Pattern Recognition - Why I Never Fully Bought into the Pattern Acquisition Advice - Chess Forums - Page 2

SeniorPatzer

Jul 20, 2018

0

#21

AnhVanT wrote:

SeniorPatzer wrote:

Folks have touted pattern recognition and pattern acquisition as the key, or a key to chess excellence. I.e., the more patterns memorized, the better the chess player.

That's not always the case. That's the point of this post. In general, it's probably true that the player with more patterns stored in memory will be the better player, BUT there are other factors which will mitigate against the player with the greater pattern recognition, and they'll still lose to the player that recognizes less patterns, even sometimes knowing substantially less patterns than the more experienced player.

And, you want to use van de Oudeweetering books on Chess patterns as examples of "pattern recognition" training method?

Maybe later. I have to study other things. I agree with Ponz. Pattern Recognition comes naturally, and I don't need to worry about it.

AnhVanT

Jul 20, 2018

0

#22

SeniorPatzer wrote:

AnhVanT wrote:

SeniorPatzer wrote:

Folks have touted pattern recognition and pattern acquisition as the key, or a key to chess excellence. I.e., the more patterns memorized, the better the chess player.

That's not always the case. That's the point of this post. In general, it's probably true that the player with more patterns stored in memory will be the better player, BUT there are other factors which will mitigate against the player with the greater pattern recognition, and they'll still lose to the player that recognizes less patterns, even sometimes knowing substantially less patterns than the more experienced player.

And, you want to use van de Oudeweetering books on Chess patterns as examples of "pattern recognition" training method?

Maybe later. I have to study other things. I agree with Ponz. Pattern Recognition comes naturally, and I don't need to worry about it.

I would say that van de Oudeweetering books will save you more time than you expect. His books are not chess cookbooks. He introduces different chess critical positions that help us build up our plan with small steps. I check Power database of chessbase to see how often these positions occur at GM games (ELO of one side is 2700). The answer is very surprising. Out of 1.8 million games, there are 64000+ games with Nd6 aka Octopus, 58000+ games with Nf5 aka Killer Knight, 48000 games with Bd6 aka Beastly Bishop and so on. The author explains that it is not necessary that you must memorize these patterns. What you need to know is that Nd6, Nf5, Bd6... are good and from there, you can try create a plan to reach these positions.

Preggo_Basashi

Jul 20, 2018

0

#23

SeniorPatzer wrote:

Folks have touted pattern recognition and pattern acquisition as the key, or a key to chess excellence. I.e., the more patterns memorized, the better the chess player.

That's not always the case. That's the point of this post. In general, it's probably true that the player with more patterns stored in memory will be the better player, BUT there are other factors which will mitigate against the player with the greater pattern recognition, and they'll still lose to the player that recognizes less patterns, even sometimes knowing substantially less patterns than the more experienced player.

I agree "patterns" isn't well defined, but putting that aside for a moment, I'd say that if someone knows more patterns (relevant to the positions in the game) than his opponent, and does more relevant calculation than his opponent, then that player will never lose, and will probably win.

---

Patterns may not be well defined, but it's also been studied that the group who calculates the most are in the 2000 range. Beginners calculate less because they're not able, and GMs calculate less because they're more efficient.

So what changes from beginner to GM? Well... all the things we learn.

I'm a bit too tired to read through this carefully

https://en.chessbase.com/post/pattern-recognition-fact-or-fiction

I'll try to post a meaningful response to it tomorrow.

Preggo_Basashi

Jul 20, 2018

0

#24

SeniorPatzer wrote:

AnhVanT wrote:

SeniorPatzer wrote:

Folks have touted pattern recognition and pattern acquisition as the key, or a key to chess excellence. I.e., the more patterns memorized, the better the chess player.

That's not always the case. That's the point of this post. In general, it's probably true that the player with more patterns stored in memory will be the better player, BUT there are other factors which will mitigate against the player with the greater pattern recognition, and they'll still lose to the player that recognizes less patterns, even sometimes knowing substantially less patterns than the more experienced player.

And, you want to use van de Oudeweetering books on Chess patterns as examples of "pattern recognition" training method?

Maybe later. I have to study other things. I agree with Ponz. Pattern Recognition comes naturally, and I don't need to worry about it.

Oh, well maybe this issue is settled for you then.

I agree that it's not something you have to worry about. If you want to improve, then as you do analysis and correct mistakes it just happens.

IMKeto

Jul 20, 2018

0

#25

SeniorPatzer wrote:

AnhVanT wrote:

SeniorPatzer wrote:

Folks have touted pattern recognition and pattern acquisition as the key, or a key to chess excellence. I.e., the more patterns memorized, the better the chess player.

That's not always the case. That's the point of this post. In general, it's probably true that the player with more patterns stored in memory will be the better player, BUT there are other factors which will mitigate against the player with the greater pattern recognition, and they'll still lose to the player that recognizes less patterns, even sometimes knowing substantially less patterns than the more experienced player.

And, you want to use van de Oudeweetering books on Chess patterns as examples of "pattern recognition" training method?

Maybe later. I have to study other things. I agree with Ponz. Pattern Recognition comes naturally, and I don't need to worry about it.

Hit the tactics, study your games, do your own analysis, and learn from GM games. Youll be fine.

Preggo_Basashi

Jul 20, 2018

0

#26

DeirdreSkye wrote:

So please , don't listen to the total nonsense fieldofforce says. He really has no idea what he is talking about and I really mean it.

I mean... yeah. At least that's my impression too.

He's the "you have to increase your memory bank" guy right?

He's right insofar as you have to learn to get better, but I don't think his posts are particularly helpful.

dannyhume

Jul 20, 2018

0

#27

Pattern recognition is the quintessential hallmark of expertise, in chess and in many fields, but it is the end-result of years of deliberate practice, not a particular type or method of improvement (a lot of amateurs misunderstand this part).

Studies on expertise in various fields confirm the importance of pattern recognition, but there is less on “how to get” that level of pattern recognition (breadth/quantity versus depth/quality, and the optimal time tradeoff/balance between these two competing themes).

AnhVanT

Jul 20, 2018

0

#28

DeirdreSkye wrote:

If your analytical skill is low and you don't recognise the reasoning or the mechanism of the pattern then all you do is wasting time.

I love this line, Sir. Very true! Tactics and patterns will not always work. In some daily game, I spend 30min up to an hour just to figure out a variation that would lead to a simple fork but there is none. In those games, I have zero idea on the position so I resign. I don't want to play hope chess and wait for my opponents' mistakes. I mean, in those situations, I feel hopeless and clueless. Only analytical skills will save my game but unfortunately, I am millions miles away from that leve.

jambyvedar

Jul 21, 2018

0

#29

To simplify it, chess success= Pattern recognition + calculation + analytical skills.

All these 3 factors are important for improvement. There are situations in which one pattern contradicts another pattern. You need to know these patterns, so you will have better idea on when not to follow them. Another thing when you notice a pattern, you will calculate to check if there is no tactical drawback. With pattern recognition, we are using the knowledge gain from many centuries of masters games. Pattern recognition is really a very important aspect if you want to improve. Even Silman acknowledge chess is about pattern recognition.

ponz111

Jul 21, 2018

0

#30

DeirdreSkye Aren't you being a little hypocritical with the above post?

You severly criticized me for having the fighting spirit for saying I could win from a grandmaster who would play a certain move in the Ponziani.

I always play and fight for a win, despite your criticism that I could not win in such a situation!

Chesslover0_0

Jul 21, 2018

0

#31

AnhVanT wrote:

SeniorPatzer wrote:

Folks have touted pattern recognition and pattern acquisition as the key, or a key to chess excellence. I.e., the more patterns memorized, the better the chess player.

That's not always the case. That's the point of this post. In general, it's probably true that the player with more patterns stored in memory will be the better player, BUT there are other factors which will mitigate against the player with the greater pattern recognition, and they'll still lose to the player that recognizes less patterns, even sometimes knowing substantially less patterns than the more experienced player.

And, you want to use van de Oudeweetering books on Chess patterns as examples of "pattern recognition" training method?

An interesting view point I guess but wouldn't it make sense that the person who knows more patterns will 9 times out of 10 win the game,especially if you can say that more Chess patterns equal more Chess knowledge,then most certainly the player who knows more win win the game.

ponz111

Jul 21, 2018

0

#32

DeirdreSkye wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

DeirdreSkye Aren't you being a little hypocritical with the above post?

You severly criticized me for having the fighting spirit for saying I could win from a grandmaster who would play a certain move in the Ponziani.

I always play and fight for a win, despite your criticism that I could not win in such a situation!

First, it's the 3rd thread you attempt to hijack and derail the discussion to something that interests you and no one else. Will you ever get over it?

Second, I would never accuse a chessplayer for playing to win even against Carlsen. That is what a chessplayer owes to do in every game. Play to win. When the game starts it doesn't matter who your opponent is, you owe to play without fear(easier said than done). That is what a real fighter does. But before or after the game (and only before or after the game) you owe to recognize and respect the superiority of your opponent if it is an obvious one. If you don't you are not a fighter, you are an idiot.

Your claim wasn't that "you would play to win against any opponent no matter what the odds". I would applause such a claim.

Your claim is that you would expect to win a GM because of a specific move. So the claim had to do , not with your fighting spirit but with the playability of the position. Your fighting spirit was never the issue. But as I said , you actually had no idea what you claimed and you are proving it once more.

This is typical of the way you disparage me and other players. Here are a couple of your quotes: "You have no idea what a mistake is, no idea at all. I have seen 1200 players that know what a mistake is but you don't"

My life time record against masters is approximately 62%. Also I have played 4 current grandmasters on a one to one basis and I won ALL 4 GAMES. My ICCF Correspondence rating has been as high as 2550 and I still have a inactive ICCF Correspondence rating of about 2528.

Regarding that particular position which I said I could win if it was played against me by a grandmaster---I actually proved my point. A strong expert accepted my challenge to play the line against me and he had the help of a chess engine. An expert with a chess engine is equal in strength to a grandmaster. In fact, an expert with a chess engine is actually stronger than a grandmaster.

After all of your naysaying and telling me what a stupid chess player I am -- the strong expert with the help of his chess engine played that particular line against me and I won. You never admitted you were wrong. You never apologized to me for all of your disparagement against me.

I am not stupid in chess and I know what is a mistake.

I would not bring up this subject but I have seen you disparage other players in many of these threads.

Chesslover0_0

Jul 22, 2018

0

#33

DeirdreSkye wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

DeirdreSkye Aren't you being a little hypocritical with the above post?

You severly criticized me for having the fighting spirit for saying I could win from a grandmaster who would play a certain move in the Ponziani.

I always play and fight for a win, despite your criticism that I could not win in such a situation!

First, it's the 3rd thread you attempt to hijack and derail the discussion to something that interests you and no one else. Will you ever get over it?

Second, I would never accuse a chessplayer for playing to win even against Carlsen. That is what a chessplayer owes to do in every game. Play to win. When the game starts it doesn't matter who your opponent is, you owe to play without fear(easier said than done). That is what a real fighter does. But before or after the game (and only before or after the game) you owe to recognize and respect the superiority of your opponent if it is an obvious one. If you don't you are not a fighter, you are an idiot.

Your claim wasn't that "you would play to win against any opponent no matter what the odds". I would applause such a claim.

Your claim is that you would expect to win a GM because of a specific move. So the claim had to do , not with your fighting spirit but with the playability of the position. Your fighting spirit was never the issue. But as I said , you actually had no idea what you claimed and you are proving it once more.

If I may interject for a second,I agree with this but I think if one's goal is to win,one may be disappointed,a good many times,I think a better goal is to play one's best despite the outcome. Despite what we'd like to think,we all make mistakes and will lose some games,you can play a game of Chess perfectly,make one mistake and it all goes downhill from there,yeah it sucks but it does happen.

My point is to not make winning the goal instead make playing your best and overall improvement the goal. I apologize if that's what you meant but it was not in your wording. However,don't misunderstand me,I agree with what you're saying,some times I think about my own games and how frustrated I get and how many games I gave up,so I'm with you with that fighting spirit thing.,just my two cents.

ponz111

Jul 22, 2018

0

#34

There is a well known saying to play the position, not the player.

That is what I always try to do and it is one reason I have won from grandmasters.

The position in dispute was a move in the Ponziani Opening. In my 2 books on the Ponziani [one co authored with IM Keith Hayward] that position/move was given a whole chapter. 18 pages of analysis. I claimed it was a very bad move, so bad, that if a GM played it against me I would win.

DeirdreSkye and a couple of others said I was wrong. DeidreSkye, in particular compared my playing ability to somewhat less than a 1200 rated player. This was typical of him. He disparages other players.

He went on and on about me and my playing ability. In truth I won the USA ICCF Correspondence Chess Championship and have dozens of games published in various books and magazines where I won from masters and grandmasters.

Also, one of the three who were saying I was wrong accepted my challenge and played a game against me using that move. We agreed he could use his chess engine to help him play the game. [and he did]. I won the game and he retracted what he said about me and that move.

This did not faze DeirdreSkye--he will not admit he was wrong and continues to disparage me.

This is what he does. I have seen him disparage other players time after time in these forums.

Toire

Jul 22, 2018

0

#35

Hey Ponz, have you ever played a GM? If so, we'd love to hear about it.

ponz111

Jul 22, 2018

0

#36

I have the scalps of 4 GMs. Here is a game I played in 1973...

Taylor vs Bisguier

Preggo_Basashi

Jul 22, 2018

0

#37