I like that there are conflicts of notions to investigate. Space, harmony, flexibility, white initial tempo or initiative (never know which it might be, here, possibly, one a neutral quantity, but having more of it, allows for initiative or more chances of having it..). overextension. What is cramping if all the pieces can move rather fast, and in harmony of their activities (after having had harmony in mobility, if i get those notions or just near misses them).
what compensates for what? I think looking at contrasting features on the board and what gives, is what I like about chess, at my level (humble, but getting bored of tactical only, i like abstractions).
I did not quite get the comment about cooperativity. That might rejoin the post asking for how to get there.
I guess for future parts.. How to get there, and when not to tunnel vision on getting there if no cooperation on the other side?
what compensates for what? I think looking at contrasting features on the board and what gives, is what I like about chess, at my level (humble, but getting bored of tactical only, i like abstractions).
I did not quite get the comment about cooperativity. That might rejoin the post asking for how to get there.
I guess for future parts.. How to get there, and when not to tunnel vision on getting there if no cooperation on the other side?
space1. a surface area that are not occupied. that is 2D. Then there could be space2. The distance between material center of mass (or the envelope distance to the other enveloppe). 1D.
If the 2 set of particles are still in their initial restricted space, then the distance between them is also time between them. overextension being lack of harmonious advance, that the increased distance to effect of combined extra space owned might not necessarily bring to bear across the distance that someone is also about the extra space.
I wonder if it would not be helpful to dissect or consolidate too the ideas of network interactions superimposed with mobility that your image on the tight but not cramped black territory was showing (i did not follow the games, but can latch onto static graphs like that as a whole). I find that possibly hidden in "space" notion, are more defined things. That are about potential futures of interactions. Maybe constructing from local rules is not the way to go.. but perhaps dissecting space into more types of spaces. I think here assuming proximity of pawn front is not helping. just playing with the ideas, not as an expert, but more at their word face values. It might be overkill. our intuitions, through experience might fill in the blanks between the notions, as understood in each individuals being exposed to both the shared ideas and the board experience. I guess, I can't wait, and while I do not deny that this has been how things have worked, I might be curious about how sustainable together can such ideas be made.
All of that chewing on notions can easily be dismissed by me having not the experience enough to know what I am talking about. True that. But does it matter? Isn't it interesting to test how consistent our edifices of theory are. That those contrasts (conflicts?) might be opportunity to discern nuances that might have been there all along. This might just be me learning those notions. don't mind me.
If the 2 set of particles are still in their initial restricted space, then the distance between them is also time between them. overextension being lack of harmonious advance, that the increased distance to effect of combined extra space owned might not necessarily bring to bear across the distance that someone is also about the extra space.
I wonder if it would not be helpful to dissect or consolidate too the ideas of network interactions superimposed with mobility that your image on the tight but not cramped black territory was showing (i did not follow the games, but can latch onto static graphs like that as a whole). I find that possibly hidden in "space" notion, are more defined things. That are about potential futures of interactions. Maybe constructing from local rules is not the way to go.. but perhaps dissecting space into more types of spaces. I think here assuming proximity of pawn front is not helping. just playing with the ideas, not as an expert, but more at their word face values. It might be overkill. our intuitions, through experience might fill in the blanks between the notions, as understood in each individuals being exposed to both the shared ideas and the board experience. I guess, I can't wait, and while I do not deny that this has been how things have worked, I might be curious about how sustainable together can such ideas be made.
All of that chewing on notions can easily be dismissed by me having not the experience enough to know what I am talking about. True that. But does it matter? Isn't it interesting to test how consistent our edifices of theory are. That those contrasts (conflicts?) might be opportunity to discern nuances that might have been there all along. This might just be me learning those notions. don't mind me.
@dboing said in #22:
> I like that there are conflicts of notions to investigate. Space, harmony, flexibility, white initial tempo or initiative (never know which it might be, here, possibly, one a neutral quantity, but having more of it, allows for initiative or more chances of having it..). overextension. What is cramping if all the pieces can move rather fast, and in harmony of their activities (after having had harmony in mobility, if i get those notions or just near misses them).
>
> what compensates for what? I think looking at contrasting features on the board and what gives, is what I like about chess, at my level (humble, but getting bored of tactical only, i like abstractions).
>
> I did not quite get the comment about cooperativity. That might rejoin the post asking for how to get there.
>
> I guess for future parts.. How to get there, and when not to tunnel vision on getting there if no cooperation on the other side?
Sorry it wasn't clear, for cooperativity I meant to get to the Hedgehog structure, you need to trade your c-pawn for the opponent's d-pawn and usually that comes about with Black playing ...c5 before White plays d4. White can of course avoid d4 or prepare it with for example e3 in some lines where they can take back with the pawn which wouldn't result in a Hedgehog structure, so in that sense you need White to play d4 after your ...c4 usually to reach a Hedgehog.
> I like that there are conflicts of notions to investigate. Space, harmony, flexibility, white initial tempo or initiative (never know which it might be, here, possibly, one a neutral quantity, but having more of it, allows for initiative or more chances of having it..). overextension. What is cramping if all the pieces can move rather fast, and in harmony of their activities (after having had harmony in mobility, if i get those notions or just near misses them).
>
> what compensates for what? I think looking at contrasting features on the board and what gives, is what I like about chess, at my level (humble, but getting bored of tactical only, i like abstractions).
>
> I did not quite get the comment about cooperativity. That might rejoin the post asking for how to get there.
>
> I guess for future parts.. How to get there, and when not to tunnel vision on getting there if no cooperation on the other side?
Sorry it wasn't clear, for cooperativity I meant to get to the Hedgehog structure, you need to trade your c-pawn for the opponent's d-pawn and usually that comes about with Black playing ...c5 before White plays d4. White can of course avoid d4 or prepare it with for example e3 in some lines where they can take back with the pawn which wouldn't result in a Hedgehog structure, so in that sense you need White to play d4 after your ...c4 usually to reach a Hedgehog.
@datajunkie said in #24:
> Sorry it wasn't clear, for cooperativity I meant to get to the Hedgehog structure, you need to trade your c-pawn for the opponent's d-pawn and usually that comes about with Black playing ...c5 before White plays d4. White can of course avoid d4 or prepare it with for example e3 in some lines where they can take back with the pawn which wouldn't result in a Hedgehog structure, so in that sense you need White to play d4 after your ...c4 usually to reach a Hedgehog.
no need to be sorry, really. I appreciated getting first into the consequences, and then having a discussion for asking the question. To get to the ideas first, some things have to been flown over with some mention that might trigger questions but not prevent the flow of the ideas to be told.. (an art I do not possess or have controlled myself, given ideas initial intent). Here I appreciate your answer.
"cooperative" gave me some idea, that was enough to be able to read the rest.. But i needed to ask. answered now.
First the idea, then the example(s). In chess sharing or presenting there may have been a tradition of examples first and ideas buried within examples... but I think abstracting first might force making sure the concepts can sustain themselves a bit more, given that words are inadequate (as unique words from natural language perhaps) to start with if to describe the essential spatial static and dynamic things, that happen on a 2D board.
> Sorry it wasn't clear, for cooperativity I meant to get to the Hedgehog structure, you need to trade your c-pawn for the opponent's d-pawn and usually that comes about with Black playing ...c5 before White plays d4. White can of course avoid d4 or prepare it with for example e3 in some lines where they can take back with the pawn which wouldn't result in a Hedgehog structure, so in that sense you need White to play d4 after your ...c4 usually to reach a Hedgehog.
no need to be sorry, really. I appreciated getting first into the consequences, and then having a discussion for asking the question. To get to the ideas first, some things have to been flown over with some mention that might trigger questions but not prevent the flow of the ideas to be told.. (an art I do not possess or have controlled myself, given ideas initial intent). Here I appreciate your answer.
"cooperative" gave me some idea, that was enough to be able to read the rest.. But i needed to ask. answered now.
First the idea, then the example(s). In chess sharing or presenting there may have been a tradition of examples first and ideas buried within examples... but I think abstracting first might force making sure the concepts can sustain themselves a bit more, given that words are inadequate (as unique words from natural language perhaps) to start with if to describe the essential spatial static and dynamic things, that happen on a 2D board.
<Comment deleted by user>
@datajunkie, are YOU in the hedgehog club?
Check out @turtlebot for a hedgehog
Sign me up. I am already a member and you didn't even know it. Two words- Shipov Volumes one and two! (OK so counting was never my strong suit).
We love the Hedgehogs!