foot wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
I'm pretty sure you said that Alexander's Technique was taking you
ten to fifteen seconds. That's not instant.

Here is what I said:

"It only took me a few minutes to start applying the rules after
I'd read the book, and maybe another ten minutes to half an hour to
completely internalize them... and after an hour or so of practice,
I feel completely confident I'd be able to quickly (certainly under
about 15 seconds, and often as little as a second or two)"

OK. Fifteen seconds is a long time, even as a worst case. I didn't
time my technique, either, but I can confidently say that I was
plotting paths in only two or three seconds, with confidence that I'd
done it right. Ten seconds is a long time.


Now, I couldn't tell you *instantly* but after making the attempt
g1-e2-b3-a4, it should be obvious that you can't get any closer
than that in three moves. That wouldn't have taken me more than a
couple of seconds.

A very error-prone method, as you just demonstrated yourself: the
knight can't even move from b3 to a4.

Typo, sorry. `b3' should be `c3'. Do you really think I believed
that it's legal to move a knight from e2 to b3 to a4?


Well, let's say you did head "straight for a6" from g1... and you
went to f3-d4-b5 and now where?

b5 and a6 are diagonally adjacent! b5-c7-a6.

But not every diagonally adjacent square is two moves away. Even
you, who are so adamant about using your trial and error method,
have to take that fact in to account.

Nice attempt to distract from your inability to plot a path between
the two squares. Rather than admit you'd made a mistake, you attack
me for a mistake I didn't make, thus compounding your error.

Any two diagonally adjacent squares are two moves apart, unless one or
the other is a corner, in which case they're four moves apart (as I
said upthread). Since neither b5 nor a6 is a corner, I didn't bother
to state the side condition, which is irrelevant to this case.


It seems to me that you have very poor board vision. Are you a new
player?

I'd rather stick to discussing the technique than starting to talk
about me.

I see. You're very happy to make bold assertions about what `most
chess players' do or do not know but you're not willing to state your
qualification for making such assertions.


It's actually good that you brought up the position of the kings,
since the rule of the square (one of the most basic and useful
endgame techniques) is also not useful without exception. It only
works when there are no pawns or pieces on the king's path to
catching the opponent's pawn.

Yes but it's extremely easy to verify whether the king can reach the
queening square in time. In contrast, there don't even appear to be
any conditions which will tell you whether the answer given by
Alexander (for the totally unobstructed case) is achievable given,
say, that there is an enemy pawn on some particular square. The only
way you can check is to actually find a route.


And yet, applying your reasoning, [the rule of the square] is
useless! Better to count the squares to the pawn every time, since
it's easy to think up exceptions to the rule where it just doesn't
work. I would like to see how far you get railing against people
learning basic endgame techniques such as the rule of the square.

Put your straw man down, please. I accept the rule of squares because
it is simple, easy to verify and demonstrably easier than plotting the
trajectories of the pieces. I reject Alexander's technique because
there are many rules, and it is hard to verify that the `theoretical'
answer is achievable without actually plotting trajectories. Using
Alexander's technique means that one has to both use the technique and
find a path; just finding a path means you only have to find a path.


I'm resistant to learning a slower, more cumbersome way to do
something which I can already do and feel that any chess player
beyond a beginner should be able to do.

The trial and error method that you advocate is the slower, more
cumbersome, and more error-prone way.

I disagree on all three points, as I've explained in detail on several
occasions.


I don't think this technique is either interesting or useful: that's
the point I've been making. It's not that I can't be bothered to
learn it; I've looked at it (through your descriptions) and found it
to be not worth the time or effort.

So you can't be bothered to learn it. Which is what I said. You
just confirmed it yourself.

So, you'd rather stick to discussing the technique rather than
discussing you but you're perfectly happy to discuss me. My reasons
for not learning the technique have nothing to do with laziness.


Alexander's Technique was not designed to and never promised to find
the actual path a knight must take to get somewhere in the minimum
number of moves. I don't know what gave you the idea that I had
"great difficulty" finding such a path

The following things gave me the impression that you have great
difficulty finding the path a knight must take between two squares.

1) With a knight on b5 trying to get to a6, a mere two moves away, you
asked, `now where?'
2) You said you didn't find it obvious that there is no two-move
knight path from g6 to a4.
3) You said it wasn't obvious to you that there's no path from g1 to
a6 in only three moves.
4) You spent a while challenging me to find paths of varying lengths
between squares; there would be no point challenging me to do
something you thought was easy.

but even if that were the case, that's not a shortcoming of
Alexander's Technique, but a completely separate issue.

Yes it is a shortcoming. Because in order to use the technique in a
game, you must be able to find the path; if you can't find the path,
what use is it to know that it's there?


I'm sorry if my criticism of the technique you've been advancing
came across as criticism of you. It probably sounded like it was
but it wasn't intended as such.

Well, when you say things such as "It seems to me that you have very
poor board vision." That's not criticism of the technique.

No, it's not criticism of the technique. It does, however, establish
that you are unqualified to judge the merits of the technique and
unqualified to condemn my technique as error-prone.


That's criticism of my ability, which (apart from being wrong) is
quite irrelevant to whether the technique works or would be useful
for most chess players.

It is evaluation of your ability, not criticism of it. I even gave
suggestions of how to improve.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Strange Slimy Composer (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a pupil of Beethoven but it's covered
in goo and totally weird!