in short burst alternated with air head or lying down if it was from posture limitation endurance (not clear, not time to study which is which from innate, developped or accumulated along the way).

chess theory (i.e. for me it means understanding, and not exactly that which is written for eternity, the concepts not the words, but the words as current hypotheses about the concepts, themselves hypotheses along my future experience, nothing really feedfoward, many loop backs, toward a grandiose converging spiral with unknown rate of convergence, or cycle period...who cares, not me. as long as I can keep doing more of that. In my limited precious daily allowance... that is.. every day, might look like havng lots of time, but that is not the reality. I might not be alone, in that. I compensate my daily limitations, by coming back often... does not mean i am that often able to have mental quality or learning rate or depth (yes, depth of learning. insight stuff.. the stuff that I can actually count on, albeit uncontrollable when it happens, i can just navigate in the storm of alias, still subject to the waves of inadequacy (or not being the fittest). Grandiose is long shot, but in my case, it seem a good boat direction to keep coming back to.. it is my grandiose long arc big scope sextant. like the stars maybe? but they look like questions, and working hypotheses...

** (and no! it is not about training my current stamina to be longer, I have had a past life where it was too long already for my own health, and so, Tada: now have to pay the price, in many ways, limited resource it is!).

lichess.org/opening

move chess no more. the name-ology has been made visually explorable one step further, to the extent that the existing data structure tenet allows,

now no need to do the hand moves, one can see the historically explored subset of one node successors from current position.

might want to zoom out a bit, until one can't read the names (but still guess they are there or not, and blurry visoin different from each other), so that all the popular (well low thresdhold, thank lichess), continuations can be seen, and the last move highlight comparison at a glance, but not SAN encoded anymore.. full visual brain bubble, so juice to linguistic, or not an impediment to board thinking (just some lablelling, background, that, might be learning from frequency, but not the move chess flow. the board position in face flow ordering.

the reasoning skill, is more directly accessible within a human study stamina limited chunk.

we know that, while it might be source of errors, it is also a great human shared strenght that we still make correlatoin assocationes.

if the context is itself trustable or geared toward learning something consensually valuable, then the correlation will not be capturing some thing spurious, at least not from the input sensory exposure.

(it is when such tool of human reasoning, is actually manipulated by crafted context restrictions, that the generalization errors might be guided somewhere.. Or it might not be intent but hubris of omniscience, while not being the case. We think our data is representative of the target in the wilderness... or we were raised to emotionnaly bind to some precepts, that would limit the admissible input or its perception, in how we samples what comes in. etc..

but guess what, chess has been constructed to not be so.. only our historical human population size and game set size is our current data limitation.

so.. i don,t get the obsession with making it hard to see the boards like that.. thank you lichess for doing the best you can given the givens of chess world theories of learning and thinknig, and doing this. mille mercis.

see. In one of my correspondance games (with my father), i wanted to test things I had read about rapport jobava, being a different ordering of the London.. for the QB placement questions (and probably consequent plan roles for it in that hood chess opening ideas).

how I learn is question drive and self-contained arguments I can further explore for myself. so not ROTS, but what is usually hidden behind them, because of some learning theory that is about rating improvment glamouring of the eager students, want to play full games in a context, where there is no time to understand first, and win later, but win first, ROT against opening lines specializatoin... is the current artificial selection givens. that is the game of chess grosso modo, until one gets over either, if having long life remaining at that stage.

no me likey to see the boards and hypotheses of understanding (and exploring) there foremost and first most.
and arguments.. like plan and ideas, that are not just ROTs, but underlying explicit argument of context clues of the board visible linking to actions and or desirable future clues of the board later (chess time, this time). SAN is just good for examples or robotic address for resources retrieval.

online we can bypass that endoding. is it such a chess learning theory crime? it is not just an encoding, it spills over in makng us stuck in move chess.. everything discoverable, only if we give the single line of move prefix to see it. is it not reasonable to connect that to the dominating move chess first and transversal when older current state of affairs?

why would QB going to c4, oops f4 (that spreadsheet coordinate system another arbitraty choice, not tapping on chess properties, at least in the vertical direction, chess has symetry, but no, spreadsheet zero is in one corner).

I am reall not suited to existing chess scaffolding lingering from the past... I learned chess without it, it seems.. only five years ago, did I start being curious about others attempts at seeing more than the immediate game before them.. And I am not young. Still, had some chess in me.. meager trickle of few long stretches of experience, but likely as usual with high attention level, such level that only passion can muster.. (mine comes from curiosity, and imagination, and limitations in certain type of memory I guess, compensating with another, which is demanding on passion intensity, theory of self here).

back to intent of this post. sorry. why would QB (dark square diagonals, if white) placement at f4, a hallmark of London system (contrasting with similar by pawn structure (early) COLLE, QB placement, from my naive transversal patzer view point, that does not want to do repertoire first transversal later, i prefer the board clues, even if that does not allow me to compete in certain canonical chess games ...

so. that is not me asking anyone. that is me being curious and questoin driven from the board, by way of communicated theory by others (even if wrong, but how can a quesiton be wrong, isn't a question more productive than a shorctut answer that only works for so long and only on average, as win ratio, and because of the external time control and closed book dogma (well it is not really a dogma, as it is not explicit, just obvious and common sense, there is only that).

and now can I do some chess.. and find that Rapport-jobave that is not London, both being tagged "system" somethwere. but one being about ordering of the moves.. dissonant muse or hunting target in my theory guided chess exploration..

lichess.org/opening/Rapport-Jobava_System

damn. I was wrong all along.. it is not about the ordering. sorry guys.. how text by itself can be so misleading

I bet I read someone who was just themself focussed on the QB behavior.. the knight move itself is not Colle or London..

sorry reader.. but how fast did I find my error.. without having to rely on the sequence.

we can now. jump right away of the position that defines the named opening segment.. and lichess made sure that it had (did it?) all the possible names for any position that would define any named segment in its database. (which would need a policy for path memory induced naming priority, and possibly, standalone postion to name layer on top.. so input object would be either position, or position with prefix.. something like that.. but tired to ask or search, for that kind of chess interpretable information. about coverage of the wilderness, and what was lost ...

my bad... maybe deeper there is a point. my bad comes from a reddit question about the recency of the name rapport jobava, and few others about difference with London, as both are systems.. and might have some glamourous exposure in recent years.

on topic. to illustrate in pic what I meant by parallel and board first (trhough name adress and defining first position of named segment).

at a glance, but also informative enough. and IN parallel... focus through comparison on the contrasting information, and association to names, if needed, but might be left of the subconscious, so the previous conscious abilities are used where the chess gist difficulty is, why add hoops, just because that is how one had only seen been done.. update with new information from non-chess knowledge..

same can be done with ideas.. ideas, to board, and then to moves that get there.. and any backlooping necessary to get rid of the endoding dependencies, and have the physics of it, be the thing left, occupying brain space, time and energy to compute.

the board game.