The Axiom System - Part 1 - Introduction

Comments on lichess.org/@/dailyinsanity/blog/the-axiom-system-part-1-introduction/HPootTif

You need two parts to say nothing?

Just wrote an advertisement as a wall of text that could be transformed to the slogan:

"All chess guides didn't work for you and they never will do. My chess guide is different. I cannot tell you my secret, but you can follow me to find out, if I will do in the next part."

Sorry, that is nonsense.

I am putting my preliminary stuff elsewhere. I had not read the post second post quote yet. That might be a breaker statement indeed, for all the possibly good the previous argumentation might have proposed, that might indeed be a bit unstatisfying.
so I will finnish my reading. before posting more here. But I found what I read could warrant a series. I did not realize it might have been that practical.

I went to the web site, which is well more visually structured, by the way, to get a ensemble view of the text, and I am not sure I would condense the article to the second post here. But my journalling and discussion, might be better elsewhere for now.

It does look to me like an invitation to look at the culture and its current practical theories of leanring or teaching or commenting, it might be splashing around in its pursuit of the critique, but that is one head, or "salvo" in a bigger discussion, I hope. I might use the website for a better reading by chunk, my specialty.

I would not dismiss it all, and it does not seem to be a preamble to some improvers play advice. There is no proposition to a paywall to get more of it. And most important to me, it offers explicit arguments that are not hidden behind too much common sense. And they seem arguable back from my perspective, and I am not of that author's experience or ambitions neck of the woods in chess (apparently). Yet still passionate enough about it.

edit: I think the last section itself is interesting. Looking at website version, for clearer chunks. (but will use blog for my attempts at discussion). I definitely would not respond like the second poster without more arguments. There is definitely some pondering behind that blog. The site does indeed offer a button to get lessons private ones, but I am not sure that the article is a facade for that. I would still be interesting to people like me who like to think of chess even in a very unpractical manner. Maybe not the article version, but clear not the practical either, as specified, yet. I have yet to find, to my understanding, ,hints of not making any point. Perhaps the last section does talk about the constraints of expressing certain ideas.. That one can't be all of the 3 aspects. or write a blurb that does all 3. Only that, asking explicitly, makes me curious about what is proposed above that section (even though it is affirmation style, for me, any statement is up for juggling).

@SmaragdElefant :

As you will eventually see, if I put everything into a single initial post, it would have been overwhelmingly lengthy.

Furthermore, your 'summary' of my writings is completely insufficient. If you need help understanding what was covered, then in brief:

- Statement of Intention/Introduction
- The descriptive and practical nature of games
- The contrast between descriptive and practical aspects in sports like football
- The gap between the descriptive and practical in chess
- Exploring ways to approach the question of improving in chess
- A brief introduction to reasoning structures (since I will use such structures in future writings)
- A critique highlighting the conceptual shallowness of many chess concepts
- Commentary on the pragmatic nature of chess and the conceptual freedom it allows
- An intent to move away from traditional chess concepts in our practical understanding of the game
- Addressing the implications of these points for starting our own system of practical understanding

Additionally, it's not 'if I will do it' - I have already done it. I've already written additional articles, it's just a matter on when I post them. Should be relatively soon.

I understand that my somewhat cheeky tone used throughout my articles may have provoked you to write an equally cheeky response, but please try to at least be accurate (as well as respectful...) in your comments :)

I appreciate you not dumping it all. This is a blog, and maybe doing so, you are allowing some discussion space, despite the above statement about "help" understanding "what was covered". Yet, I appreciate that you come back with explicit structure, in case, it was that scope that made it difficult.

I would have said "what was proposed". If it were allowing us to consider that as arguments, not done truth. Anyway, I already consider everything up for discussion, that is how I like to learn about chess. So I will try to finish your blog. And will brew my journaling of that in my musing. (this very site, not to divert attention there, but not to take premature space here).

Chess is not only a motor action sport. I would add for the use of action sport analogy. Maybe that the difficulty is not about how to move a piece decided upon and whole body locomotion art at instant level, has to do with having to use the mind construct between each other to communicate ideas that are not as perceptible as common sensori-ly as in that sport.

It is quite possible that to get to that level of performance and adequacy to the teams improvement objectives, there was never any words needed to be exchanged ever through the player whole life training to get there.

Chess stage might matter, as countering the analogy purposefullness. The ant thing was a bit more approriate. I current find that the descriptive choice of word, might be not hittnig the nail for me, though.

Both perception and action are to be learned.