The forms lower in that list are more explicit and allow for greater asymmetry in your block shapes.
Examples
We'll discuss this through a sequence of examples of chunks
on the following array:
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 0 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9 0 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 0
1 2 3 4 5 6
We show how different chunks
arguments split the array into different blocks
chunks=3
Symmetric blocks of size 3
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 0 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9 0 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 0
1 2 3 4 5 6
chunks=2
Symmetric blocks of size 2
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 0 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9 0 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 0
1 2 3 4 5 6
chunks=(3, 2)
Asymmetric but repeated blocks of size (3, 2)
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 0 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9 0 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 0
1 2 3 4 5 6
chunks=(1, 6)
Asymmetric but repeated blocks of size (1, 6)
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 0 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9 0 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 0
1 2 3 4 5 6
chunks=((2, 4), (3, 3))
Asymmetric and non-repeated blocks
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 0 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9 0 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 0
1 2 3 4 5 6
chunks=((2, 2, 1, 1), (3, 2, 1))
Asymmetric and non-repeated blocks
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 0 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9 0 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Discussion
The latter examples are rarely provided by users on original data but arise from complex slicing and broadcasting operations. Generally I use the simplest form until I need more complex forms. The choice of chunks should align with the computations you want to do.
For example, if you plan to take out thin slices along the first dimension then you might want to make that dimension skinnier than the others. If you plan to do linear algebra then you might want more symmetric blocks.