I see that you have included "immobility" under "function," which is certainly true as a "cue" for directing ones attention to the salient point(s) in a specific position.
Not trying to nitpick, but there is also an element of immobility associated directly with mister Lasker's definition of encircling: "the idea of superior force at a point and that of immobility. That which is immobile must be attacked." That implies that there is a precondition for encircling which requires the target to be immobilized, at a minimum, to be prevented (either mechanically or by loading with multiple functions) from moving away to escape from the attack. Otherwise, there is no point in bringing superior force to bear on that current square.
I hesitate to point this out, simply because I'm not sure if you are trying to avoid duplicating ideas for cues under different branches of the tree of motifs. I can certainly appreciate the simplification (and therefore the limitation) of the various "cues" to the minimum required for the majority of cases. As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
Immobility can have two causes. Function and lack of space. The interesting thing is that exploiting these different forms of immobility works the same. That justifies a motif undependable branch for immobility. In which case we need another name for the tree of motifs.
The same is true for preliminary moves. There are moves to prepare the line of attack, to prepare encirclement and to prepare exploiting pieces with functions.
I tried to find some more about the motifs of mister Lasker. Google books provides only the half of the manual for free, so I could only read about encirclement and geometry, not about function. He doesn't really elaborate on his idea's so we have to do the hard work ourselves. Nobody on the internet seems to be busy with this.
Lasker states that "function" is one of the most important motifs. I don't have time to copy that section of the book right now. I'll try to do that in the next couple of days, if I can find the time.
I think there is going to be considerable "bleed over" between motifs. There will be common elements among multiple motifs. For purposes of recognizing "cues" and triggering the appropriate response, I don't think it is necessary to separate each of the elements. It is only for classification and pedagogical purposes that a clean separation into separate categories is desirable.
An aside:
Why would I NOT have the time to type in part of the Manual of Chess? It's the Christmas season, for one thing; lots of family stuff going on. Also, the Mall where I work was just sold to a new company. I was the assistant Security Director (a glorified shift supervisor with a title) previously. Although I am not changing companies (we "won" the contract for security and housekeeping), I have "inherited" the Operations Manager and Security Director responsibilities, in addition to my supervisory role - with no pay raise to accompany the tripling of responsibilities. We also lost hours for security personnel, dropping from 202 hours per week to 141. Consequently, I am in extreme training mode, trying to get the mountain of paperwork moving as we near the end of year reporting period. I fantasize about retiring in a few months, if I can train someone to replace me. I already have a younger "volunteer" so that's encouraging.
I see that you have included "immobility" under "function," which is certainly true as a "cue" for directing ones attention to the salient point(s) in a specific position.
ReplyDeleteNot trying to nitpick, but there is also an element of immobility associated directly with mister Lasker's definition of encircling: "the idea of superior force at a point and that of immobility. That which is immobile must be attacked." That implies that there is a precondition for encircling which requires the target to be immobilized, at a minimum, to be prevented (either mechanically or by loading with multiple functions) from moving away to escape from the attack. Otherwise, there is no point in bringing superior force to bear on that current square.
I hesitate to point this out, simply because I'm not sure if you are trying to avoid duplicating ideas for cues under different branches of the tree of motifs. I can certainly appreciate the simplification (and therefore the limitation) of the various "cues" to the minimum required for the majority of cases. As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
Immobility can have two causes. Function and lack of space. The interesting thing is that exploiting these different forms of immobility works the same. That justifies a motif undependable branch for immobility. In which case we need another name for the tree of motifs.
DeleteThe same is true for preliminary moves. There are moves to prepare the line of attack, to prepare encirclement and to prepare exploiting pieces with functions.
I tried to find some more about the motifs of mister Lasker. Google books provides only the half of the manual for free, so I could only read about encirclement and geometry, not about function. He doesn't really elaborate on his idea's so we have to do the hard work ourselves. Nobody on the internet seems to be busy with this.
Lasker states that "function" is one of the most important motifs. I don't have time to copy that section of the book right now. I'll try to do that in the next couple of days, if I can find the time.
ReplyDeleteI think there is going to be considerable "bleed over" between motifs. There will be common elements among multiple motifs. For purposes of recognizing "cues" and triggering the appropriate response, I don't think it is necessary to separate each of the elements. It is only for classification and pedagogical purposes that a clean separation into separate categories is desirable.
An aside:
Why would I NOT have the time to type in part of the Manual of Chess? It's the Christmas season, for one thing; lots of family stuff going on. Also, the Mall where I work was just sold to a new company. I was the assistant Security Director (a glorified shift supervisor with a title) previously. Although I am not changing companies (we "won" the contract for security and housekeeping), I have "inherited" the Operations Manager and Security Director responsibilities, in addition to my supervisory role - with no pay raise to accompany the tripling of responsibilities. We also lost hours for security personnel, dropping from 202 hours per week to 141. Consequently, I am in extreme training mode, trying to get the mountain of paperwork moving as we near the end of year reporting period. I fantasize about retiring in a few months, if I can train someone to replace me. I already have a younger "volunteer" so that's encouraging.
I got myself a copy
Delete