Hi everybody!

Um, I want to share something with you.

Ok. There is a diagram invented by Count Alfred Korzybski called the
"Structural Differential." I suggest clicking the links below for
information on this diagram.

http://www.esgs.org/uk/sd.htm

http://www.general-semantics.org/Basics/AK.sdnote.shtml

Now,

Instead of: Event Object Name Lower Inference Higher Inference
etc

Substitute: Game Play Outcome Analysis Game Theory

In other words, substitute Game for Event, Play for Object, Outcome
for Name,..

"Game" means the total possibilities of a chess game. All
possibilities. A very large number.

"Play" means what two players have abstracted out of "Game" to form a
single game of chess. This single game played between two players is
but a facet of all possible chess games. It is an abstraction from
the ocean of all possible chess games.

"Outcome" means win, lose, or draw.

"Analysis" and "Game Theory" are analogous to scientific analysis and
scientific theories in Korzybski's model.

Notice that Game is many-many valued, Play is many valued, Outcome is
only three valued (win-lose-draw), and analysis and game theory are
many-many valued.

When you report the Outcome and say "white resigns" or "black wins" or
"0-1", you are leaving out (disregarding) practically all details of
the Play of the Game. For example, did White blunder in a winning
position, or did Black outplay White for the entire game? There is
nothing wrong with leaving out characteristics -it can't be avoided-
but this leaving out should be acknowledged as a simple fact.

Both (gameplayoutcomeanalysisgame theory) and
(eventobjectnameinferences of lower orderinferences of higher
order) are circular. They are circular because game theory "goes back
to" and describes Game; and inferences in exact sciences "goes back
to" and describes what science has called the "Event," or
submicroscopic quantum process character of nature.

I am thinking, uh, maybe Korzybski's Structural Differential could
serve as an aid in teaching chess to talented young players.

Soph O'more

On 21 Nov 2003 16:55:57 -0800, (Soph Omore)
wrote:

I am thinking, uh, maybe Korzybski's Structural Differential could
serve as an aid in teaching chess to talented young players.

Soph O'more

Only after they've mastered Franklin K. Young

"Soph Omore" wrote in message
m...
Hi everybody!

WE MUST PROTECT THIS HOUSE!!

One thing I feel fairly confident about: applying the structural
differential to chess training would reduce blunders (i.e. hanging
pieces).

Korzybski's diagram makes clear the difference between 'thinking' and
'observing' (although different, these two are definitely related -and
this relatedness is also shown on the SD).

From my own experience and common sense, I know a lot of blunders are
made in chess by confusing 'thinking' and 'observing'. Funny as it
may sound, if an individual would be "silent on the objective level"
of the chessboard for even an extra second or two, significantly less
blunders should be made.

The SD allows *visualizing* the relations and differences between
'seeing' nonverbally on the chessboard, and 'thinking' about what you
are 'seeing'.

It's too simple. That's the problem.

Soph O'more

game(old) play outcome analysis gametheory game(chess960)

The old, regular chess theory, combined with Fischer's theories about
prearrangement (based on his analysis of top GM games), helped to
create chess960.

Soph O'more

Soph Omore wrote:

It's too simple. That's the problem.

Hypothesizing is always simple. You have to go from
there to a demonstration that the hypothesis is correct.

Have you?

--
Anders Thulin http://www.algonet.se/~ath

On 22 Nov 2003 00:47:45 -0800, (Soph Omore)
wrote:

Funny as it
may sound, if an individual would be "silent on the objective level"
of the chessboard for even an extra second or two, significantly less
blunders should be made.


Very well put!

You have pointed out my problem exactly. So many times I have made
what I thought was a great move, only to see it ruined one second
after I made the move. If I had used that one second before the move
instead of after, I would have lost a lot less queens!

I've been playing about a year and I need to learn to sit on my hands
so that I don't move so fast. I don't need to think of a lot more
possible moves as much as I need to analyse a few possibilities a
little longer.

Thanks for an excellent post.

Greg Teets
Cincinnati Ohio USA

Anders Thulin wrote in message ...
Soph Omore wrote:

It's too simple. That's the problem.

Hypothesizing is always simple. You have to go from
there to a demonstration that the hypothesis is correct.

Have you?


I mean the structural differential is so simple, it is easy not to see
its potential value. As far as the substitutions I have suggested, I
believe they are correct.

Question: What is more important: a single chess game, or the total
possible chess games out of which a single game is abstracted?

Answer: No matter how important a single game is, the total
possibilities are more important.

Q: What is more important, a single chess game or the outcome
(win,lose,draw)?

A: No matter how important the outcome is, the single chess game is
more important. The single chess game determines the outcome!

Q: What is more important, the outcome of a single chess game, or the
postmortum analysis?

A: No matter how important the postmortem analysis is, the outcome is
more important. However, when the postmortem analysis is carried far
enough, it becomes potentially more important than the Outcome, and
even potentially more important than a single game of chess. It
becomes Game Theory. Therin lies the rub.

Soph O'more