en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priyome
> Because the word does not have an exact equivalent in English—with "device", "technique", or "method" the closest translations—it has appeared untranslated in English-language chess literature, although this usage is not yet widespread.
Does it mean the same thing in all those beholding the usage of the word. Might it not be as slightly inadequate in Russian as device, technique or method would be each individually in English or French or other languages with those 3? for chess.
Why not start researching combination of natural words as candidates instead. I would propose, dynamical (or dynamic) pattern. It might depend if we are strictly describing how to accomplish some convened and known goal (to the ones communicating using those words), or if we are at higher level than that level of goal imagination or knowledge.
We all would convene that chess ruleset terminal outcome of win is desirable for the side which behavior on the board is being described (or even we could also convene that the 2 players each find desirable winning for their sides only, zero sum and all, being a constraint of the rule set).
However, those are most of the time, at initial position (any of the 960 or any similar set up, ok standard only is fine too), beyond our ability to communicate in words How to do that about the moves to accomplish, some do, and dump a long SAN sequence, but is that really sharing useful ideas? I find this to be mere data, without insight being shared. That kind of communication could simply be a video of the game it would have the same human concept communication value. And it has value. That is what chess board experience is about. The voice of the board movable things. But we can get lost there easily, so much that historically, it was by successive opening rages in pools of human players, that had to copy each other mainly, some innovation would pop up, from a valiant top player willing to take some calculated (?really, not tested in some cavern away from historical records?)
Should we all now swarm on this word, that we don't really know natively the constellation of nuances it might have in Russian, that device, technique and method might also have but in different semantic directions.
Received? convened. We could build from simpler words, by using enough qualifiers to represent the actual complexity of chess arguments as functions of the board information. And we might not need those to be frozen for eternity, but instead put more energy into well forming tentative specific AND generalizable defiitions. And example sets to illustrate for the obligatory failures to reach such goal on the way.
Zugzwang. is a similar case.. One can point fine absolute examples where 2 people might use that word to communicate about exactly the same of set of positions, because they both have the complete continuation tree from those (enough attrition might do that) in mind.
I don't mind a funky name if others don't do the job. but are we sure that we are communicating. Would it not be better to spend more time on the logic or insight about the chess wilderness they are meant to point to outside the board and outside the games? Accept the failliblity of each other, and also the glorious predecessors, as not diminishing their performance or research or discvoery auras as individuals, but that they might be bricks toward something more communicative in the end.
There might be a pull not to do that, to keep chess as an arcane art, where many are called but few are chosen... We do that, don't we? we need superhero, and various XXXXX contests to exist... so we can do what, nuptial parading?
NB: depending on the context or concept to point at on the board, position is minimally a diagram specified and optionally turn, en passant, castling categories specified or spanned, we can talk about position classes represented by a diagram as "secrets of pawn endings" book does as a chess theoretical presentation "method".).
Some concepts need the full dependencies with them or they become vague or useless as communication tools. so I guess I am saying, why not take the time to be clear there, instead of a magic bullet new word that makes sense really to the first person using it, from their board experiene... It is a long haul project for sure.
> Because the word does not have an exact equivalent in English—with "device", "technique", or "method" the closest translations—it has appeared untranslated in English-language chess literature, although this usage is not yet widespread.
Does it mean the same thing in all those beholding the usage of the word. Might it not be as slightly inadequate in Russian as device, technique or method would be each individually in English or French or other languages with those 3? for chess.
Why not start researching combination of natural words as candidates instead. I would propose, dynamical (or dynamic) pattern. It might depend if we are strictly describing how to accomplish some convened and known goal (to the ones communicating using those words), or if we are at higher level than that level of goal imagination or knowledge.
We all would convene that chess ruleset terminal outcome of win is desirable for the side which behavior on the board is being described (or even we could also convene that the 2 players each find desirable winning for their sides only, zero sum and all, being a constraint of the rule set).
However, those are most of the time, at initial position (any of the 960 or any similar set up, ok standard only is fine too), beyond our ability to communicate in words How to do that about the moves to accomplish, some do, and dump a long SAN sequence, but is that really sharing useful ideas? I find this to be mere data, without insight being shared. That kind of communication could simply be a video of the game it would have the same human concept communication value. And it has value. That is what chess board experience is about. The voice of the board movable things. But we can get lost there easily, so much that historically, it was by successive opening rages in pools of human players, that had to copy each other mainly, some innovation would pop up, from a valiant top player willing to take some calculated (?really, not tested in some cavern away from historical records?)
Should we all now swarm on this word, that we don't really know natively the constellation of nuances it might have in Russian, that device, technique and method might also have but in different semantic directions.
Received? convened. We could build from simpler words, by using enough qualifiers to represent the actual complexity of chess arguments as functions of the board information. And we might not need those to be frozen for eternity, but instead put more energy into well forming tentative specific AND generalizable defiitions. And example sets to illustrate for the obligatory failures to reach such goal on the way.
Zugzwang. is a similar case.. One can point fine absolute examples where 2 people might use that word to communicate about exactly the same of set of positions, because they both have the complete continuation tree from those (enough attrition might do that) in mind.
I don't mind a funky name if others don't do the job. but are we sure that we are communicating. Would it not be better to spend more time on the logic or insight about the chess wilderness they are meant to point to outside the board and outside the games? Accept the failliblity of each other, and also the glorious predecessors, as not diminishing their performance or research or discvoery auras as individuals, but that they might be bricks toward something more communicative in the end.
There might be a pull not to do that, to keep chess as an arcane art, where many are called but few are chosen... We do that, don't we? we need superhero, and various XXXXX contests to exist... so we can do what, nuptial parading?
NB: depending on the context or concept to point at on the board, position is minimally a diagram specified and optionally turn, en passant, castling categories specified or spanned, we can talk about position classes represented by a diagram as "secrets of pawn endings" book does as a chess theoretical presentation "method".).
Some concepts need the full dependencies with them or they become vague or useless as communication tools. so I guess I am saying, why not take the time to be clear there, instead of a magic bullet new word that makes sense really to the first person using it, from their board experiene... It is a long haul project for sure.
why can't there be intuition in planning? or strategy. I think there is an assumption that our 2 hypothetic brain systems the giant and the dwarf, giant fast, dwarf hyper hungry on energy, never talk to each other, that it is clockwork in there.
I thought the working memory was only a fleeting snapshot of how interactions between conscious and non-conscious, I also have a tendency to thing that associative memory (and hypotheses pop up, yep I live with that a lot), and long term memory where keeping track of that non-conscious under our conscious hood. I might be wrong. but it seems we need dynamic models of your 2 "brains".
I would put intuition guided problem solving, and would add that your table was assuming performance contest, not study or exploration with reduces Damocles stake and increase board curiosity rewarding system (possibly intrinsic motivation driven).
It is interesting direction though to try to dissected concept via often used without flinching words we think mean the same thing for all our experience sets.... Good proposal. I am glad you came back with food for thought.
See, if you had a z direction in your word/concept partition (a rectangular parallelepiped), it would protrude from the virtual blog plane (having fun), or sink into it... does not matter.. You could have exploration and pattern formation or discovery , and possibly pattern boundary tuning or discovery that static pattern previously associated to some pryomic incantation of the moving things, i.e. a dynamic pattern with another static target (ultimate being mate), well that did not actually work anymore where other partial static patterns (or temporary exceptions as we often hear, because we might be patzers, and thus we can't handle conditional advice, no that is only accessible through experience..). A whole world in that Z dimensions. . Unless we could start a discussion about learning always in performance mode, where it is safer to stay in established playable knowledge until luckicly we can reduce ASAP to win at the first material imbalance (as new unique plan). many wins.. But what about learning? Do people learn that way, really? sorry. Well they might within a safe cordon.... But I think the is a z direction missing.
I thought the working memory was only a fleeting snapshot of how interactions between conscious and non-conscious, I also have a tendency to thing that associative memory (and hypotheses pop up, yep I live with that a lot), and long term memory where keeping track of that non-conscious under our conscious hood. I might be wrong. but it seems we need dynamic models of your 2 "brains".
I would put intuition guided problem solving, and would add that your table was assuming performance contest, not study or exploration with reduces Damocles stake and increase board curiosity rewarding system (possibly intrinsic motivation driven).
It is interesting direction though to try to dissected concept via often used without flinching words we think mean the same thing for all our experience sets.... Good proposal. I am glad you came back with food for thought.
See, if you had a z direction in your word/concept partition (a rectangular parallelepiped), it would protrude from the virtual blog plane (having fun), or sink into it... does not matter.. You could have exploration and pattern formation or discovery , and possibly pattern boundary tuning or discovery that static pattern previously associated to some pryomic incantation of the moving things, i.e. a dynamic pattern with another static target (ultimate being mate), well that did not actually work anymore where other partial static patterns (or temporary exceptions as we often hear, because we might be patzers, and thus we can't handle conditional advice, no that is only accessible through experience..). A whole world in that Z dimensions. . Unless we could start a discussion about learning always in performance mode, where it is safer to stay in established playable knowledge until luckicly we can reduce ASAP to win at the first material imbalance (as new unique plan). many wins.. But what about learning? Do people learn that way, really? sorry. Well they might within a safe cordon.... But I think the is a z direction missing.
@dboing bro please learn grammar
@SveshnikovisKing said in #4:
> @dboing bro please learn grammar
Thanks for noticing, it would mean shifting my struggle to grammor while I already have difficulty expressing the difficult thoughts that words are ** a pale approximations of... between French ordering and English reversal of proper syntax and phrase ordering, like what do you do when a concept has lots of context pre-conditions or nested conditions.. do you make a whole paragraph for each, or do you throw a bag of words and rely on reader, chess player likely also, imagination power. I hope that at the very least, an interested reader giving my words a try, would come up with their own understanding that make more sense to them.. Like when reading philosophy books in the author native language... :). Not that I pretend doing that.. I have the English is not my native language excuse.
** see example. or post editing that those now quite fix the telescoping of old thought being finger typed with delay, with the burst of new thoughts incoming.. no I tried.. nested can of worm, being grammar complacent (or is it compliant?).
> @dboing bro please learn grammar
Thanks for noticing, it would mean shifting my struggle to grammor while I already have difficulty expressing the difficult thoughts that words are ** a pale approximations of... between French ordering and English reversal of proper syntax and phrase ordering, like what do you do when a concept has lots of context pre-conditions or nested conditions.. do you make a whole paragraph for each, or do you throw a bag of words and rely on reader, chess player likely also, imagination power. I hope that at the very least, an interested reader giving my words a try, would come up with their own understanding that make more sense to them.. Like when reading philosophy books in the author native language... :). Not that I pretend doing that.. I have the English is not my native language excuse.
** see example. or post editing that those now quite fix the telescoping of old thought being finger typed with delay, with the burst of new thoughts incoming.. no I tried.. nested can of worm, being grammar complacent (or is it compliant?).
In chess context, "resource" or "method" might be the most relevant translations of the Russian word "приём" (priyom, if you want). Resources of the position, methods of training etc. A word "motif" can also be relevant, e.g. in phrases like "a typical tactical motif". The Russian word has multiple meanings, many of them being irrelevant when it comes to discussing chess.
беееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееее
Nice.
I feel like the move in the initial position was pretty obvious. I don't see why it would be difficult.
> suggestions were “intuition” and “instinct”. While these are certainly reasonable, to me they suggest an ability
> that is generalized and unlearnable — you either have it or you don’t.
That is not what intuition is. It based on learning. Intuition is automated memory. After doing thousands of times something the important thing is fetched without upper layers of brain engaging. It is not learning from the books or so but learned anyway.
> that is generalized and unlearnable — you either have it or you don’t.
That is not what intuition is. It based on learning. Intuition is automated memory. After doing thousands of times something the important thing is fetched without upper layers of brain engaging. It is not learning from the books or so but learned anyway.