ronk wrote:you delude yourself by thinking that manual solvers can find nrc(z)(t) chains without following a stream of inferences. By following that stream of inferences, solvers are effectively "proving the rule" each and every time.
Manual solvers who follow my approach do not have to "follow a stream of inferences" but to find precisely defined patterns. This is exactly the same thing as finding a Swordfish: if you know the pattern and what eliminations it allows, you don't have to re-prove their validity. Of course, if they like, they CAN re-prove the rule every time they use it, which is always a very simple matter, but they don't HAVE TO.
The main problem with the current vision of chains as chains of inferences is that it discredits them as patterns and it leads to classifying them according to the way the associated chain rule is proven (whence terms such as "multiple inference") instead of relying on factual criteria based on the pattern itself.