Sending a Message Down This Long Distance Line


The two sentences

A move by which a piece or pawn directly attacks the opponent’s king.

If the defending player cannot counter the attack, the king is checkmated.

work together. An attack is described in terms of a verb and its subject and object.

Reference is made in the second sentence to “the attack”, referencing the verb and its subject and object in the first sentence. The object described by the noun becomes the object of a relation (“countered”).

To know whether the attack can be countered requires information from the first sentence or its instantiation – the type of piece, and the positions on the board of the piece and the king.

Countering then becomes

·         Can the piece be captured? – depends where the defending player’s other pieces are

·         Can the direct path be blocked (doesn’t work for knights)?

·         Can the king be moved out of harm’s way?

The information has to be brought from the description of the attack.

This isn’t the only possibility.

A move that causes a direct attack by a piece or pawn on the opponent’s king.

We would roll up the prepositions so we have an object which exactly matches the verb equivalent. Should we create the verb equivalent as a simplification, or is that unnecessary? If we want to activate it, is creating a verb the only way?

How does the connection between the object in the two sentences work? – is there only a wire between the two, and everything has to be rolled up into a message and sent down the “long distance line”, or is a point of view (POV) transported to the site of the relation (the noun “attack” functions as a portal to the verb “attacks” or the noun “attack” in the first sentence).

Real neurons only have conduction along directed “wires” between them, and yet we are not aware of that, or it doesn’t impinge on our conscious understanding – it has been airbrushed out. How? Possibly by doubling up, so everything can appear undirected?

It is easy to imagine that we have an operator which connects to the downstream “attack” on Pin1 and then connects to every important node of the relation (how would we know that?) in the first sentence. What happens when the verb is clausal, and its object is a clause or assembly of clauses, and objects in the clause are defined in a similar way – wouldn’t it explode on us? Or is this the dreaded Four Pieces Limit?

It sounds like – yes, it does explode. The text becomes “complex”.


Popular Posts