1 |
Is
putting
the
knights
towards
the
middle
of
the
table
a
good
goal
in
chess?
You
would
possibly
think
that
knights
could
attack
a
larger
area
so
they
would
be
useful
there,
so
it
must
be
good
play.
But
no,
this
reasoning
is
flawed
because
it
completely
disregards
context
and
situation.
I'm
not
saying
moving
the
knights
there
would
be
bad
play,
I'm
saying
that
the
process
to
determine
it
was
strong
play
was
flawed.
The
same
is
true
for
Zero-K,
which
can
be
seen
as
a
modern,
advanced
distant
cousin
of
chess.
Strong
play
is
using
the
best
of
your
opportunities.
But
what
opportunities
you
are
getting
depends
on
the
context.
So
any
context-independent
strategy,
like
"build
singus,
then
Pala,
then
Detri",
is
missing
essential
justification.
It
would
be
bad
game
design
to
make
such
strategies
strong,
because
it
would
make
the
game
less
interactive.
|
1 |
Is
putting
the
knights
towards
the
middle
of
the
table
a
good
goal
in
chess?
You
would
possibly
think
that
knights
could
attack
a
larger
area
so
they
would
be
useful
there,
so
it
must
be
good
play.
But
no,
this
reasoning
is
flawed
because
it
completely
disregards
context
and
situation.
I'm
not
saying
moving
the
knights
there
would
be
bad
play,
I'm
saying
that
the
process
to
determine
it
was
strong
play
was
flawed.
The
same
is
true
for
Zero-K,
which
can
be
seen
as
a
modern,
advanced
distant
cousin
of
chess.
Strong
play
is
using
the
best
of
your
opportunities.
But
what
opportunities
you
are
getting
depends
on
the
context.
So
any
context-independent
strategy,
like
"build
singus,
then
Pala,
then
Detri",
is
missing
essential
justification.
It
would
be
bad
game
design
to
make
such
strategies
unconditionally
strong,
because
it
would
make
the
game
less
interactive.
|