Mixed for mixed.

😅As praise!😁

Certainly! A jpeg with an imperative in all-caps screams “I am an oversimplification and I’m not pretending otherwise.” It was uncharitable to take it as seriously as I did.

“Be ambitious” is perhaps a better way of saying this? Or, “We’ll get around to it,” is not a reason to avoid the better design. If it’s a question of measurement (“We don’t have the tools” or “Follow-up at year X will be…”) or resources, fine. “It’s in the plan” does not cut it.

As a distillate aspiration, yes, but otherwise this is too demanding to be practical and too imprecise useful. Topics most people are interested in are complex and densely interconnected amongst each other, to the point that I’m not sure ‘topic’ has a determinate reference.

and wasps!

Once again, the story involves Signal, an app which promises security assuming everyone is using the program correctly and in good faith.

*Nothing you do through an app is secure*

This is part of a library I am building to help me study chess tactics more generally. I hope to someday make it public, but for now I'll just brag.

The presented mating puzzle is taken from oooliverrr's Lichess study. Solution:

24. Rxf8+ Neg8 25. dxc5+ Re5 26. Bxe5+ Qg7 27. Qxg8+ Nxg8 28. Nf7#

Given this position, the program generates 17 tactics, each containing a Mate in N<5.
- Eight N=1
- Five N=2
- Three N=3
- One N=1

Each is, a priori, easier to find than the original mate. By studying them, I hope to scaffold understanding of deep mating patterns.

Given a position with mate, the program explores all possible continuations given optimal play from the active player. For each position in the game tree from that player's perspective, it creates a tactic from that position.

For instance, consider this position: White to move and mate in 5.

Just had to find the context and I couldn’t be more pleased.