> Again, I want to stress that this is a general observation and not a direct criticism of individuals who use the term ‘chess understanding’, or similar, in their discussions. Rather, I believe that such arguments, like any others, must be evaluated within their specific contexts. What I would ask for, though, is a more detailed explanation and analysis of what ‘understanding’ – or any concept being referenced – actually involves, as the understanding behind such concepts is often quite shallow.
I have some concern here about the intent of the axiomatic system about the individual learner room for imagination and hypothesis testing while still in a substantial fog of chess (all sources). I am putting my current ramblings about that in my musings.
As I need to read more to substantiate that concern. I have been hasty before. So hygienic doubt. Journaling elsewhere.
Done forward reading this part 2. I did my journaling in my own Lichess space called musing, which is optional and at your own risks reading (anyone with eyes not dry already from not blinking enough in front of the monitor, and with some talent with inferring from a noisy signal what I might have meant, the other would get hurt).
In short I welcome your proposition of alternative language (or set of reasoning tools) from scratch, not as truth, but as a proposal to be discuss and together reasoned through. My preference is to start from some agreeable ground as well, where the language components are minimally demanding leaps of faith. Maximal common sensory associations with the board.
As any language pointing to some external reality that is more complex than any individual can completely contain in one's small brain, of course, these are not going to be real until we agree together that they are sufficiently objective to be useful to keep talking about that common external reality we are also convening to be of common sensory existence.
It does matter I think to have some base language that is not just about which mobile unit was just changed coordintae on board.
the for the non-static concepts, well ... I will see.. But I think you might have been talking about the inherent game competitive values (winning odds given the board and the 2 players skill set level at the time of the putative single game event). Sorry. Going too precise, the mathematics might be distracting me (well those that would satisfy me). But in some way, I find it is of same intent as your propositon. To want to be pragmatic about the clues we can look at for the agree problem (axiom1) of learning to generalize from experience (includeing any study resource a priori, so the good, the bad, and even the ugly boring woodpecker are candidates sources, a priori in this scientific half wheel problem of theory of learning (entendre preformance in OTB improvers, or its online approximations).
For I don,t understand that anything that can't be made a well-formed question about the external sensory world, that can be shared amond comptent reasonable and logical tested argument wielders (that might include chess patzers, of which tribe, I am a proud member).
The scientific method is about finding the right set of questions first. or it starts by asking questions about thing of common sensory agreeable nature. One can,t say, that the scientific method is impossible or does not exist for things like chess, which at least in its spirit is about equal information access on both sides of the accepted competition contract.
That would be my grain of salt. And somehow, I don,t think it matters at all how your interpret what you are doing as not being scientific compatible. I don,t know where you got the idea that the things we might use in science, as concepts of language to carry the data from the common extended sensory external world, has to have intrinsice realtiy existence (I actually have some common sense about it, don,t get me wrong, but I say, keep being as reasonable as you have been and apply that to the scientific endeavors so far). Ask a physicist what is the reality of gravity, exactly.
anyway.. I am moving on from your precautionary first 2 parts finally. in my forward slow crawling reading. (it is worth doing that to be sure that I follow you correctly to the best of my reasoning abilities).
Also, I forgot to say.
A thousand thank yous, for the Venn Diagram, as a window into the gist of your intent. Not a proof of anything (talking to some 2D communication skeptics out there), but sure way to be efficacious on the semantics or mind's eye fast signalling from inside the skull to inside another skull. Speak to the whole brain all at once.. (whch can be abused in TV information delivery, as our conscious brain can critically process everything poured at the typic pace and of striking news, and narrative wrapping (why sometimes many sources are better than one, actually). 1D crawling reasoing and 2D or 3D fast signalling seems to be a general problem I think.
so, please do not feel timid with complementary figures to make sure the fog of verbal communication is complemented by those bypassing disambiguator tools.. Venn Diagrams for all. until we run out of ambien plane surface area (but then one can go occams razor, slices and then recombination)... that is how many dimensions can be tamed, well, one methodical way.
