I'm quite proud of this game, it's my highest rated classical win, starting with trapping and forking opponents queen with interesting scenario and then later not falling into stalemate trap.Hope you like.
Well I thought queen trap was brilliant Simon , aaah thanks very much Simon, taking to myself again lol xxx
Nice trap/fork! Especially in slower time controls a win against a +400 rated player is really difficult...
For avoiding stalemate, I usually clean the board even if it costs me some Queens. Better a clean board and a promoting pawn than having any stalemate chance (in which I easily fall).
For avoiding stalemate, I usually clean the board even if it costs me some Queens. Better a clean board and a promoting pawn than having any stalemate chance (in which I easily fall).
@OctoPinky said in #3:
> Nice trap/fork! Especially in slower time controls a win against a +400 rated player is really difficult...
>
> For avoiding stalemate, I usually clean the board even if it costs me some Queens. Better a clean board and a promoting pawn than having any stalemate chance (in which I easily fall).
Thanks and thanks for taking the time out to respond xxx
> Nice trap/fork! Especially in slower time controls a win against a +400 rated player is really difficult...
>
> For avoiding stalemate, I usually clean the board even if it costs me some Queens. Better a clean board and a promoting pawn than having any stalemate chance (in which I easily fall).
Thanks and thanks for taking the time out to respond xxx
so chess is a game of going from cramped position on each side, to global intertwined de-cramping (on average... lol), and then cramping (using empty squares to cramp only the king mobility choices, too) of the king, but then not too much. one need to keep some attacking room directly on the king in one's attacking options.
keep always some room to make a checking move at the right timing. so did I make it more confusing or what?
materially cramped versus empty square restriction. While the material cramping applies to all pieces, only the king gets also cramped by threatened empty squares. So if everything is cramped or gone for the defending king side, but it is not in check at that moment, then stalemate (so it usually happens when nothing else can move). Pawns are specially susceptible to not be able to move eventually in their racthet mobility (unidirectional motion choice until promotion to reversible motion material).
hence the post by @OctoPinky, our Lichess colleague. I am trying to not use a certain terminology, because I am not sure it would mean the same thing (and I can't really find other words). I hope this rambling around will also shuffle a few thoughts in op's mind.
Edit: I forgot to mention the rims of the big square we call the chessboard. After all, it is not the infinite plane (I have been told, it does not help to think like that, but I keep forgetting).
So, it does put a nuance on cleaning the board not being enough, the defending king might find stalemate refure in the corners. In fact I suggest you go autonomous learning with 2 kings only on the board... wait, they can't move on Lichess that way... so board editor that... put the token defending king in a corner (any color will do, might want to play with that for not having spurious associations on the color biasing your subconscious, but that can wait until you get the ideas, but do right after that).
then put more attacking pieces .. The minimal amount brings your king to cramp the other by empty squares it could go to (if empty board, I usually say naked board, imprints better). Some call that "bad breath" around the king, but that is only true for king to king bull fights (they just can't lock their horns ever, so what good might this analogy be, well, it is entertaining to write while I seek how to bring some closure to this post...).
do you get me? the keys are
1) naked board (your study goal, per my salad theory of learning, or by decree, mine)
2) king in corner already cramped by the finiteness of the infinite chessboard that isn't. The rims.
3) toy with reversible movers attacking empty squares in combinatin with king.
4) get your kind out of there.. and now use more pieces and look at this static geometry.
5) you don't even need to do moves.. just play with the board editor.. you may want to go to analysis when more pieces.. to use the Lichess static mobility at a glance feature while in study mode.. But still no need to move.
The idea, is that you might also collapse that to be done in mind's eye eventually, and lo and behold: in play mode during your games.. This is a general principle of imagination training... according to my patzerness (actually I also stole that, or found out it was also what my mentor/fake patzer colleague, enjoyed and promotes all the time).
In confidence (lol), that person recently admitted, in confidence also, that we were all patzers.... but shhh..... It might be shocking to some.
keep always some room to make a checking move at the right timing. so did I make it more confusing or what?
materially cramped versus empty square restriction. While the material cramping applies to all pieces, only the king gets also cramped by threatened empty squares. So if everything is cramped or gone for the defending king side, but it is not in check at that moment, then stalemate (so it usually happens when nothing else can move). Pawns are specially susceptible to not be able to move eventually in their racthet mobility (unidirectional motion choice until promotion to reversible motion material).
hence the post by @OctoPinky, our Lichess colleague. I am trying to not use a certain terminology, because I am not sure it would mean the same thing (and I can't really find other words). I hope this rambling around will also shuffle a few thoughts in op's mind.
Edit: I forgot to mention the rims of the big square we call the chessboard. After all, it is not the infinite plane (I have been told, it does not help to think like that, but I keep forgetting).
So, it does put a nuance on cleaning the board not being enough, the defending king might find stalemate refure in the corners. In fact I suggest you go autonomous learning with 2 kings only on the board... wait, they can't move on Lichess that way... so board editor that... put the token defending king in a corner (any color will do, might want to play with that for not having spurious associations on the color biasing your subconscious, but that can wait until you get the ideas, but do right after that).
then put more attacking pieces .. The minimal amount brings your king to cramp the other by empty squares it could go to (if empty board, I usually say naked board, imprints better). Some call that "bad breath" around the king, but that is only true for king to king bull fights (they just can't lock their horns ever, so what good might this analogy be, well, it is entertaining to write while I seek how to bring some closure to this post...).
do you get me? the keys are
1) naked board (your study goal, per my salad theory of learning, or by decree, mine)
2) king in corner already cramped by the finiteness of the infinite chessboard that isn't. The rims.
3) toy with reversible movers attacking empty squares in combinatin with king.
4) get your kind out of there.. and now use more pieces and look at this static geometry.
5) you don't even need to do moves.. just play with the board editor.. you may want to go to analysis when more pieces.. to use the Lichess static mobility at a glance feature while in study mode.. But still no need to move.
The idea, is that you might also collapse that to be done in mind's eye eventually, and lo and behold: in play mode during your games.. This is a general principle of imagination training... according to my patzerness (actually I also stole that, or found out it was also what my mentor/fake patzer colleague, enjoyed and promotes all the time).
In confidence (lol), that person recently admitted, in confidence also, that we were all patzers.... but shhh..... It might be shocking to some.
glossary:
king bad breath: see king donut
king donut: see king field
king field: well in the traditoin of chess rules using verbal approximation: king donut (just kidding).
3x3 = king donut Union king placement. so I am talking in empty squares. I would hope that 1) naked board, would still be remanent in mind's eye, if having been through my previous rambling.
In that empty board imagination context, I would suggest, or evoke, or babble that the stalemate question, might be what I was search some while ago.
some context, why do I insist on this analogy:
Why do I keep thinking that chess has some XOR problems within it? I thought I would have to go to latent space (and it likely would have transformed morphed subspace versions of it there), but no, even the core rules of termination, statically visible, mind you, already have that.
The stalemate problem is about the combined attacking material board threat to be exactly applied on the donut, but not the king and the stalemate termination position candidate.
Sorry. I went boring. Just go back to king donut. You don't want your combined mobility, in an opponent king obligation to move situation, to be only attacking the donut. You want to also attack the empty square at the center of that donut (where the king is).
Did you know that there were so many empty squares in chess? Always. Even when material is on it. Under the material is that board. It frees the mind sometimes to maximally un-cramp everything. And some kind of Occam razor board mutation dream on it.
king bad breath: see king donut
king donut: see king field
king field: well in the traditoin of chess rules using verbal approximation: king donut (just kidding).
3x3 = king donut Union king placement. so I am talking in empty squares. I would hope that 1) naked board, would still be remanent in mind's eye, if having been through my previous rambling.
In that empty board imagination context, I would suggest, or evoke, or babble that the stalemate question, might be what I was search some while ago.
some context, why do I insist on this analogy:
Why do I keep thinking that chess has some XOR problems within it? I thought I would have to go to latent space (and it likely would have transformed morphed subspace versions of it there), but no, even the core rules of termination, statically visible, mind you, already have that.
The stalemate problem is about the combined attacking material board threat to be exactly applied on the donut, but not the king and the stalemate termination position candidate.
Sorry. I went boring. Just go back to king donut. You don't want your combined mobility, in an opponent king obligation to move situation, to be only attacking the donut. You want to also attack the empty square at the center of that donut (where the king is).
Did you know that there were so many empty squares in chess? Always. Even when material is on it. Under the material is that board. It frees the mind sometimes to maximally un-cramp everything. And some kind of Occam razor board mutation dream on it.
ai.plainenglish.io/xor-and-donut-problems-in-machine-learning-in-depth-5c75f387ce03
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or
BTW. muchos gratias for your question about stalemate. It gave me the final bump to actually do a google search on "donut XOR problem" (I tried with XOR and topology, but did not get the same angle I wanted, it seems that the donut word is powerfull, and I might not be the pioneer is using that. It might be long forgotten learning.
holes in manifolds in euclidian stuff... count the holes. etc... and some qualitative preserving morphism of those. Being mappable to counting mathematics. In the end this is all math. I am glad (but also sorry) to say.
But there is more than counting math. out there. And it turns out that one can "transpose" stuff from the out-there born concepts, also mathematical stuff, to the more counting focussed mathematics, where counting is just a bonus, that might related in some way to the out-there found mathematics. Because we find the mathematics, often, with nature as the muse.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or
BTW. muchos gratias for your question about stalemate. It gave me the final bump to actually do a google search on "donut XOR problem" (I tried with XOR and topology, but did not get the same angle I wanted, it seems that the donut word is powerfull, and I might not be the pioneer is using that. It might be long forgotten learning.
holes in manifolds in euclidian stuff... count the holes. etc... and some qualitative preserving morphism of those. Being mappable to counting mathematics. In the end this is all math. I am glad (but also sorry) to say.
But there is more than counting math. out there. And it turns out that one can "transpose" stuff from the out-there born concepts, also mathematical stuff, to the more counting focussed mathematics, where counting is just a bonus, that might related in some way to the out-there found mathematics. Because we find the mathematics, often, with nature as the muse.
Credit and source image: from same fist link as previous post. (going modular, if need to delete, sometimes I find I take too much space, oscillations, in oversharing and self-doubt, still doing it on average).
ai.plainenglish.io/xor-and-donut-problems-in-machine-learning-in-depth-5c75f387ce03
If your static desirable mind's eye future has squares you control being the red dots (blurred visions needed of course, that is not really a chessboard, ..., even I can see that... hmmm, yes... it is not).
and the kind placement/location, is in blue. Don't! That is not a rule of thumb by the way. modulo the blurred vision effort. We can be imaginative in chess, right? (asking anyone, actually).
ai.plainenglish.io/xor-and-donut-problems-in-machine-learning-in-depth-5c75f387ce03
If your static desirable mind's eye future has squares you control being the red dots (blurred visions needed of course, that is not really a chessboard, ..., even I can see that... hmmm, yes... it is not).
and the kind placement/location, is in blue. Don't! That is not a rule of thumb by the way. modulo the blurred vision effort. We can be imaginative in chess, right? (asking anyone, actually).
Thanks (I think) for response @dboing .
Nice win, actually it took me a while to find a somewhat realistic stalemate in 1 so if anyone else is wondering I think 62. Qde7 (stalemate) could have seen the board if the winning side is not alert.