The video seems to be about a different position.
I sorta made that several months ago. I would be a miracle to have a video cued up in the position you gave. heh.
Move by move
@kindaspongey said in #28:
> I find myself also thinking about criticality. If the Black king were on h2 instead of a8, then (I think) only Kf6 would save the day for White. By the way, this game was almost 4 decades ago, so I may not have the details exactly right. For one thing, it was a simul, so I was actually playing Black with the lone king, while White had the king and the pawn. The person doing the simul was a (very young) Jeff Sarwer. I wonder if he remembers the game at all.
I think it does not matter much if the details are right or not with respect to the original games and its possible other distractions, the issues are clear on this one game or composition. I actually prefer compositions at first exposure to a concept, it shows more explicit theory of learning from the author.
As to the other problem, isolating such clear issues as first independent and then superimposed for being there on that board would be needed to avoid zombifying exhaustive move by move exploration. Rooks, pawns and Kinds are not the easiest endgames.. pawns and rook kind of are complement adversaries.. pawns can take rooks where the rooks don't look.. you need missing pawns for rook mobility, or initially aligned pawn fodder for rook pressuring the opponent (rook on 7th kind of stuff).
But the op should look in the direction of simple first and then bring up what is learned there to more materially complex situations, I am myself wanting to go this way... and do in alternance with other study (that is study by the way, not chess performance yet, or ever in my case, does not have to be, and would not be painful, what is painful is doing thing I know or undertand why it should work).
> I find myself also thinking about criticality. If the Black king were on h2 instead of a8, then (I think) only Kf6 would save the day for White. By the way, this game was almost 4 decades ago, so I may not have the details exactly right. For one thing, it was a simul, so I was actually playing Black with the lone king, while White had the king and the pawn. The person doing the simul was a (very young) Jeff Sarwer. I wonder if he remembers the game at all.
I think it does not matter much if the details are right or not with respect to the original games and its possible other distractions, the issues are clear on this one game or composition. I actually prefer compositions at first exposure to a concept, it shows more explicit theory of learning from the author.
As to the other problem, isolating such clear issues as first independent and then superimposed for being there on that board would be needed to avoid zombifying exhaustive move by move exploration. Rooks, pawns and Kinds are not the easiest endgames.. pawns and rook kind of are complement adversaries.. pawns can take rooks where the rooks don't look.. you need missing pawns for rook mobility, or initially aligned pawn fodder for rook pressuring the opponent (rook on 7th kind of stuff).
But the op should look in the direction of simple first and then bring up what is learned there to more materially complex situations, I am myself wanting to go this way... and do in alternance with other study (that is study by the way, not chess performance yet, or ever in my case, does not have to be, and would not be painful, what is painful is doing thing I know or undertand why it should work).
I meant doing something I DON't know or understand why it should work. that is hard for me to learn. Understanding allows me to have it in memory easier and more generalizable. I think. And yes one can learn action rules without understanding why that is helping them play better (the reason not being because they were told it would, unless some people can do that and it sticks, hat's off to them).
@kindaspongey said in #5:
> I once saw someone bring up this position:
> lichess.org/editor/8/8/4k3/p6p/1p2K3/1Rr4P/P7/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white
> The question was whether or not White had a draw after Rxc3. My impression is that this problem is so super-easy that endgame enthusiasts would just laugh at it, but I am not confident that I could think it through over-the-board without a long time control.
@DrHack said in #29:
> ... locked pawns on the a and b files have 3 key squares ... Bahr's
> Rule ... The only thing left to calculate by force is the race if ...
> ... to see the method and moves. I would say I did that in roughly 20-30
> seconds. This is a shamelss plug, but.. if you want to see me do a different
> one in real time, here is a video where I do it and then explain it ...
@kindaspongey said in #30:
> I am afraid that I do not perceive the conclusion that you arrive at or the specific calculations that you carry out for that purpose.
@DrHack said in #31:
> ... That's why I included the video. :( ...
@DrHack said in #33:
> I sorta made that several months ago. ...
Not knowing Bahr's Rule or the key squares for locked pawns on the a and b files, I came to the conclusion that Black wins after 1 Rxc3 by considering lines such as 1...bxc3 2 Kd3 Kf5 3 Kxc3 Kf4 4 Kd4 Kg3 5 Ke3 Kxh3 6 Kf4 h4 7 Kf3 a4 8 a3 Kh2 9 Kf2 h3 10 Kf1 Kg3 11 Kg1 Kf3 12 Kh2 Ke3 13 Kxh3 Kd3 14 Kg3 Kc3 15 Kf3 Kb3 16 Ke3 Kxa3 17 Kd2 Kb2.
> I once saw someone bring up this position:
> lichess.org/editor/8/8/4k3/p6p/1p2K3/1Rr4P/P7/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white
> The question was whether or not White had a draw after Rxc3. My impression is that this problem is so super-easy that endgame enthusiasts would just laugh at it, but I am not confident that I could think it through over-the-board without a long time control.
@DrHack said in #29:
> ... locked pawns on the a and b files have 3 key squares ... Bahr's
> Rule ... The only thing left to calculate by force is the race if ...
> ... to see the method and moves. I would say I did that in roughly 20-30
> seconds. This is a shamelss plug, but.. if you want to see me do a different
> one in real time, here is a video where I do it and then explain it ...
@kindaspongey said in #30:
> I am afraid that I do not perceive the conclusion that you arrive at or the specific calculations that you carry out for that purpose.
@DrHack said in #31:
> ... That's why I included the video. :( ...
@DrHack said in #33:
> I sorta made that several months ago. ...
Not knowing Bahr's Rule or the key squares for locked pawns on the a and b files, I came to the conclusion that Black wins after 1 Rxc3 by considering lines such as 1...bxc3 2 Kd3 Kf5 3 Kxc3 Kf4 4 Kd4 Kg3 5 Ke3 Kxh3 6 Kf4 h4 7 Kf3 a4 8 a3 Kh2 9 Kf2 h3 10 Kf1 Kg3 11 Kg1 Kf3 12 Kh2 Ke3 13 Kxh3 Kd3 14 Kg3 Kc3 15 Kf3 Kb3 16 Ke3 Kxa3 17 Kd2 Kb2.
my reading clutch slipped after 1....bxc3. point well made. although with experience some would probably have those rules internalized, even without the names, but such explanation then would not be meant for them (the ones assuming those building blocks).
explicit theory of learning, I think is about the teacher having some knowledge of learning. A good exercise is to introspect and make a object of the learned state of knowledge versus explainers' own. There is an ignorant side and an exposed side (and then many possible stages of learnedness, but say just 2 for now). not knowing,..., then some knowing. point of the presentation/explanation. some building blocks have to be taught for some explanations to have some hold just mentioning them. perhaps.. maybe not the exact name (but that was above talking among learned up there). avoiding babbling to make readable (as there is no hope of that sometimes).
explicit theory of learning, I think is about the teacher having some knowledge of learning. A good exercise is to introspect and make a object of the learned state of knowledge versus explainers' own. There is an ignorant side and an exposed side (and then many possible stages of learnedness, but say just 2 for now). not knowing,..., then some knowing. point of the presentation/explanation. some building blocks have to be taught for some explanations to have some hold just mentioning them. perhaps.. maybe not the exact name (but that was above talking among learned up there). avoiding babbling to make readable (as there is no hope of that sometimes).
@dboing said in #36:
> what is painful is doing thing I don't know or understand why it should work. [...] Understanding allows me to have it in memory easier and more generalizable.
So you'd want to get the general ideas like "rooks must protect pawn from the back", "king reaching opposition wins", "look for zugzwang", etc... before doing actual calculations for a particular position, am I right?
> what is painful is doing thing I don't know or understand why it should work. [...] Understanding allows me to have it in memory easier and more generalizable.
So you'd want to get the general ideas like "rooks must protect pawn from the back", "king reaching opposition wins", "look for zugzwang", etc... before doing actual calculations for a particular position, am I right?
@OctoPinky said in #39:
>
I think it is called planning. or planning selection. planning imagination and selection.. I know one can't always go down to the core mobility rules and then up.. at least not during playing. I am mostly talking about study and learning, and attention maintenance using some kind of logic.
I mean not learning a ROT without learning where it works and where it might not work anymore because of having shared the rationale behind the ROT. "knight early" "Not queen early". Those are action rules without context (phase is not context enough, i mean position information).. that would have someone preform better faster than if working at lower geometrical or mobility rule level explanations.. I would rather take the time to understand when to use such action rule... and when not.. and while doing that not even needing anymore to remember the higher levels effective in some proportion of games to be had, and still be able to study while playing by having own questions I would know are reasonable as continuations of previously learned concepts behind the ROTs.
at the limit, even the square rule of the pawn. Now that I have a understanding under it, that it is based on the king walk distance patterns from source to target square in multistep problems, I kind of have this square better internalized. I also needed that other presentation with the pawn outside the square to make it work at spontaneous access level (on my own, not just communication recognition).
and yes.. using features of the board that already have issuses perceptible. would mean more than the encrypted SAN (with a coutner spatial intuition origing of coordinate to drill into using lichess coordinate training for example).
lots of stuff in traditions of chess communication are counter pedagogical.. (and not always logical, sometimes logic and pedagogy do go in same direction, but not always... ).
but watch out for terms not well defined.. I think more first of the visual objects... then the names.. then the communication, if limited to strings of characters yes those words.. opposition, key squares of such and such goal.. SAN is still ground level evidence though.. but it is one level of encoding. I am not sure I answered you.. I am not sure I even know what I mean.. it is easier to say what is not confortable and point at it.
opposition gave me a hard time.. but yes, if that is known to be correctly digested at least at recognition level, then now building block.
>
I think it is called planning. or planning selection. planning imagination and selection.. I know one can't always go down to the core mobility rules and then up.. at least not during playing. I am mostly talking about study and learning, and attention maintenance using some kind of logic.
I mean not learning a ROT without learning where it works and where it might not work anymore because of having shared the rationale behind the ROT. "knight early" "Not queen early". Those are action rules without context (phase is not context enough, i mean position information).. that would have someone preform better faster than if working at lower geometrical or mobility rule level explanations.. I would rather take the time to understand when to use such action rule... and when not.. and while doing that not even needing anymore to remember the higher levels effective in some proportion of games to be had, and still be able to study while playing by having own questions I would know are reasonable as continuations of previously learned concepts behind the ROTs.
at the limit, even the square rule of the pawn. Now that I have a understanding under it, that it is based on the king walk distance patterns from source to target square in multistep problems, I kind of have this square better internalized. I also needed that other presentation with the pawn outside the square to make it work at spontaneous access level (on my own, not just communication recognition).
and yes.. using features of the board that already have issuses perceptible. would mean more than the encrypted SAN (with a coutner spatial intuition origing of coordinate to drill into using lichess coordinate training for example).
lots of stuff in traditions of chess communication are counter pedagogical.. (and not always logical, sometimes logic and pedagogy do go in same direction, but not always... ).
but watch out for terms not well defined.. I think more first of the visual objects... then the names.. then the communication, if limited to strings of characters yes those words.. opposition, key squares of such and such goal.. SAN is still ground level evidence though.. but it is one level of encoding. I am not sure I answered you.. I am not sure I even know what I mean.. it is easier to say what is not confortable and point at it.
opposition gave me a hard time.. but yes, if that is known to be correctly digested at least at recognition level, then now building block.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.