tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post2252017090498707409..comments2024-03-28T01:17:43.262+01:00Comments on Temposchlucker: Adding LogicTemposchluckerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-79800988565336675882016-01-02T09:44:55.137+01:002016-01-02T09:44:55.137+01:00When you don't directly can hit the target, bu...When you don't directly can hit the target, but you can hit it's defender, I call that "undermining"Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-87359443969518813002016-01-02T02:30:13.553+01:002016-01-02T02:30:13.553+01:00I had a very similar personal breakthrough about c...I had a very similar personal breakthrough about calculating defensive replies. I was also getting lost in the tree of variations by calculating all checks, captures, and threats every move for both players. But it is MUCH more efficient to only calculate the four defensive replies....well five...I consider counterattacks to be defense, but the counter threat they create must be equal or greater than the threat being responded to. The only other way I have found to simplify calculation further is to follow the most forcing path first. I would also suggest you expand your "annihilation of the attacker" to include pins and deflections. I like to call it "do something" to the attacker.<br /><br />I like the idea of three kinds of attacks...how would you caterogize remove the defender and other counting related tactics?Ultimaterankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09273252004212138418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-83151883105301296672015-12-25T17:37:17.953+01:002015-12-25T17:37:17.953+01:00I know what you mean Robert!
There are A LOT of r...I know what you mean Robert!<br /><br />There are A LOT of ready parts that we can use to build a car. What I want to achieve is to make some kind of prototype of the car (general idea how this vehicle should work). After that I (or others) can construct (build) the needed parts by myself (themselves) and connect it to the final CAR - they want to possess!<br /><br />I have extracted some idea while I have been solving puzzles. Now I am in the process of testing these. I try to find some kind of UNIVERSAL pattern (algorithm) that we can use no matter the (complexity of) position.<br /><br />I do not refute the idea of building the car ("everyone by himself to fulfill their needs"). I am much more interested at the components and all the necesarry requirements that work indpendent of the conditions.<br /><br />For example if you have the choice to solve #2 puzzles in TWO ways - you can choose whatever you wish, but what is the most important - both solutions are correct. Anyway the idea that #2 exists must be extracted. I know it is an extramelly simple example, but I want to extrapolate to much more complex ones.<br /><br />BTW. IF I would be able to build a car system - you could build ANY of the cars you want - regarding your needs and abilities :) ;). That's my idea!Tomaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09690570865003924020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-71767336443627433342015-12-25T15:22:33.621+01:002015-12-25T15:22:33.621+01:00Utilizing the "buy a car" metaphor: the ...Utilizing the "buy a car" metaphor: the problem is that no one knows how to obtain a "car" that WE can drive, never mind where to find a fuel station to make it run. Fuel?!? What's THAT?!? There are numerous advertised sources for "cars" (books, DVDs, "systems") but when we take them home, certain that FINALLY we have acquired a "car" that will get us from A (our current skill and knowledge level) to B (our desired skill and knowledge level) we find that we don't know how to drive it (it has no steering wheel, no accelerator,, no brakes, and no "fuel" that WE can "see") and no instruction manual either. It is merely ASSUMED by the purveyor that it is "obvious to the most casual observer" how to use it and that "fuel" is required but must be purchased separately. Even the "cars" that come with an instruction manual often ASSUME a certain level of skill and knowledge that (sadly) we don't have. <br /><br />There is an old acronym from my computing days: TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. I think the relevant analogy is that WE have to build the "car" for ourselves, out of the available materials. We can buy the "parts" from others, but the construction process must be done by us in order for it to actually work for US. I think that is the crucial knowledge that we are searching for in this discussion.<br /><br />Have you ever purchased the latest, greatest instructional tome, eagerly opened it and promptly found that (as far as you can "see") it is almost gibberish? I know I have, because the "car" I purchased is one that I do not have the prerequisite skill and knowledge to understand how to "drive" it to take advantage of it. It's all fine to say I know how to "drive" (at least my family car or my bicycle) but put me in a NASCAR stock car and on the track at Daytona, and you don't want to be anywhere near me or the car as I try to drive it around the track at 200 miles per hour! There's nothing wrong with the "car;" the problem is with the inexperienced driver!Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-45000977451094603702015-12-25T12:47:28.947+01:002015-12-25T12:47:28.947+01:00I definitely agree with Tempo. The problem is not ...I definitely agree with Tempo. The problem is not with "doing the same faster and faster", but DOING it with the POWERFUL tool (like a car vs running comparison).<br /><br />Even if building a car from scratch (parts you can build or buy quite fast) would take a HALF year - you will have a LIFETIME machine (system) to go whenever you wish! :)Tomaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09690570865003924020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-30709168782850744522015-12-25T11:57:03.950+01:002015-12-25T11:57:03.950+01:00@Aox, making the puzzle simple is only the startin...@Aox, making the puzzle simple is only the starting point of our yet to develop training. That training should transfer tasks from STM to that mysterious place in the brain where information organizes itself in a way that isn't discovered yet by cognitive science. When driving, your hand and your legs know what to do while shifting gears, without you consciously knowing it, without laying claims on STM or your attention. That is what we should try to accomplish. Doing chess tasks without us consciously knowing it. That's how Susan Polgar does it, when playing a simul.<br /><br />Perfection of step 1 and 2 is like buying yourself a pair of new sneakers for the coming speed contest. You might run a bit faster. I intend to buy a car.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-76443251206528458062015-12-24T19:47:35.209+01:002015-12-24T19:47:35.209+01:00while you solve a tactic puzzle you have to
contro...while you solve a tactic puzzle you have to<br />controll your thinking ( attention ) so you step somehow forward<br />memorize pieces at positions ( and forget pieces if removed from a square )<br />visual positions and judge them<br />memorize calculated moves sequences and make observations<br />use the observations to find new more interesting ideas and calculate new movesequences...<br /><br />This is a lot to do for our STM<br />In the post mortem you can skip 80% of that work.. the puzzle is simple now<br /><br />AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.com