Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Simplifying the tree of scenarios

So how would a simplified tree of scenarios may look like?


  1. I like the simplification of the "test room!" I think it likely that this entire tree can be relatively easily remembered during position investigations.

    My only suggestion would be to add (perhaps) a "determine Function" to the "actions" branch. I'm uncertain if this is covered by the "generally applicable" -> "exploit immobility" branch. Obviously, any time there is a "function" to be performed, there is immobility (to some degree) of the piece performing that function.

  2. To uncouple the initiative and immobility from "the rest" is a major breakthrough. I'm still limping between different angles of attack though.

    The "actions" are activities of the mind while investigating the position. function should be added there again indeed. The list with actions is something different than the tree of scenarios.

    Neutralize counter attack before and defend against counter attack after, is in fact looking at the initiative from your opponents perspective. The moment you cash in, you usually loose the initiative. That is why it is said that the threat is often stronger than the execution. Can your opponent take over the initiative when you cash in?

    Actually, the core of the tree consists of only one branch: change the balance.

    Maintaining the initiative is a two headed monster: one heads keeps the opponent busy, while the other head executes the plan.

    In practice, I look at only two functions: does a piece attack or does a piece defend? If for instance a piece blocks a line of attack, it defends.

    The Lack of Space hangs a bit lopsided now. Since I wasn't redesigning it. I could prune a few branches, though.

    I must reshuffle the tree of scenarios until justice is done to all the points above.