Frame vs Load (what makes chess a strategy game)

Frame vs Load (what makes chess a strategy game)

Here's an imgur album to help the reader understand some of my earlier insights that have lead me to this point. Basically, I inferred chess is like a 2-d knot tying competition in the form of octopus kung-fu.

-Frame vs Load-

part 1: Load::

Let's start by addressing the concept of "load". In the following video, a politician is going to spew a complete load of crap just because they're an evil Republican:

Basically, load is the combined data load of all the relevant movement distances. For instance, a knight on f3 can go to e5 or g5 or d4 in 1 move. Multiply that type of information by 32 (16 pieces from each side), and you can begin to see why players below 1600 tend to be completely out of their league when facing players rated 2000+. Most people rated 1800+ will have an okay sense just by looking at pieces on a chessboard what those pieces are theoretically capable of (and not capable of).

In other words, staring at a jumble of pieces on a chessboard can be a bit of an information overload if you're not accustomed to it. In order to be good, you have to be very comfortable handling such a large chunk of data.

part 2: Frame::

This is, in my opinion, the holy grail concept of chess thinking: how you frame things. Discovering the best move in a chess game requires a highly investigative thought process. The 4 squares in the center of the board are the most immediately relevant. They just are. That's how the game was designed.

Here's an episode of Quantum Leap where the main plot premise involves someone being framed and then having to reconcile the situation by making an important insight into exactly how to re-frame it.

(start at 38:24 if you want to skip to the most interesting part (i would timestamp it there if i could))

Here's a demonstration chess game that I recently played on lichess between two 1900 rated players in 5 minute blitz:

On move 14 of this game, black has to figure out how to properly react to the threat of Qxh7+. It's a surprisingly difficult move to meet. But not only that, my pawn on e5 is being extremely useful in not only obstructing the enemy queen on d5, but also in obstructing the ability for a knight to be planted on f6. So it's highly likely that any move black uses to reply will require an uncomfortable amount of defensive positional concessions. These types of concessions stem from monopolizing different colored flanks that extend from the positioning of the d4-e5 and e4-d5 phalanxes that compose the heart of the position.

But note how black used this dubious pawn sac on move 3. I'm not going to fault my opponent for playing whatever they feel like. This is because, in chess, it's important to just play whatever you feel like. It's your game, and you should only familiarize yourself with the opening theory process, not blindly parrot move order lines.

Chess is very complex of course, but it's still just a simple game when you get down to the nitty-gritty of what it can actually offer in terms of a playable game. All you do in this game is conduct a criminal investigation. What was black's crime in that demonstration game? Well, for starters, the pawn sac is only good for certain things. It's not actually a legit opening (but the reasoning for that doesn't completely rule it out either). Secondly, black needed to spot the goofy-looking maneuver Qd4->c5->f8 in order to continue the game. Even I didn't spot it when I was playing the game. I mean, Qd6->f8 or Qe7->f8 I would've spotted effortlessly, but it just seemed counter-intuitive at the time. Much of my thought process that went into making the move Qh5 involved admiring how well-placed my opponent's queen could've been argued for being parked on d5. So, I knew that Qh5 sort of challenged that, but honestly I just wanted to accomplish something to make the case that black's pawn sacrifice on move 3 wasn't like god's greatest gift to chess or anything (although it does solve some tempo issues related to the light-squared bishop, notice how black seems to neglect his dark squares, starting with trading his dark-squared bishop for my knight from f3 that I wasn't even making that great of a use of).

Obviously when you get into the nitty-gritty nuance of it, chess can be extremely nerdy sounding when played properly. However, the true value of the game is not the nerdy esoteric explanations, but simply the investigative combat instincts. You should be making moves because they feel good. And when things get really sensitive, then you have to start relying on the fact that there's a reason why your moves are supposed to feel good, because framing is everything in chess. Frame it wrong, and you'll ruin your entire approach toward the entire game. That's why it's so important to know that framing is such a relevant concept to the basic game theory of the game, because that's the only true way to approach the game, is framing.

-Questions Lead to Evidence for Conviction-

Here's a video about how the Israel-Palestine conflict is framed. Why does this matter? Well, just like the center of a chess board, Israel just happens to be at the heart of the gigantic land-mass joining Europe, Asia, and Africa (they're sort of like the pseudo-America of the non-American face of the globe).

(here's the link for the full, unedited video of this encounter:

It shouldn't surprise you that Uri Geller is living in Israel (that's the common thread that makes the alliance between the United States and Israel so rooted in conspiratorial global-domination deception, their use of military propaganda agencies like the JIDF and the JREF). But why am I bringing up some arbitrary sounding "debunked charlatan"? Well.. maybe this could shed some light:

Life can be very deceiving, but when you start to get some really critical leads, it's possible for it to be a lot less confusing. Here's a continuation lead stemming from the development in the story generated from the prior paragraph: (another piece of testimony here: and here: and of course here: and probably here too:

And lastly, we have some pretty seriously legitimate evidence for crop circles being actual contributions to human culture by extraterrestrials. This all comes full-(crop)circle is where I'm going with this:

In conclusion, if there's any takeaway lesson from all of this chess game theory analysis, it's this; do not talk to squirrels. Ever. Stay the $&#* away from them goddamn squirrels, please. Also, if you're playing a squirrel in chess, just resign. It's not worth it, man. I mean, dolphins are okay. Some people would say that dolphins are your enemies, but they're actually the sentinels of the sea that will protect you from sharks even. is propaganda put out by insidious squirrels!!!

Sort by Date Descending Date Descending Date Ascending Most Liked Receive updates

Comments 0

Guest 3396551882
Join chess24
  • Free, Quick & Easy

  • Be the first to comment!


Create your free account now to get started!

By clicking ‘Register’ you agree to our terms and conditions and confirm you have read our privacy policy, including the section on the use of cookies.

Lost your password? We'll send you a link to reset it!

After submitting this form you'll receive an email with the reset password link. If you still can't access your account please contact our customer service.