lichess.org
Donate

A Modern Classification of Chess Positions

Interesting idea, but I think classifying a position by the moves a particular player makes or is supposed to make is circular thinking.

A position should be described by clearly defined metrics.

Interesting idea, but I think classifying a position by the moves a particular player makes or is supposed to make is circular thinking. A position should be described by clearly defined metrics.

@TotalNoob69 said in #2:

Interesting idea, but I think classifying a position by the moves a particular player makes or is supposed to make is circular thinking.

A position should be described by clearly defined metrics.

I agree, but here's the issue. We do not have a metric system that can effectively be used to predict the nature of ensuing play. It would certainly be useful if we can figure out what the correct metrics are, but we still don't know how to find them. In the algorithm I gave, you only have to judge whether the phase you are in is tactical or theoretical. If it's none of them, it is technical. If it's theoretical, you may easily know it is theoretical because you know all the moves. If it's tactical, I have already given the "metrics" required for judgement. When you are in a tactical phase, you should aim for radical change. And radical change should be aimed for when your opponent can improve his position faster, when you feel like your opponent has made a tactical error, or when you have finished improving your pieces. Sure, if your judgement of whether your opponent has made a tactical error is wrong, then your move will be wrong. But there is a margin of error in every algorithm, and I don't aim to fix it here. This is only another way of thinking that I propose.

I am glad you found it interesting and I will be available to answer any more questions.

@TotalNoob69 said in #2: > Interesting idea, but I think classifying a position by the moves a particular player makes or is supposed to make is circular thinking. > > A position should be described by clearly defined metrics. I agree, but here's the issue. We do not have a metric system that can effectively be used to predict the nature of ensuing play. It would certainly be useful if we can figure out what the correct metrics are, but we still don't know how to find them. In the algorithm I gave, you only have to judge whether the phase you are in is tactical or theoretical. If it's none of them, it is technical. If it's theoretical, you may easily know it is theoretical because you know all the moves. If it's tactical, I have already given the "metrics" required for judgement. When you are in a tactical phase, you should aim for radical change. And radical change should be aimed for when your opponent can improve his position faster, when you feel like your opponent has made a tactical error, or when you have finished improving your pieces. Sure, if your judgement of whether your opponent has made a tactical error is wrong, then your move will be wrong. But there is a margin of error in every algorithm, and I don't aim to fix it here. This is only another way of thinking that I propose. I am glad you found it interesting and I will be available to answer any more questions.

One of the most interesting things that I have read. There are definitely questions that helps you find the correct move and it is the human part of answering them correctly. However, I think we should let the programmers work on the classification and such otherwise we as players may tend to become more enginee :D Let us make mistakes, that is what keeps us going no?

One of the most interesting things that I have read. There are definitely questions that helps you find the correct move and it is the human part of answering them correctly. However, I think we should let the programmers work on the classification and such otherwise we as players may tend to become more enginee :D Let us make mistakes, that is what keeps us going no?

@Monsieur3044 said in #4:

I think we should let the programmers work on the classification and such otherwise we as players may tend to become more enginee :D Let us make mistakes, that is what keeps us going no?

How can you learn, though, without classifying your mistakes? It's turtles all the way down!

@Monsieur3044 said in #4: >I think we should let the programmers work on the classification and such otherwise we as players may tend to become more enginee :D Let us make mistakes, that is what keeps us going no? How can you learn, though, without classifying your mistakes? It's turtles all the way down!

@Monsieur3044 said in #4:

One of the most interesting things that I have read. There are definitely questions that helps you find the correct move and it is the human part of answering them correctly. However, I think we should let the programmers work on the classification and such otherwise we as players may tend to become more enginee :D Let us make mistakes, that is what keeps us going no?

Yes, absolutely, mistakes are the best opportunities for improvement. But, if we consider the process of fixing a recurrent error in a chess game, it involves figuring out in which area you are making the mistakes and doing targeted work on that specific area. I remember how doing targeted work like this led me to have one of my most successful tournaments. I figured I was bad at endgames, so I started reading the book Excelling at technical chess. I did targeted work on the area I was weak at. Even though I didn't have this kind of a classification back then, it proves that figuring out the area in which you need to improve is vital.

Luckily, I chose the correct book last year. But in choosing, I had no idea in which kinds of endgames I was making mistakes in. Now with this classification I know I had been making mistakes in "simple" positions (technical phase). So not only does this kind of classification help us in figuring out the thinking pattern that should be applied to each position, but it also helps us in figuring out areas of improvement.

As for mistakes, this classificton will not prevent mistakes. As you said, it is the human part answering the questions correctly. The classification is aimed at reducing the involvement of intuition, so while it does make us "enginee" a little bit, a major part of the game will still be intuition, just not as much as before.

Mistakes are the best opportunities for improvement, and we have to train our intuition regularly if we are to have success in using the classification effectively. But knowing in which area to train yoir intuition is just as much important.

I am glad you found it interesting and it's a pleasure to have feedback from a respected player.

@Monsieur3044 said in #4: > One of the most interesting things that I have read. There are definitely questions that helps you find the correct move and it is the human part of answering them correctly. However, I think we should let the programmers work on the classification and such otherwise we as players may tend to become more enginee :D Let us make mistakes, that is what keeps us going no? Yes, absolutely, mistakes are the best opportunities for improvement. But, if we consider the process of fixing a recurrent error in a chess game, it involves figuring out in which area you are making the mistakes and doing targeted work on that specific area. I remember how doing targeted work like this led me to have one of my most successful tournaments. I figured I was bad at endgames, so I started reading the book Excelling at technical chess. I did targeted work on the area I was weak at. Even though I didn't have this kind of a classification back then, it proves that figuring out the area in which you need to improve is vital. Luckily, I chose the correct book last year. But in choosing, I had no idea in which kinds of endgames I was making mistakes in. Now with this classification I know I had been making mistakes in "simple" positions (technical phase). So not only does this kind of classification help us in figuring out the thinking pattern that should be applied to each position, but it also helps us in figuring out areas of improvement. As for mistakes, this classificton will not prevent mistakes. As you said, it is the human part answering the questions correctly. The classification is aimed at reducing the involvement of intuition, so while it does make us "enginee" a little bit, a major part of the game will still be intuition, just not as much as before. Mistakes are the best opportunities for improvement, and we have to train our intuition regularly if we are to have success in using the classification effectively. But knowing in which area to train yoir intuition is just as much important. I am glad you found it interesting and it's a pleasure to have feedback from a respected player.