<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Faulty Thought Process: Missing the Obvious</title>
	<atom:link href="http://beginchess.com/2008/04/26/faulty-thought-process-missing-the-obvious/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://beginchess.com/2008/04/26/faulty-thought-process-missing-the-obvious/</link>
	<description>Chess for Beginners</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Jan 2012 05:03:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blue Devil Knight</title>
		<link>http://beginchess.com/2008/04/26/faulty-thought-process-missing-the-obvious/comment-page-1/#comment-91</link>
		<dc:creator>Blue Devil Knight</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 22:05:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beginchess.com/?p=171#comment-91</guid>
		<description>This is a good topic, and I like Heisman&#039;s criteria, which I steal. His book &#039;Elements of positional evaluation&#039; is a very interesting book-length treatise on the topic with some cool iconoclastic ideas (e.g., that material and space are &#039;pseudofactors&#039;, reducible to activity). In theory, I think he is right, but in practice I think he is wrong.

I have a few pages on evaluation in my thought process document, in PDF &lt;a href=&quot;http://kingassassins.50webs.com/CP.3.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.

It starts on page 9. Also, starting on page 4 I describe in some detail my approach to evaluating a position to come up with plans. It discusses in a bit of detail the relationship between plans, candidate moves, and board evaluation.

In particular, I am very happy with the way I found to break down &#039;piece activity,&#039; breaking down the different ways the term is used when discussed by the pros.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a good topic, and I like Heisman&#8217;s criteria, which I steal. His book &#8216;Elements of positional evaluation&#8217; is a very interesting book-length treatise on the topic with some cool iconoclastic ideas (e.g., that material and space are &#8216;pseudofactors&#8217;, reducible to activity). In theory, I think he is right, but in practice I think he is wrong.</p>
<p>I have a few pages on evaluation in my thought process document, in PDF <a href="http://kingassassins.50webs.com/CP.3.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p>
<p>It starts on page 9. Also, starting on page 4 I describe in some detail my approach to evaluating a position to come up with plans. It discusses in a bit of detail the relationship between plans, candidate moves, and board evaluation.</p>
<p>In particular, I am very happy with the way I found to break down &#8216;piece activity,&#8217; breaking down the different ways the term is used when discussed by the pros.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

