foot wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
foot wrote:
How do you know there's no two-move route [from g6 to e4]?
Because any knight move from g6 either puts the knight on a square
adjacent to e4 (f4 or e5) or on a square a long way from e4.

So, when you say "any knight move", you're pretty much admitting
that you checked to see where every knight move landed.

Absolutely not! Two moves are too close; all the others are too far
away. I don't need to think about which squares a knight can move to
from g6: it's instantly obvious to me. It's also instantly obvious
that none of those squares is a knight's move from e4. I don't
believe I have any extraordinary skill here.

(To clarify, I'd have to think to name the squares but, looking at a
board, it's completely obvious.)


Once again, this is exactly the kind of trial and error approach the
book's method is supposed to improve upon.

I assure you that there is no `trial and error' in determining whether
a knight can get between two squares in two moves. I really can't
conceive of getting it wrong.


It's instantly obvious to me that there's no two-move route. And
I'm not a strong player; I'm just familiar with how the pieces
move.

Well, "obvious" doesn't mean you didn't try every possible single
move route, and then see if a second move can get you to your
destination square.... which is what you apparently did.

No! It's just completely obvious. Perhaps my post-hoc rationaliz-
ation of why it's obvious misled you into thinking that I'd tried all
the possible first moves and discarded them one by one.


Your method will find that moving to a certain square will take a
minimum of 5 moves in a second or two? I don't think so.

I think you need to get a much better feel of how the pieces move.
How do you get on with solving tactics puzzles without moving the
pieces on the board?


Try using your method to on a square that's a minimum of 5 moves
away, like g1 to a6 (the example I meant to give in my last message,
but said "h6" for some inexplicable reason).

Again, I had no problems whatsoever getting a knight from g1 to a6 in
five moves and convincing myself that three is impossible. Heading
straight for a6 puts you on c3/d4/e5 after two moves and a4/b5/c6/d7
after three. All of those squares are two moves from a6; if you can't
instantly see that they are, you really need to work on your
visualization. (I'm not claiming that I computed all of that in my
head to work out the move-count. I just mean that the squares I gave
are the places you could get to from your interpretation of `start at
g1 and head straight for a6.)


With your method, it sounds like there will be trial and error
involved, and you will be left guessing as to whether there is
actually a shorter route that you might be missing.

a6 is just too far from g1 to get there in three moves. The closest
you can get on the a-file in three moves is a4 because you need to
move two squares left on each move to get to the a-file, so you're
only moving one square up. Again, this is post-hoc rationalization;
it's just obviously too far as soon as moving towards the target
square for three moves leave you short.


With the method taught in the book there is no guessing or trial and
error. It's just a matter of applying a rule sort of like your
"Moving to the opposite corner of a 3x3 square always takes four
moves," only the rule will apply for squares which are a minimum of
5 moves away.

But the technique involves applying eight pages of rules that have
nothing to do with chess per se. My technique just involved playing
chess and knowing a couple of special cases.

You're dismissing guessing as leading to inaccurate answers. My point
is that, having made an educated guess, it's very easy to confirm that
one's guess is correct.

Your method tells you that g1 to a6 is five moves, as an abstract,
uninterpreted fact. You're still going to have to use what you call
`trial and error' in order to find out if any of the five-move paths
is available to you on the board.


I'll admit to being utterly flabbergasted as to why somebody would
write an eighty-page book explaining how to do something this
simple.

Well, I found the book to be extremely useful, and I bet most other
chess players will too.

I'm glad it worked for you. I think the time would have been better
spend improving your visualization skills so you could see these
things without needing fancy techniques.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Flammable Edible Drink (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a refreshing juice beverage but you
can eat it and it burns really easily!

On Oct 9, 11:33 am, foot wrote:
And, by the way, how did you know that "Moving to the opposite corner
of a 3x3 square always takes four moves." Did you, perhaps, read this
in a book? Did you figure it out yourself? Or did someone teach you?
(someone who themselves probably read it in a book) If it was,
directly, or indirectly, received from a book, how can you maintain
that such a book is useless?

I've got to agree with Mr. Richerby on this one. I've heard of niche
books on specific skills, but this seems like something that should
take up 5 pages of a book on many more topics, not something that
should have its own 80 page book.

As for how I learned stuff like this, I learned it the hard way. In
playing, I quickly learned that a knight takes two moves to move to a
square diagonally next to it. From playing and doing some exercises
that I saw recommended somewhere to improve "board vision", I figured
out that it takes 3 moves to move a knight to the square next to it.
And I think it probably through actual play that I realized that going
to the opposite corner of a 3x3 square takes an annoyingly long number
of moves, which ends up being 4, so I try to avoid those situations
where possible.

--Richard

On 09 Oct 2007 18:10:20 +0100 (BST)
David Richerby wrote:

foot wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
foot wrote:
How do you know there's no two-move route [from g6 to e4]?
Because any knight move from g6 either puts the knight on a square
adjacent to e4 (f4 or e5) or on a square a long way from e4.

So, when you say "any knight move", you're pretty much admitting
that you checked to see where every knight move landed.

Absolutely not! Two moves are too close; all the others are too far
away. I don't need to think about which squares a knight can move to
from g6: it's instantly obvious to me. It's also instantly obvious
that none of those squares is a knight's move from e4. I don't
believe I have any extraordinary skill here.

Well, it's certainly not instantly obvious to me. I either have to use
Alexander's Technique, or rely on trial and error. I have no magic
sixth-sense that will tell me that two moves couldn't get me from g6 to
e4. For all I know, perhaps they could. That uncertainty would
ordinarily lead me to try some two-move paths before being convinced
that a two-move path couldn't get me there.

If it's really true that you don't need to do the same, engaging in
trial and error moves, then that's great for you. But I don't think
the average chess player is so gifted.

And the problem becomes much worse with longer move paths.

Your method will find that moving to a certain square will take a
minimum of 5 moves in a second or two? I don't think so.

I think you need to get a much better feel of how the pieces move.
How do you get on with solving tactics puzzles without moving the
pieces on the board?

Sometimes having to move pieces is unavoidable. And sometimes, as in
the case of the method taught in this book, moving the pieces is not
necessary (except for the squares which are one knight move away, for
which there is no shortcut).

Try using your method to on a square that's a minimum of 5 moves
away, like g1 to a6 (the example I meant to give in my last message,
but said "h6" for some inexplicable reason).

Again, I had no problems whatsoever getting a knight from g1 to a6 in
five moves and convincing myself that three is impossible. Heading
straight for a6 puts you on c3/d4/e5 after two moves and a4/b5/c6/d7
after three. All of those squares are two moves from a6; if you can't
instantly see that they are, you really need to work on your
visualization.

If you asked me whether a4 was a minimum of three moves away, I couldn't
instantly tell you whether it was or not without using Alexander's
Technique. I'd have to try moving the the trial and error method.
It certainly wouldn't be "obvious" to me that that square was a minimum
of three moves away the way it's obvious to me that f3 is one move away
from g1. And I suspect the same would hold for most other chess
players.

(I'm not claiming that I computed all of that in my
head to work out the move-count. I just mean that the squares I gave
are the places you could get to from your interpretation of `start at
g1 and head straight for a6.)

Well, let's say you did head "straight for a6" from g1... and you went
to f3-d4-b5 and now where? Well, it's anyone's guess! Let's try c3,
and then where? Well, maybe a4, and then b6 or c5. Well, you're
already beyond the minimum of 5 moves, and you haven't even reached
your destination square.

So, maybe you backtrack to c3 and then to d5 instead of a4, and then
where? Maybe you could try b4, b6, or c7... none of which get you to
b5 in the minimum of five moves. And then, can you really be sure that
when you backtracked c3 was one of the squares you'd moved your knight
to initially? Maybe it's better to start from the beginning... more
time wasted.

So I don't think it's all as neat and simple as you make it out to be...
at least not for the longer knight paths. That is, unless you happen
to luck on to the shortest path on the first try. And, even then,
you can't be sure the path you lucked on to is indeed the shortest path
without trying to get there in fewer moves... which means more time
wasted and more opportunity for error and confusion.

With your method, it sounds like there will be trial and error
involved, and you will be left guessing as to whether there is
actually a shorter route that you might be missing.

a6 is just too far from g1 to get there in three moves. The closest
you can get on the a-file in three moves is a4 because you need to
move two squares left on each move to get to the a-file, so you're
only moving one square up. Again, this is post-hoc rationalization;
it's just obviously too far as soon as moving towards the target
square for three moves leave you short.

Right... so you do need to try moving there to see that it's too far...
another matter of trial and error that the method taught in the book
make unnecessary. It's just a matter of looking at the board, applying
a simple rule, and the result is that you know a6 is 5 moves from g1.
No need to try candidate paths with the knight.

With the method taught in the book there is no guessing or trial and
error. It's just a matter of applying a rule sort of like your
"Moving to the opposite corner of a 3x3 square always takes four
moves," only the rule will apply for squares which are a minimum of
5 moves away.

But the technique involves applying eight pages of rules that have
nothing to do with chess per se.

What does it matter whether the rules "have to do with chess per se" (a
point that could be debated.. but I don't want to go there) ? As long
as it works, works quickly, and eliminates the possibility of error and
confusion?

My technique just involved playing chess and knowing a couple of
special cases.

Parts of your technique are actually pretty similar to what's taught in
the book, so if you don't have any problem using your technique then
you shouldn't have a problem with the technique taught in the book,
which is pretty similar. However, the technique in the book eliminates
the need for trial and error moves of the knight (except for the
squares which are only one move away, for which there is no shortcut).

You're dismissing guessing as leading to inaccurate answers. My point
is that, having made an educated guess, it's very easy to confirm that
one's guess is correct.

Well, it might be easy to confirm whether there is a path that's as long
as what you've guessed (assuming you luck on to the correct path on
your first try, and not get confused and led off track, as in the g1 to
a6 path example I gave above)... but verifying that what you've guessed
is indeed the shortest possible path to the destination square might
not be so easy. You might be forced to try a number (perhaps even a
large number) of alternate paths. In any event, there's always the
possibility of error and confusion, and it will take time to verify
your guess.

With the book method there is no guessing.

Your method tells you that g1 to a6 is five moves, as an abstract,
uninterpreted fact. You're still going to have to use what you call
`trial and error' in order to find out if any of the five-move paths
is available to you on the board.

That assumes that you're interested in that information. Perhaps,
knowing that a certain square is a minimum of 5 moves away is enough.

For example, say you have a pawn on a4 that will queen in 4 moves. You
opponent has a knight on g1. Will he be able to stop your pawn? You
apply the method and virtually immediately know that it will take that
knight at least 5 moves to get to a8. So you don't even care what path
he's going to try to get there. You can confidently march your pawn
forward.

I'm glad it worked for you. I think the time would have been better
spend improving your visualization skills so you could see these
things without needing fancy techniques.

It's not a "fancy" technique. At least, no more "fancy" than your own
method, which is quite similar (though lacking in that parts of it
still require you to try moving your knight to various squares).

I really don't see the need to use pejorative terms like "fancy" in
regards to something you have no knowledge of. It's really quite
amazing how some people will put up a tremendous amount of resistance
and hostility to learning anything new.

You know, I actually like learning new things. When there's something
new to learn that gets me interested and excited. I thought by
mentioning that there was something new, interesting and useful to learn
I'd get positive reactions from this group. Instead all I got was
invective from people who apparently can't be bothered to learn
anything new. I think that's pretty sad.

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:07:33 -0700
Richard wrote:

I've got to agree with Mr. Richerby on this one. I've heard of niche
books on specific skills, but this seems like something that should
take up 5 pages of a book on many more topics, not something that
should have its own 80 page book.

As I've said several times now, the part of the book that teaches the
method only takes up 8 pages! About 40 pages of the book explain why
the method works. The rest are examples, exercises, answers,
reference, and index. And I'm happy these are there, because they
make learning the method easier, and learning why it works is
interesting.

As for how I learned stuff like this, I learned it the hard way. In
playing, I quickly learned that a knight takes two moves to move to a
square diagonally next to it. From playing and doing some exercises
that I saw recommended somewhere to improve "board vision", I figured
out that it takes 3 moves to move a knight to the square next to it.
And I think it probably through actual play that I realized that going
to the opposite corner of a 3x3 square takes an annoyingly long number
of moves, which ends up being 4, so I try to avoid those situations
where possible.

Well, it's great that you learned that on your own. But perhaps you'll
forgive others for not wanting to go about this the hard way, and for
wanting to learn even more rules about knight moves besides the ones
described in this thread.

foot wrote:
Richard wrote:
I've got to agree with Mr. Richerby on this one. I've heard of niche
books on specific skills, but this seems like something that should
take up 5 pages of a book on many more topics, not something that
should have its own 80 page book.

As I've said several times now, the part of the book that teaches the
method only takes up 8 pages!

This is obviously some strange new meaning of the word `only' of which
I was previously unaware. Mine took less than half a page.


Well, it's great that you learned that on your own. But perhaps
you'll forgive others for not wanting to go about this the hard way,
and for wanting to learn even more rules about knight moves besides
the ones described in this thread.

Alexander's technique sounds to me like a very hard way to do
something nearly trivial.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Erotic Sumerian Drink (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a refreshing juice beverage that's
really old but it's genuinely erotic!

On Oct 11, 4:46 am, David Richerby
wrote:

Alexander's technique sounds to me like a very hard way to do
something nearly trivial.

Perhaps, but following the conversation, I began to wonder if it might
have value for things like composing long seriesmovers with one or
more knights. And there is an American author who recommends modified
seriesmovers (Albertston, Chess Mazes) for developing tactical vision.

You are probably correct it that it is a triviality, but it is one
that might have specific uses. Or not.

SBD wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Alexander's technique sounds to me like a very hard way to do
something nearly trivial.

Perhaps, but following the conversation, I began to wonder if it
might have value for things like composing long seriesmovers with
one or more knights. And there is an American author who recommends
modified seriesmovers (Albertston, Chess Mazes) for developing
tactical vision.

It might be useful for that, yes. The only other suggestion was for
knight endgames but there, the whole point is that the enemy king can
move. If knight endgames were as simple as `If he doesn't move his
king, I can cut off that pawn with my knight', well, they'd be much
simpler than they are.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Expensive Radioactive Umbrella (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like an umbrella but it'll
make you glow in the dark and break
the bank!

foot wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Again, I had no problems whatsoever getting a knight from g1 to a6 in
five moves and convincing myself that three is impossible. Heading
straight for a6 puts you on c3/d4/e5 after two moves and a4/b5/c6/d7
after three. All of those squares are two moves from a6; if you can't
instantly see that they are, you really need to work on your
visualization.

If you asked me whether a4 was a minimum of three moves away, I
couldn't instantly tell you whether it was or not without using
Alexander's Technique.

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


(I'm not claiming that I computed all of that in my head to work
out the move-count. I just mean that the squares I gave are the
places you could get to from your interpretation of `start at g1
and head straight for a6.)

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. If you can't see the
two-move path between diagonally adjacent squares, I can understand
why you're reluctant to use my trial-and-error method. I assure you
that I'm not a gifted chess player -- I'm doing absolutely nothing
special.

It seems to me that you have very poor board vision. Are you a new
player? You also mentioned that you sometimes find it essential to
move the pieces to solve tactical problems. Perhaps you're trying
problems beyond your current ability but how are you going to choose
good moves during games, where you're not allowed to move the pieces
around while you think? I'd recommend that, rather than learning
specialist techniques for counting knight moves, you concentrate on
improving your board vision by doing lots of tactics puzzles, all in
your head. It will be slow going at first but you'll find you get
better at it and that this will dramatically increase your strength.


But the technique involves applying eight pages of rules that have
nothing to do with chess per se.

What does it matter whether the rules "have to do with chess per se"
(a point that could be debated.. but I don't want to go there) ? As
long as it works, works quickly, and eliminates the possibility of
error and confusion?

The advantage of chess-based reasoning is that it help your
understanding of other parts of the game and reinforces your ability
to calculate in your head. Other rules can't be applied to anything
else.

For example, say you have a pawn on a4 that will queen in 4 moves.
You opponent has a knight on g1. Will he be able to stop your pawn?
You apply the method and virtually immediately know that it will
take that knight at least 5 moves to get to a8. So you don't even
care what path he's going to try to get there. You can confidently
march your pawn forward.

But knight endgames aren't that simple! Where's his king? Can it
stop the pawn? Can he gain a tempo by checking you with his knight on
the way to a8? (An extremely important resource in knight endgames.)
If your king's on b5/c4/d5/d7/e6/e8, it's enough for him to get his
knight to b6/c7 immediately after you promote, forking your king and
new queen. (Another important resource) Or will you be promoting with
check so he doesn't have time to do that?


I really don't see the need to use pejorative terms like "fancy" in
regards to something you have no knowledge of. It's really quite
amazing how some people will put up a tremendous amount of
resistance and hostility to learning anything new.

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.


You know, I actually like learning new things.

So do I. I'm an academic -- it's even my job to learn new things!


When there's something new to learn that gets me interested and
excited. I thought by mentioning that there was something new,
interesting and useful to learn I'd get positive reactions from this
group. Instead all I got was invective from people who apparently
can't be bothered to learn anything new. I think that's pretty sad.

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. I don't even think the technique
is helping you very much, either, since it seems that you have great
difficulty using your knowledge that there's a five-move path between
two squares to actually find such a path -- that's what I think you
should be spending your time working on.

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.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Radioactive Postman (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a man who delivers the mail but it'll
make you glow in the dark!

foot wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
If it was, directly, or indirectly, received from a book, how can
you maintain that such a book is useless?

Perhaps it was from a book. But if it was, it was a book that
happened to contain this information and much more besides, not a
book specifically about how to get a knight from A to B.

Why do you object to niche chess books? If they achieve what they set
out to do, what's the problem?

I object to this book because any reasonable player can already
calculate quickly and accurately the number of moves it would take a
knight to get between two squares. Any weaker player would be better
served by improving their board vision until they can calculate this
using their chess skill, rather than learning the technique.


But it's still an eighty page book and it's still eight pages to
describe how to do something trivial.

I don't think it's trivial. Nor do I think most chess players would
find it trivial.

I assure you that I'm just an ordinary player. I have no especial
skill at the game.


Well, the trial and error parts of the method you describe is not
like "walking up the stairs", but more like trying to solve a maze
by randomly picking directions, instead of always making right hand
turns.

No, for two reasons. Firstly, I'm not advocating moving randomly.
Secondly, the moving the knight close to the right direction and then
correcting at the end always works. Trying to move in the right
direction in a maze might send you completely the wrong way.

The walking up the stairs analogy wasn't intended as a direct analogy
but just an indication that advanced techniques really aren't needed.


But, hey, it works for you... and you seem to be in no hurry to
improve on it.

I'm in no hurry to improve because I can already get the correct
answer faster than I could using the technique and at least as
accurately. The technique just isn't an improvement.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Accelerated Pointy-Haired Cat (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a cat that's completely
clueless but it's twice as fast!

foot wrote:
Well, here's the blurb from the back of the book. (I don't know if
this was written by Alexander or his publisher)

Blurb is almost always written by the publisher, to maximize sales by
making the book sound as exciting and useful as possible.


Dave.


--
David Richerby Permanent Bulb (TM): it's like a light
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ bulb but it'll be there for ever!