Hello,

If you have criticism and proposals to the  "Elements-Catalogue of the General-Theory", than please discuss here.

Thank you,

Funky-AbaloneTheory-JazzClub  

--Last edited by Funky-AbaloneTheory-JazzClub on 2005-11-18 18:04:22 --

Hi Chris,

thanks for your message. We put your identical message into the "criticism and proposals"-sujet/General-Theory-Forum.
This is not censorship, but topic-organisation.
Thank you!

Greetings,
Funky-AbaloneTheory-JazzClub

--------------------------------------------------------------
Chriscool wrote:

Posted 25/10/2005 08:13:48 PM General-Theory-Forum: "Elements-Catalogue of the General-Theory"

I disagree on your descrïption of the tactical view.

I believe that a tactic cannot exist without one goal, tactical choices being the choices you do to reach your goal.

The goal focused by your tactics could be to take one ball, as you mentionned, but could be as well to become more compact, to take the center, or to reach some advantageous pattern.

The main complexity is, of course, the parallelism of different simultaneous goals (for exemple taking one ball without loosing the middle).

Thus, a basical descrïptions of the different level of analysing that would be more familiar to me would be :
1- the (parallel)goals to achieve
2- the means to achieve them

which i could (arbitrarily) sum up, respectively, by tactics and strategies, position being either the former or the latter depending on the context.  

--Last edited by Funky-AbaloneTheory-JazzClub on 2005-10-25 22:01:44 --

Hello Chris,

I dont know your reasons to be here, but if you want to provocate and to be aggressive, than "sorry". If you want to write some fruitful articles or if we can disucuss, than: "Welcome, chris!"

Greetings,
Funky-AbaloneTheory-JazzClub

Hi chris,

I think your criticism is right, if you say "that a tactic cannot exist without one goal".
This is correct.  But I dont say the opposite.

You can theoretical imagine the tactical thinking as an analytic level: if you imagine all possible move-trees without any estimation, than this is the analytical space.  
If you combine this "pure, analytic tactical level" with other levels, than you get criteria to esteem some moves better than others.
So, in real life it makes not sense to speak of a pure tactic, but in an analytic way it is very sensfull to understand that there must be at least one criterium to esteem - I think so.

Silver

The summery of the tactic-chapter is:

summery:
1. A tactical analysis is a pure calculation of move-possibilities, without any estimation-criteria.
2. A simple estimation-criteria would be for example "Win in x move".

-> The first point is the theoretical, analytical concept of all possible move-trees.
The second point shows, that there is a necessity for criteria, if you want to esteem these move-trees.  

--Last edited by Silversurfer on 2005-10-25 21:13:58 --

Well, if a tactic cannot exist without one goal, then a tactical analysis implies (to me) that you evaluate how each move helps you to reach that goal.

PS :

Quote :

I dont know your reasons to be here, but if you want to provocate and to be aggressive, than "sorry". If you want to write some fruitful articles or if we can disucuss, than: "Welcome, chris!"

What the fuck... ?

... as I said: "pure tactic" is "the space of all possible real moves".

And this "space" is different from starting-configuration to starting-configuration. You can imagine this space as all possible moves for each-starting-configuration.
only the trees without any estimation.  

But in practice, in real games, for AI you need at least one criteria to esteem these moves, because you can not calulcate the games till the end - I agree.  

--Last edited by Silversurfer on 2005-10-25 22:03:30 --

Hi chrsi,

thanks for your criticism,  I will try to include your remarks and I will try to present the "analytic status" of these analysis-levels more obvious.
Thanks.

Silver

[i]4. summery

1. A "tactical analysis" is the calculation/computing of move-possibilities/computing trees.
2. We need at least one "estimation-criterion" to esteem and to compare the several move-possibilities.  
3. If we like to "understand" a situation than we have to analyse this situation at least with two analysis-levels: tactically and positionally - only in the case of a pure tactically situation (endgame) we can neglect the positional patterns.
4. If we want to compare different patterns, than we need experience or valid knowledge to esteem these patterns. If we have this knowledge, than we don’t have to calculate tactically to figure out the better pattern, but we can decide to play the more advantageous pattern.
5. Very often patterns are "wedged". And we have to realize "tactically" if there are wedged patterns or not.
6. There is the necessity to complete the two analysis levels (tactical, positional) with a more holistic point of view.
7. The strategical "point of view" is focused on holistic aspects of the game structure related to principles.[/i]


Do you mean that "strategy" is just a synthesis of "tactic" and "position" ? Is it just the addition of these two levels ?

Or does this "holistic" approach end imply that there is something over "tactic" and "position", looking more forward ?  

--Last edited by Abalekon on 2005-11-12 10:42:10 --

The strategical analysis is a new level with own principles. This level is far away of a simple synthesis.

This is the strategical-level-chapter of the Elements-Catalogue:

3. strategical level

If we calculate specific move-possibilities and if we recognize patterns and wedged patterns than we focus particular areas of the game. This point of views are more analytic and less holistic. Until now there is a lack of a holistic point of view.

If we regard this example than we will recognize that the positional-pattern in this game [image 2] is similar to the opening-pattern of a stage-2-opening [image 1] (compare Standard-Opening-Theory/1.Introduction).



In the this situation [image 2] Black has the possibility to eject a marble (bue line). But if Black eject this marble [image 3] than White can conquer the centre (red line and image 4).

Tactical analysis: this is a simple sequence:
1. e3de  e8e7
 
Positional analysis:
In Image 1 and 2 Black has the centre and a solid Block-pattern.
But in image 3 and 4 Black has to face three strong white 3-rows and two of them are sumito and one is still pac.

The strategical analysis shows that Black has won material, has lost the centre and therefore an important key-point, black has also lost the dominance, the coordination of the black marbles is less good now and White has a strong initiative.  

(Compare the strategical Principles: VI.:
VI. strategy-principles

1. material (victim, change, position, ...)
2. centre-edge
3. dominance
4. coordination
5. key-points
6. initiative)


summery:
1. there is the necessity to complete the first two analysis levels with a more holistic point of view.
2. The strategical "point of view" is focused on holistic aspects of the game structure related to principles.  

--Last edited by SIlverSurfer on 2005-11-12 16:06:25 --