Science of Chess (kinda?): Viih_Sou's 2. Ra3?? and a modest research proposal

@MillenniumBug said in #30:
> What I was trying to say was this:
> Your theory appears to be that preparation of Ra3 will give you an edge. And you wish to prove your theorem by showing better results, against an engine, with 2. Ra3 than with regular play. Perhaps I misread you?
>
> Forget my "find level" ... I do not think you will perform better with this opening at any level against any engine.
>
> The "edge" against humans, comes from
> 1. Psychology as already mentioned, opponents may over-push to punish
> 2. Clock, as perhaps mentioned? Since many moves can be played automatically, you gain a clock advantage. This is mentioned (on the fly) by GothamChess in one of his YT videos on the Naroditsky - Ra3 games

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the human play the move 2. Ra3. I'm suggesting that you make the engine play this opening because it likely takes you away from openings/patterns you have experience with. You then, may play more poorly (either by over-pushing or simple unfamiliarity with the position) against this than against other openings you could make the engine play (this was one of your suggestions and I quite liked it).

The other thing is that my idea could be wrong, and that's fine. It's an empirical question that I don't know the answer to yet. The fun part is trying it out to see. I agree that there may be psychological factors (including time pressure, nervousness about an unfamiliar line) that could turn out to be most important, but we won't know if that's the case until we test those ideas.

www.chess.com/member/viih_sou

Account closed for fair play. No genius, just a cheater.

@Kawummski
Whether the GM Brandon Jacobson, the player behind that account, cheated or not, remains uncertain. The fact that chesscom banned him is hardly any proof. Youtube is already full of videos on the subject.

The fact that he has revealed his name, after the ban, is IMO a fairly strong _indication_ that he did not cheat.

I was not aware of his Reddit post. Not a simple case. Happy that I do not have to decide.

@Craze said in #10:
> I tried this system in casual bullet against 2700-2800 rated players as an experiment. Kept getting owned.

Git gud.

> but how does your latent ability to do that part of playing square off against something dubious that another player understands?

I do like such questions. Finding the holes between the schools of thoughts. In spite of my concerns about what you mean by problem solving versus pattern recognition (I might just have seen your apparently self contradictory as possibly hint that you do undertand what I might include in problem solving (not just in game, but out of games, in study mode). It is not only calculation, but how to find paths around calculation too.

The apparent self-contradictions are more about making previously prematurely accepted "truths", conflict with each other, to find out if it was really tested.

I think that in your questions of strategy values when confronted, might have dependent variables of the game extra constraints called adminitrative rules, such as time controls. and where one can have access to an opening explorer or not.

The open book non-existant category of competitiopn, might make a different question of your question. Perhaps then, one might see more clearly about the different kinds (and time scales, or number or many game scale) of problem solving.

that having a study strategy that is perhaps iteself a learning process informed by chess experience and imagination, of how one take previous experience (or study experience or both, in the form of the position visited guided or not).

But good method there.. Finding the right questions, is what scientist thinking, too often behind the scene, is about.