Skip to content

Fix missing word in ideas.md #136

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
JoshOrndorff wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Fix missing word in ideas.md #136

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion posts/ideas.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ This insight has many implications. If you are trying to come up with good tacti

Here, “queen = 9 pawns, rook = 5 pawns, knight = bishop = 3 pawns” functions as a **generator** of further downstream ideas: it’s an insight that you can start with that is much more likely to generate effective tactics than searching completely randomly. We can think of that statement as being an "ideology". Since pieces on the board in chess are called [material](https://www.chessstrategyonline.com/content/tutorials/basic-chess-concepts-material), let us overload an [already-overloaded term](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism_\(disambiguation\)) and call this ideology “_materialism_”.

One could imagine someone who disagrees with materialism, either partially or fully. Often, sacrificing material is okay in service of _positional_ goals, such as exposing the opponent’s king or claiming the center of the board. The value of material can also be context-dependent. In an endgame, I’ve found that single knight is worth more than a single bishop, whereas two bishops are worth more than two knights. If your opponent has one bishop left, pawns might be worth more if they are on squares of the opposite color to that bishop. A person whose approach to chess tactics focuses on exploiting these situations might call themselves a “_positionist_”.
One could imagine someone who disagrees with materialism, either partially or fully. Often, sacrificing material is okay in service of _positional_ goals, such as exposing the opponent’s king or claiming the center of the board. The value of material can also be context-dependent. In an endgame, I’ve found that a single knight is worth more than a single bishop, whereas two bishops are worth more than two knights. If your opponent has one bishop left, pawns might be worth more if they are on squares of the opposite color to that bishop. A person whose approach to chess tactics focuses on exploiting these situations might call themselves a “_positionist_”.

Positionists and materialists may disagree on practical issues, such as whether or not to trade two pawns for a bishop in a situation like this:

Expand Down