Aren't we all high and mighty today. I like your reasoning. I don't agree with you wich implies that I'm less intelligent than you (of course nobody could disagree with you for any other reason) and since I'm less intelligent than you this implies that I can't reach a high chess rating.

 

Your reasoning is disputable at best wich leads me to belive that you might not be as smart as you think you are.

 

I havn't attacked you in any way until you started throwing personal insults at me for disagreeing with you. You're the one that's trying to drag this discussion down to a level you're more comfortable at. 

 

If you're unable to defend your standpoint then just don't respond to critique or even better, learn from it. Responding to it with personal insultwon't help you get anywhere. 

 

I sort of get why you try to insinuate that I'm cheating at chess, to prove that I'm less intelligent than you but why would I pretend to be a girl? It's not like it do me any good on a site like this. I've even thought about deleting this account and make another where I keep my sex secret because of the steady stream of pretty disturbing messages I get here. Anyway I don't see how my sex relates to this discussion at all. 

 

You got pretty high thoughts about yourself and try to play elitistic based on your chess rating. This is laughable, especially since you call yourself leftish in your profile. The fact that you're unable to have a rational discussion without trying to bring it down with personal insults and then get outwitted by someone half your age says more about your intelligence than your chess rating will ever do. 

Dearest Neneko,

how is it possible to make a 'personal attack' against a mere 'name' contained in a computer. The totality of your existence here is six letters...no pic, no personal desription, nothing? You are basically a 'name' who pops up here and there discussing many and varied matters...but without a 'persona'...an identity!

I will take this direct to your inbox ok, as I don't want this to become a crazy slanging match between myself, a real identity...and a bunch of letters calling itself neneko. Very flacky...I believe you really are a young woman now :-o

I think perhaps removing all my personal data and pic will at least make me feel less pressured in this and future discussions. So, like you I will now don a cloak of invisibility!

I assure you that I'm a real person. Would I be more real to you if I put up a picture of myself? If so, why? What I choose to tell others about myself is none of your business. I'm a real person nontheless. My friends on this site know more about me than strangers like you do, just the way I want it.

 

Your post is actually rather scary, do you see other people you see every day as real people or do they just become real to you after they tell you something about themselves? Seeing the world as a collection of faces and names where you and a few choosen ones are the only real people seems like a rather sociopathic way of viewing the world. I assure you that the people you talk to online and people you see everyday that you don't know well are all real people with real feelings. Maybe you should talk to someone about this, it doesn't seem like a very healthy way of viewing the world and other people.

 

Yours truly, neneko 

Interesting topic. Love the stoush bewteen MrNeneko & MrWizard :)

I did a search about this pattern recognition thingy in chess and it seems that mrwizard is correct to me! it also seems that this neneko guy is a real coward who hides behind his name just as mrwiz pointed out but neneko is just being juvenile by saying 'i am not a name in a computer...i am a human being' :) [anyone seen that movie 'elephant man']

the link about pattern recognition is http://chess.about.com/library/weekly/aa101902a.htm  but there r many others saying similar stuff.

love this site!

Cret1n, You do realise that your profile is empty right? Just thought that you wanted that pointed out to you.

 

Pattern recognition is the ability to recognice patterns (as the wiki will tell you) not how many patterns you have memorized. This is of course from the main definition of the word. It's used rather sporadically in some chess articles with a different meaning. 

Pattern recognition is one of the skills that makes a master. It's not inherent; it's learned.

Related Resources • Part 1 - Patterns • Part 2 - Combinations • Part 3 - Plans Why is one chess player a struggling club player and another a master? There are many skills that make a master, but one of the most important is pattern recognition.

im no so good at chess yet but i can read ok, and the link i gave above says pattern recognition is not inherent its learned. if it was inherent that would mean its a native ability right? but its not. you learn many patterns and store them in your memory. i guess thats why good players can play so fast right, coz they know lots of positions and remember what to do most of the time in a similar situation? its all explained in the link. seems like u just didnt read the link i gave? so if its learned then it means how many positions you can dig out from your memory. and thats just 1 skill that makes a master. i guess very good players can remember lots more patterns or positions than weak players.  

yay! a topic on which we are all completely qualified to discuss with equanimity.

rather than further dip my pen/fingers in the wells of sarcasm i'll say this.  plenty of people that are (a) smarter than us (b) have higher IQs and us ... (c) are not better at chess than us have already had this discussion. 

voy a venir al casa.  hasta luego, muchacho/as... 

Cret1n, I did read it. Did you read my reply? That link does not show the definition of pattern recognition as it is used in IQ tests. It's a article about chess written by a single chess player.

 

For the definition please look at 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition

http://www.iapr.org/ got alot of interesting text on the subject" target="_blank">http://www.iapr.org/ got alot of interesting text on the subject

http://www.jprr.org more material mainly focused on ai 

Not that I think this will convince you. I think you're more likely to just go back to complaining over my profile (since that's completely related to the topic) 

IBM's

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IBM's Deep Blue gave Kasporov a run for his money but couldn't figure its way out of a paperbag.

 

 

 

 

 

 

deep Blue

So many wise sayings out there ,

who can know them all .

so many move,s to make on  that 64 sq ,

IQ WHO KNOW,S

MAY BE IT,S ALL IN THE ZERO 

MrWizard wrote:

Hi again Neneko :-)

I'm basing my use of the term 'pattern recognition' on what I have read in one or two chess-books, nothing else. I'm aware of the old spatial-perception tests used in I.Q testing...geometic shapes with bits missing or composing a shape from several building blocks...

You didn't bother to point out my 'blatant mistakes' other than to suggest I either read your earlier posts or google 'pattern recognition'. Surely we are talking about pattern recognition "as it applies to chess"...not some psych definition...which might be more appropriately termed 'spatial perception'? 

From my own experience, I am sure I apply more reasoning to my move selection process than pattern recognition as I developed a 'method' long ago which requires me to answer a few questions about direct threats and possible future threats to pieces in order to determine a number of possible moves to play.  It's so simple even a child can use the method and play quite well.

I'd be very interested to read your thesis or whatever it is...and will read your other posts when I get a chance.

All the best

---

As you will observe from my post number 118 and 120 I made the point that I AM NOT discussing 'pattern recognition' as it might be used to describe 'SPATIAL PERCEPTION' intelligence. I also explained what the modern interpretation of 'pattern recognition' is with respect to chess! [see Post 118] Many OTB chess players are now aquainted with the term 'pattern recognition' and equate this with the type of thing referred to in the link above and of course Post 118. If Neneko had read my post 118 or 120 carefully enough, she would not have tried to point out my 'blatant error' as she would have noticed that I am well aware of the thing she refers to as 'pattern recognition' but has been referred to for decades as 'spatial perception'. If she was familiar with chess books on the subject, she would never have bothered to challenge me over this mere difference in semantics. This raised my suspicions about her playing strength, which I posted in response to her 'attack' upon my 'lack of understanding' of the subject. I now believe she is a genuinely strong player through our personal exchanges, but wish she had never adopted the aggressive stance toward me on this issue. After all, I feel a natural 'kinship' with fellow players who are honestly strong OTB players, which I believe Neneko to be. I am sorry for the less than flattering phrases I levelled at her, and hope she will understand my annoyance and forgive me? I do not want to humiliate anyone who has sincerely contemplated the topic under discussion, rather, I wanted sensible input about the intelligence of very high ranking players [i.e with OTB ratings > 2300]

I confess I did get a bit annoyed with a few people who merely wanted to attempt to refute the equation by selecting subjects with an I.Q < 100 which becomes ridiculous at about IQ=80 & below! It's also irritating to read the thoughts of any self-proclaimed genius who has worked on their chess for years and yet has trouble climbing above 1500...I'd like to know where such tests are available so I could blitz them with almost everyone else here :-) 

What is the argument again?

Hi

It has been reported that Napoleon Bonaparte loved chess but wasn't very good at it. That didn't stop him from being one of the great military strategists of his time and a very intelligent man, he just wasn't good at chess. I think with regard to chess the key factor is logic, not intelligence. Using ones Intelligence may come into it later on in a game when a player needs to be creative and make something happen, up to that point if a player has made the most logical moves (which by definition must be the right ones) then he/she will have put themselves in a position to exploit their opponents weaknesses.

I haven't read everything but just want to make a quick note. The Levitt equation is based on the assumption of extreme dedication for at least ten years. It is a formula for potential, not one's current ability. Moreover, it is an estimation and there are always exceptions. The most reliable way of applying it is backwards! For example, you can estimate that a 2300 player has an IQ of at least 130. However, you cannot estimate that a player rated 300 is below average intelligence. It is simply an unknown factor. Perhaps he has not dedicated himself enough to achieve proficiency. It's much like I can estimate that an excellent student is above average intelligence but cannot be sure that a poor student is not. In any case, I'm not certain about the validity of such an equation. I'm sure that there is a strong link between a complex game like chess and intelligence but I'm not sure such a link can be quantified directly since we have no accurate way of measuring intelligence. IQs can only show so much.

BTW: I doubt that most people bragging about their IQs on this board ever took a real IQ test. By this, I mean Stanford-Binet, Cattell or WAIS administered by qualified professionals. It's too common to find a lot of "geniuses" on internet forums.

This is a interesting topic that I too ponder some at times.. there is another major factor in playing chess well, and one is I believe is ..is simply the love and enjoyment of the game I think its a great motorvator to win, learn and acheive your best at chess and other things. Its like the maths equation where there the 2 upper and lower denominators I reckon there must be a high level of genuine desire as well, rather than just the born ability. A player of less abilty but higher passion will proably end up a better chess player than one with just their ability and little interest.

I got low grades at high school but could beat most students and teachers I played.

exigentsky- That is how I read it too, regarding the direction in which the formula seems the more workable. For in the other direction, many smart players will drop out of the data pool if they find some specific mental, emotional, character, or physical limitation (or just lack of time for it!) which could prevent them from ever reaching GM, Master or whatever a Levitt potential might suggest for their specific IQ, if it did work in that direction. It does seem more a Limitation predicter than a Potential predicter, to me. And if so, what good for anyone other than to discourage? I would not accept such a limitation and hope others don't either.

True there are IQ tests and IQ tests. For instance the online "Tickle" test, I believe the highest score possible on it is about 147 if I recall correctly (Then they kick you up to a second test if you make a good score on the first).And that being the case, some people may be actually under scored if they stop with the first test.

I have my doubts about the test tho, it since a) it is too short, imo. B)no standardized test I am aware of goes to a 147, rather a 160 or 200 would be the common ranges. c)well, because it is on the internet ...

Strangely I've seen someone score lower on it than on their Wenchler, but another who scored higher! Neither had taken it previously, so there was no "practice" or familiarity factor there.

Maybe Barrack Obama will be the first Black chess master? Why not he got the Noble Peace Prize! We I doubt it highly. Maybe the title Chess master is a greater honer than recieving a Noble Peace Prize?  Chess is pure and not spoiled with the "flavor of the month" like politics and practically everything else is.  This is just another benefit the game of chess bestows on all humanity (no matter what race you favor).

Marshats wrote: "Maybe Barrack Obama will be the first Black chess master? Why not he got the Noble Peace Prize! We I doubt it highly. Maybe the title Chess master is a greater honer than recieving a Noble Peace Prize?  Chess is pure and not spoiled with the "flavor of the month" like politics and practically everything else is.  This is just another benefit the game of chess bestows on all humanity (no matter what race you favor)." ------------------------------------------------ Maurice Ashley is the first African American Grandmaster, but there are Black GMs in many other countries.

How about the first grandmaster to hold the office of president then