The flag offers optimizations -- except they don't exist unless you compile a version of ES6 code for chrome only.
Sure other ES6 browsers will ignore the string and move on, but they will have other ES6 compatibility issues. For example, Chrome's "fat arrow" doesn't do the lexical bind to the parent scope that the current spec requires. There are a ton of situations where this would break your code if you ran it on FF (and there are other differences).
The only option is to transpile into ES5.1, but ES5.1 breaks the optimization requirements.
Thus, using the optimization flag means building to Google's JS engine (we've been there with IE), while building a shared version means you cannot use the flag.
Let adds scopes. Scopes are bad for performance (this is why closure compiler removes them). Removing them (if safe) is one more thing for the JIT to do. It's has little to do with efficiency and a lot to do with forcing another language's preferences on users.
> For example, Chrome's "fat arrow" doesn't do the lexical bind to the parent scope that the current spec requires.
And that's why fat arrows are currently not enabled in Chrome. Chrome exposes in development features behind flags. IMO vastly better than the vendor prefixes of ages past.
dev tools rarely work, just having the console open slows down the entire process by several magnitudes of order, the UI for safari devtools is horrible - I can never find what I am looking for when I need it, there is no public bug tracker for safari proper, web apis for database access are magnitudes slower than both firefox and chrome
While it's easy to call emergency services by 911, it's more difficult to call, say, the local sheriff's office for something that's not an emergency especially when you're traveling. An app could help solve that and resolve the best non-emergency number for you in your current location.
Isn't that called a phone directory? I can go to my country's directory website, type "police", choose "near me" (it gets the location from the device) and click search to get the number.
Establishing a non-emergency number is not hard. Dial 101 in the UK and you're put through to your local police force: http://www.police.uk/contact/101/
In the UK we have 101 for non emergency police and 999 (or 112) for emergency. I think 111 does a non emergency call to the health service where they will listen to your problem and give you advice (ambulance, doctor the next day, your fine etc.).
I think the main problem is that when you get into the exercises that require combinations of tactics, it assumes the student has the capacity to make that leap, or recall on demand everything they have learned and put them all together without a helping hand.
I'm towards the end of "Diving Deep" and I'm ready to give up as the exercises continually lead me to brute force moves until I hit the specific move you are looking for.
Thanks for the site. I find the lessons quite informative and easy to follow, but the exercises are often impossible to get right as they are expecting one series of moves vs. applying what is learned in the lesson to reach a specific goal with a specific style of play, tactic, etc.
But no matter what I do, a popup keeps telling me "that move does not uphold initiative". It doesn't tell me why it doesn't, and I assume it doesn't actually know, rather it is looking for me to make a preprogrammed move. It won't allow me to attack the queen with a defended bishop, it won't let me do a lot of things that to me would continue to force the opponents hand.
I am certain for you the most optimal next move is obvious, but as learner the inflexible format of the many move/exchanges exercises is really frustrating.
I completely understand where you're coming from - without feedback telling you why the move you chose is incorrect, the exercises can become a bit frustrating.
We're aiming to make the site far more adaptive by tailoring error responses to your moves. At the moment, I'm going through the tactics in Train and tagging them with motifs and supplying explanations for the solutions. An idea is to track the most common responses and create specific messages to be shown when those moves are made.
Perhaps you could get help with a chess engine, which would show you why a certain move is a blunder. I guess chess academy could supply one as well, if there is a nice way to get say stockfish to work with nacl or in javascript.
First, to give you the answer, in your position you need to exchange your knight for his, and after he takes back with his queen, attack his queen with your bishop, which seems to offers your bishop as a sacrifice, but it's poison for him.
I agree with you. I don't want to take anything away from the terrific amount of work that went into this, it's a great achievement... but it needs to have a richer set of choices for the learner, and it would be nice if it could explain more exactly what was wrong with each of your erroneous choices, and perhaps provide a more directed set of hints that laid out what you should be looking at by explaining weaknesses in the position or "obvious" signs of opportunity, rather than demanding a very specific single course of action. Why all the alternative moves are weaker is as useful as why the good moves work. What might work is if the site had a "wiki" style of notation adding, so a richer database of explanations could be crowdsourced.
Back to the problem, if it's of any help to you, I came up with the answer by noting that I need to move my knight out of the way to get my black bishop active and onto those juicy squares defended by my pawns, and to get my white bishop out of the way to open the file for my linked up queen and rook, and also that his queen is threatening my undefended pawn so I looked to get my bishop onto that diagonal as a defender.
This position is a good example of a number of core concepts, for example that the bishops because they are on diagonals coordinate a little better with the other pieces when they are on the flanks of the attack rather than in the middle where they can clog, and that the rooks and queen benefit from open files, and that knights are useful when the position is somewhat clogged but frequently they should be exchanged for a more advantageous opening of the position. But the pedagogy here does not teach that.
I am a decent (but very rusty) chess player, but what I am good at is a little more "holistic", I play by developing my position in more or less sensible ways and then exploiting opportunities when they arise; but a lot of that is somewhat unconcious thought learned from a great deal of play, and "understanding" my position for me comes from being the one who developed it. In contrast, it is hard for me to jump in and look at a developed position and find the magic in it which is what this style of teaching requires. Probably a good set of things for me to work on, but at the same time the chess rating it gives me is absurd because I play at a much higher level than 1200 but I have tremendous difficulty getting my score to climb. I mention this because even though you and I come at this from different places, my complaint about the site is the same as yours: it's demanding a very specific set of moves and it's not really explaining or guiding as much as it needs to. Sometimes I pick the right move and it says "congrats! let's move on" and I'm thinking I have no idea what was so great about what I chose, the move seemed sensible but not stunning.
Now, I may be not the typical user (as an experienced, highly intuitive player with voids where big chunks of my skills are lacking, so the system should not be redesigned for me) but I mention it because while I can rely on some of my developed talents to solve these problems, I don't feel that this would teach those talents that I do have, and they would be very useful for learners to develop.
I agree. Can't ever dismiss it with return or escape so I have to track over there to click and back again. The process is enough of a distraction that at the first hint of frustration it's a natural point to stop.
