Static mate patterns named or not? what gives? (2024)

#1

#2

State mates, are terminal ruleset logic definable. In theory, one could, consider the set of all position mater positions, hmm, maybe with restricted comprehension but from where . we do need a motherload that way. so until that other thread of mine goes prototype (honing re-entry into old skillset through a pawn only sub-"space" version, so in case of not panning out, it would still make me play a bit with opening frameworks (not the names, but the names in tow since resources are that way, not going to change that, everyting I do would be in paralel, complementary or ambient, and bridges are going to be likely about particualr case rosetta stone or just another collum in some bigger tables.. don't care much. it serves for current retrieval to get the data or information. but it woon't be the bottom of formalism. It is not satisfying, it does keep feeling like a floating bubble the more I know about it, ... but the more I also see what is missing, or think I see. So I can't ignore that, and so that motherload thread of wandering is there till it does not make sense to me...

Static mate, then retrograding the problems. mate in 1. So, in all our things, going bottom up, we have only (well part of we, and me doing the socarated dialogs non staged discussion scaffold, have targetted (or officially to both of us, thinking public purpose constraint via CPU string cookie monster bottle-neck of useful), have only target the board logic. But since our real muse, really, is both my data point leanring of chess, but also using that data point to generate theories of how I learned chess. I think a model of how I learned chess would benefit from being part of the discussion. And it has, but not in the final demonstrated as consitent and "complete" (some of that is ongoing and was paused). The proof, but more importantly the ideas of the proof and before the optimal flow of the proof (streamline ordering of the relatively separable "forces" or logic factor (lack such objectifying words for what I can see about how the proof was made, in purely declarative mode, CPU oblige perhaps, and pure logic machines in infrastructure (we are not, in fact quite the opposite, but we are only conscious and verbalize from the emergents costrly and needing daily logistics (like time management in chess is exactly about this, in long time controls, it is less about time pressure, but mental energy budgetting but the same brain type if in the conscoius-subconscious, or explicit versus internalized budgetting on the chess skills deployment, and therefore tying back to learning theory or model of both types of learning and performing, are about how difficult for us to sustain pure logic (or calcuation). We have meaning getting the way, but if that part is also eventually in on it, it is no more iin the way, but leading the way, and the slow execution high cost sweeps in its wake. That is the current accepted end-point of chess experise, in my weird words (meant to also point at certain aspects not usually made salient in smoother verbage).

#3

I should have mentioned long ago, that my use of unicorn is a sort of running linguistic style gag, between me and jomega, as I do right such things as here, with jomega avatar in my chorus of putative abstract readers. But I also find it a sure way to not mean anything that would not of unicorn status, which is about maximal ignorance of what is out there, to the point it might be unicorns.

This is because my goto thinking process when approaching thick fog, and someone is trying to lecture me about what might be inside, is to try to sense what that protruding string of words might actually be restricting of my shapeless blob of ignorance, as words enter my working memory (or what this cognitive science still existing model is intended to point to, in my thinking reality), how does it tickle my long term memories and exisitng associations and existing questions (or associative natures or sometimes themselve blank with priors, which is the unicorn land, but really that would not be coming from long term memory, it would be logic process demanding some restriction, and nagging my imagination with counter-imagination of the absurd kind).

Theory of thinking? self-data point validity, i.e. contrary to certain old psychology schools of thoughts, or how the disciples have kept propagating what was insightful but subjective born hypotheses, like me having had some self-ciritical but not self-diminishing training from scientific professional eductions, perhaps, as a complete scientific package, the repetition and retelling in some expertise locked attribution by themselves and general population (certain cultures might have that still lingering, possibly the implied : do not bring your own think, subconscious principle. All will come from the obserever, that is conflating that general scripted very constiten scaffold of explanation), but it was not ever really using an empirical method based on the not well defined (as often, it is not always possible at first and when there is no theory at all, some is better than nothing, but if it grows out of creator authority aura, and is losing revisablity from more an more people using it that way, we get stuck with a "boulet" for advancement of knowledge and even the offical goals that such psychological science theories were being created for in the field.

The technology emergency of sort. Making anything consittant , better than previous total aribitary. That is school of thought scientifc (anything knowledge acquisition about something not yet known), dynamics, in my simplistic views.

Now I should find why I ended up there, I sense I had a point, and I temporariy dropped it from my working memory juggle board. but since I am walking from the submerged rich is associations (with lots of variables of beliefs degrees and valency with curiosity targets, I supputate, just now, things I have yet to figure out, if I can or even just name as questions, lots of nesting i know, just don't want to lose, this just now, even if flaky later..). since that. I should just stop typing jnow. an look up. where I was .

The self-critical but not self-destructive (btw, separating those is some work. Idk for others, but me younger, it was difficult to discern self-observing and self-jugding I had to learn to disentangle the to, in effort of core assumptions revistion emergency cleanup projects). That my thoughts and emotions could themselves be observable and objects of more thoughts in relation to new data coming in daily. I make it sound mechanical. But whenenver there is emotion, and there has to be, (also to be learned for some of us, being sublte about them, words not always helping btw... ) one can't say it is robot recipe..

So. I guess I was using that well established in parts of world or has been for long time, and maybe is not being digested back to hypothesis status, or scaffolding like any consitent narrative might help make some mileage, in some luckily appropriat period of ones life. It was not science, in spite of how it was socally being accepted, by the proponents and trageted phenomenology.

It was not not science either. Just one part of it, orphaned from another part. But that was the time, when nothing else (expect purely arbriaty beliefs that had no logic for them being direct moral value judgment, with religious relents).

Eeach context has its constraints.. So, what am I saying. That this theory of my own thinking, I do not pretend it being valid, but in absence of any thing in my face that feels as intellectually reward as that which I try to observe while doing it (a bit what i suspect that other first wave of non-religious psychology theory proposition might have been developped by individiuals, i.e. introspection with some effort in not fooling oneself, but it had to be verbalizing things pulled out from subjhectivity, only it would be verbalized as model that could be shared.

So, we hear a lot from the expert end of the target question usually undefined. but for me, I should say I would have to be in that definitions as the not-improved yet. (even if my improved definition, is more ambitious on the learning and understanding nature, versus performance testing in existing social level comptitions rules. and their all relying on no open book of accumulated sequences with early middle-game passed playability assessment. That is not where I want to spend time. I prefer visiting the book, and working on the understand all over, but with some progression from the retrodrage target directions (nuance with retrograde as a method, I am only talking about program of study or learning,).

anyway. I am also having luggage from before chess about many types of leanring models. and I have been exposed to the conceptualisation and interactions between disciplines that some might consider not connected to each other. possible even experts in those repective disciplines might still not have to be aware (but I think in the last 10 years, it might be increasing unlikerly)

so i can't help through my own suhbjective expererience to see incoming thoughts from those luggages.. and they kind of have a tight fit over and over, and they help me discuss with jomega. who has the teacher experince, and the chess player experince..

#4

in conclusion for todfay. static mate first, dynamic mates later, but on radar for not spilling into that question while being in static.

also part of wnating to then look at dynamic named patters versus just unnamed tactical other patterns (not exculsive), and not enough historical community needing to call it a pattern so far (as ignorant, it is part of my curiosity to figure out that differecence, or think about it, it might not be someones who has already no need for such, because of their experience and knoweldge, it might be viewed as distraction for faster improving, if only I listened and took advantage of their advice, that they has to spend time to get there. It might not be my intersest in chess to apply action rules based on someone pre-existing expert preception which I can't share right now.

So, there is a tension here, but it is an accepted one, that comes with what I just said, about using myself as a data point. but not the truth for all. but I find I have not seen any previous concern at being that practical about the learning problem.

so purely static. there are more possible positions in the motherload (or what EGTB might have had to use, because otherwise impossible to restrict to legal continuations from initial standard position, those mates only, we can define the set mathematically, and therefore not in EGTB). I also find my motherload construction, to be more rewarding than doing code parwsing model bulding.

or that is what I can do, given my abliites and diabilities. The questions in title is about not just looking at named. for its historical discovery method and lack of many heads revisiting over chess knowledge and demographic increase and accumulation, and the black box premise that there is no way to do certain things so anything coined by previous is too illustrious to revise.

which leads to conflict with theories of learning that do actual allow going being previous black boxed concetps underlying the omissions and "taboo" of imagination. from my ignorant with some luggage about learning and cognition, and machine learning experiemental model value as partial models with existing mathematical formalisms, even though the hype is about their circus show instances (concision techinique, make a caricature).

Current stance. leave the names with their quirks, and various degrees of learning generalizaion "power" or useful ness.

still using self for that. and the fact that most people I know, do not receall the names of the mates even after having been exposed successfully for those. and it is conscious that they are meant as first exposure scaffold. Anyone disagree. surley this is chess. I don't think jomega when in full learning traget theory concerned more than just board truth and linguistic logic truth about the named patterns.

I wonder if the definition of those patterns should have logical equivalence verus leanring efficiency as the priority.

my stance is to not contradict any preference in above question. But not to forget any of them either. For we are in need of sciencitically and empirically (not anecdotically, from hindisght unlogicallyconsequent, GM notches from undefined starting point).

for me empirically should have least have my kind. and as subject I can document and journal to death about it. can,t I?

now. there are things that are no named not because they have not yet been made patterns, but for other reasons. I would like to make hypotehses with board vocabulary. One thing that is pretty sure. Isolated one piece ruleset moblity argument, or too many ways to get the mate (Static or not patterns). In such cases the caseology might overflow our sense of useful..

if things need as many examples as there are .... welll. that too. I would like to know what is too many. or what is too obcious is an generic verbalizable way. a theory of pattern calling out. its chess culture thresholding characteisticts.

I guess that is another theorieitical level. the epistemoglogy of chess theory (and above the epistemology of theoryu of learning about existing chess theory).. somethig like that. I am an abstgract distaction machine or sort, where I Can't help filter my imagination when actively and deliberately exploring something that is not yet understood to me, and I have deep instrincsi curiosity to find out.

#5

how about let the historical named mates a rest. and create a board logic (geometry of mobility and or restrictions).

at least for me. since I find the historical restrictions not always the most opportune or compact and generalizable things, like having to keep reigns on my tendency to see the board logicl under having more generalization potential.

perhaps there are 2 types of generalizations. or regrouping under more generative (ok, not surfing on hype, but what else am i going to use, generic? maybe, with better and more general applicability ..TBD).

There is the deliberate exercise (but how ones deliberately mutates the board, is already about imagination and some intuition, perhaps from core rules interlanled. But there is also that generalization that we might do on the long haul (statistical brain is slow pickup but solid long term, and fast recall. (the slow pick up, I think is oblivious, as most of intution and long term memory things I find should be there already.

so. after that off-topic but still connected biggest context update, i can narrow down without fear that the context will be narrowed down to me proposing this narrowed thing as being the bigger context, that need some discussion thiknign in cooperation etc.

deliberate discussion as i started to makes a more board logic based classification of static mates (first) and then dynamics mates

I am not saying ignore the historic. if the classicitaction is based on meaningful (board logic and mind logic about board things, both need adressing), then all the particular cases and restrictions with historically coined names (even those with some hints about the possible board things, there are things that forcing historical defitions as first exposure, seem over-reverence of traditions.

but this can't be really argued, before some less possibliy historical chess population discovery path (as one person, a population can "learn", we call that community or culture knowedge (not the whole culutre, just about the core game, if that is still part of real chess).

And of course. unsing the tools available, as scaffolding or skeleton, to build things is a good trial and error exploration of this approach.

as incomplete learner of static mates with names and also the useful board concepts I might have accidentally rediscover by myslef possibly with more elemental tactical patterns building from single piece mobilit figures (intuition starts there...for the chess parts, but it also builds from the line notion for sliders, which is pre-chess, already.. but not pre-locomotoin. do not put horse behind the cart.. ambitious ones (their parents, I guess).

I do need to build on existing. but not be slave to its restriction that feel quirky to me. say, i might have already internalized certain aspects, and conforming to the historical restriction, would not be productive..

it happens.. when one is able to take the time to test own thinking. or take notes. (even that which we never act upon anymore).. the bad moves still there.. all the failed puzzles? why the impulse.. this is not just logic or calculation. it is imagination introspection.

so. with such awareness i claim to have or nutrure to the best of my abilities (and because it is often loud anyway, hence I can't listen to a chessboard lecture or narration because I can't hold them anymore... .the imagination of what is not played or could be played... given my experience and understanding so far...

so which thread is this.. named patterns. . as archeological findings.. lol. sure I could learn the then chess context and historical games.. and I probably will, to understand the psychology behind, perhaps even to build generalizations through trial and error (theory and experiement, in other words, at any scale, even my own microworld of chess pursuit).

too tired. .

all corner mates. 1 attacking, 2 attacking 3, attacking. cramping own side. 1 2, 3 in relatoin to target king donut. (field)
garding actors. blocking line actors (both sides might have things). static thought first .

I would not need to go into dynamic mates right away. because I seese it is not that clear already the difference . and all lichess puzzle named mates, appear to me to be first static.

not all static mates seem to make it to named. so I would need to consider those too in a more systematic approach..

the advantage of board logic should be obvious (from board logic to chess logic). communicatino from common sensory perception of the board in common to all learner from individual mobliity internalized. they see each piece static mobility figure at a glance on empty board (not the post move source target line... or fugire, that is not the static figure that defines the piece).

ok not ovbvious. but arguable easily. and modular. one can then with more clarity figure out in the whole zoo of communicaty defintions and they all might have as restriciton from TBD better definitoins (possible not just flat structure, but groups of group, as one learns more things. having a lower level of abstraction, somehow seems a more prudent (perhaps slower) approach to building updatable theory of learning/chess. (the part of chess theory that is about sharing or teaching, if not all of it, why make a theory is not to share, this is definitely a many head thing.. that should be obvious, if not invisible from some mental exceptionalism..

derailing much...

#6