Pattern Recognition - Why I Never Fully Bought into the Pattern Acquisition Advice

ponz111
DeirdreSkye wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
ponz111 wrote:

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. 

    Lu Shanglei played the move 3 times in 2015. 3 GMs among them Topalov and Ni Hua refrained from playing the refutation of the move(5...Qg5). I don't know what they know but I'm quite sure in a real game(not a correspondence one) you would lose from all. It's a hypothesis based on common sense. I can't accept that none of them ever bothered to analyse a well known refuted line , I can't accept none of them know the refutation and you do.  Common sense says that they know something you don't or understand something you don't. They all have engines , they all can use them.  

    But go challenge LuShanglei , beat him and prove your words. Until then you only have unfounded claims. And in all our discussions you never had anything except unfounded claims. Nothing more. If denying your unfounded claims is what disparages you then sorry but I will keep doing it. Give me facts and we can talk.

I think it's a bit like Carlsen (and others) playing 3...d5 against the king's gambit, when that's absolutely not the way to test it. (3...g5 is probably still the best)

 

But because the positions get so messy, they'd rather not test their opponent's theory. A GM isn't going to play the Bb5 ponzioni without some kind of surprise prepared for Qg5, and pros don't bother keeping dozens of variations in their memory for an opening they'll see maybe once or twice in their careers, and zero times in a top tournament.

   But once Lu Shanglei played it once it was in databases. Topalov knew Shanglei plays 4.Bb5. Didn't he want an easy win?

   Does common sense says that Topalov probably found a position that even if it was clearly better for Black it was too messy to play in a real game? 

Pros like Topalov often have 2nds [people, grandmasters and strong masters], helping them with opening preparation. They often depend on this help. So when they have to go up against a not very often played opening such as the Ponziani--they rely on what they have learned from their 2nds. This is probably what happened?  Topalov could have easily won against that particular Ponziani variation but he just did not know the refutation.  

Why do you find it surprising that someone who has studied the Ponziani more than 30 years [and wrote 2 books on that opening] knows the opening better than Topalov or some other grandmasters or supergrandmasters??

No, Topalov did not find a position that was too messy for him to deal with--he just did not know the refutation to that fairly common line in the Ponziani. [the solution is fairly straight forward]

Your assumption that supergrandmasters should know how to play against the Ponziani is simply wrong. Some Supergrandmasters do not take the time and effort to know every opening they may encounter.

There is a Supergrandmaster named Caruana. He is a very strong player. He will soon play Carlsen for the World Championship. Carlsen has played thee Ponziani in the past and won. So, by your theory--Caruana would know how to defend against the Ponziani??? But the fact is that Caruana had to face the Ponziani just a few weeks ago...

What happened?  Caruana quickly obtained a losing position out of the opening. In fact his opponent had a clear win at least 3 times in that opening. The opponent missed the 3 wins and the game ended in a draw but it was very clear that Caruana was not prepared to face the Ponziani!

[Caruana admitted he was very lucky not to lose the game and in fact was losing]

     Topalov didn't know the line and had no engine to find it, neither him nor his second. Yes , it makes perfect sense indeed.

I do wonder till when you will keep claiming nonsense just to support an initial nonsense.

As I explained supergrandmasters often depend on their 2nds to do much of their opening study.

For sure Topalov did not know the line or he would have used it to win the game.

Topalov depends on his 2nds for much of the opening theory he uses. Very few people in this world know the line. However members of my Ponziani Analysis group know the line as I published the line. 

The line happens to be difficult to find even with a chess engine.

and you still have not explained why Caruana was so unprepared to face the Ponziani--an opening Carlsen has played...

I know the Ponziani inside and out from both the Black viewpoint and the White viewpoint. I would have a chance to beat a grandmaster even playing the Black side of the Ponziani. 

DeirdreSkye
ponz111 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
 

As I explained supergrandmasters often depend on their 2nds to do much of their opening study.

For sure Topalov did not know the line or he would have used it to win the game.

Topalov depends on his 2nds for much of the opening theory he uses. Very few people in this world know the line. However members of my Ponziani Analysis group know the line as I published the line. 

The line happens to be difficult to find even with a chess engine.

and you still have not explained why Caruana was so unprepared to face the Ponziani--an opening Carlsen has played...

I know the Ponziani inside and out from both the Black viewpoint and the White viewpoint. I would have a chance to beat a grandmaster even playing the Black side of the Ponziani. 

     Yes Topalov depends on his seconds , he never studies theory himself , he just lies on the bed and wait for his seconds to bring the lines and his coffee. Your on line group knows the line and Topalov doesn't. Yes , that is a possibility. But there is another possibility. There is a "hole" in your analysis. A  messy line LuShanglei , Ni Hua and Topalov know and   you don't know and you are unable to find. And common sense(your worst enemy) says that probably something like this happens.

    So until you find LuShanglei and beat him all you have is unfounded claims (aka nonsense).

  

    Finally I really don't know why Caruana didn't know the line and I couldn't care less .Disaster in the openings happen to anyone. That doesn't mean it 's a secret line.

 

 
Anand lost in 6 moves with Petrof. So what?
It happens.An occasional black out  happens even to the greatest. You are too long out of tournament practice and you have forgot how difficult tournament chess is. Aronian didn't know a line in Slav , Karjakin forgot a line in English that would have draw the game and lost. But in all cases it happened once , not twice. Lu Shanglei played the line 3 TIMES! If it was one time I wouldn't mention it. But it was 3. And neither of his opponents entered the refutation. So no one could find the refutation , only you can.
That's a possibility but for anyone with common sense(your worst enemy again) a very slim one(maybe 0.00000001%). 

 

BonTheCat

To answer the OP. Quite simply, it all goes together. If you want to improve you need to understand strategy, positional judgement as well as tactics and combinational patterns. Also, in strategy there are also patterns to learn (althought they're more abstract), certain general rules - which clearly have to be checked by calculation/analysis in any given situation. Occupy open files with your rooks, and given the chance penetrate down to the 7th rank, the minority attack (against the Carlsbad structure), the importance of weak squares and colour complexes, when you have the two bishops strive to open up the position, when you have the two knights try to keep the position closed, centralize your king in the endgame and so on and so forth.

ponz111
DeirdreSkye wrote:    
ponz111 wrote: ponz in blue
DeirdreSkye wrote:
 

As I explained supergrandmasters often depend on their 2nds to do much of their opening study.

For sure Topalov did not know the line or he would have used it to win the game.

Topalov depends on his 2nds for much of the opening theory he uses. Very few people in this world know the line. However members of my Ponziani Analysis group know the line as I published the line. 

The line happens to be difficult to find even with a chess engine.

and you still have not explained why Caruana was so unprepared to face the Ponziani--an opening Carlsen has played...

I know the Ponziani inside and out from both the Black viewpoint and the White viewpoint. I would have a chance to beat a grandmaster even playing the Black side of the Ponziani. 

     Yes Topalov depends on his seconds , he never studies theory himself ,

he just lies on the bed and wait for his seconds to bring the lines and his coffee. What you are doing here is a logical fallacy called "strawman". This is when you argue against something your opponent never said. You do "strawman" a lot--you have done it several times against me. I said Topalov "depends on his 2nds for much of the opening theory he uses."  I never said or even implied that Topalov "never studies theory himself."

 

Your on line group knows the line and Topalov doesn't. Yes , that is a possibility. But there is another possibility. There is a "hole" in your analysis. There is no hole in my analysis. A strong expert using a chess engine accepted my challenge to play that particular line against me. A strong expert with a chess engine is at least equal to a GM. He was one of the 3 saying I was wrong. He played against me and I won and now he agrees that I have reason to believe I would do very well playing that line.

 A messy line LuShanglei. Ni Hua and TYopalov know and you are unable to find. And common sense(your worst enemy} says that probably something like this happens. 

 You are absolutely wrong!  Come on take my challenge!!!

    So until you find LuShanglei and beat him all you have is unfounded claims (aka nonsense).  You know very well that I will not be able to find LuShanglie and get him to play me. This is a cop out as you are afraid of the truth. You are very probably afraid to play me.  We could have a game for all to see.   

  

    Finally I really don't know why Caruana didn't know the line and I couldn't care less .

Of course as it disproves the points you were trying to make!!

Disaster in the openings happen to anyone. That doesn't mean it 's a secret line.

The point was that Caruana was NOT PREPARED to face the Ponziani. This is very obvious.

 

 
 
Anand lost in 6 moves with Petrof. So what?
It happens.An occasional black out  happens even to the greatest. You are too long out of tournament practice and you have forgot how difficult tournament chess is.
 
I have won dozens of tournaments and know how difficult is chess.
 
 
  Aronian didn't know a line in Slav , Karjakin forgot a line in English that would have draw the game and lost.  We are talking about a whole opening not one line.
 
But in all cases it happened once , not twice. Lu Shanglei played the line 3 TIMES! If it was one time I wouldn't mention it. But it was 3. And neither of his opponents entered the refutation. So no one could find the refutation , only you can.
That's a possibility but for anyone with common sense(your worst enemy again) a very slim one(maybe 0.00000001%).   The fact is I have found the refutation and have published the refutation.  This is true no matter how much you like to naysay!!

 

ponz111

DeirdreSkye  Come on--accept my challenge--you take White against the variation and you can use a chess engine--Come on you indicated a 1200 rated player was better than me. Surely you can win vs a player less than 1200 in strength!  I will give  you odds. If you win or draw then you beat me. I only can win with a win.  

Put your money where your mouth is! Undecided

ghost_of_pushwood

Wow, they must be developing this thread (it's getting lots of skyscrapers).

Ultimate_Fighter
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:

Wow, they must be developing this thread (it's getting lots of skyscrapers).

 

What's a skyscraper?

 

ghost_of_pushwood

Look above.  See all those gray buildings up there?  Those are skyscrapers. happy.png

DeirdreSkye
ponz111 wrote:

DeirdreSkye  Come on--accept my challenge--you take White against the variation and you can use a chess engine--Come on you indicated a 1200 rated player was better than me. Surely you can win vs a player less than 1200 in strength!  I will give  you odds. If you win or draw then you beat me. I only can win with a win.  

Put your money where your mouth is!

      My point always was that Lu Shanglei must know a messy line since he  insists in playing the line. And that line must be known to others too.  How exactly beating me in on line chess proves that Lu Shanglei ,Ni Hua and Topalov don't know a messy line that is  difficult to play in OTB? 

   

 

ponz111
DeirdreSkye wrote:
ponz111 wrote:

DeirdreSkye  Come on--accept my challenge--you take White against the variation and you can use a chess engine--Come on you indicated a 1200 rated player was better than me. Surely you can win vs a player less than 1200 in strength!  I will give  you odds. If you win or draw then you beat me. I only can win with a win.  

Put your money where your mouth is!

      My point always was that Lu Shanglei must know a messy line since he  insists in playing the line. And that line must be known to others too.  How exactly beating me in on line chess proves that Lu Shanglei ,Ni Hua and Topalov don't know a messy line that is  difficult to play in OTB? 

   

 

Well you indicate I am worse than a 1200 rated player--why are you afraid to play me?

Just because a player plays an opening [The Ponziani in this case] does not mean he knows EVERYTHING about the opening. He very apparently did not know that if he plays this variation he should lose...



DeirdreSkye
ponz111 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
ponz111 wrote:

DeirdreSkye  Come on--accept my challenge--you take White against the variation and you can use a chess engine--Come on you indicated a 1200 rated player was better than me. Surely you can win vs a player less than 1200 in strength!  I will give  you odds. If you win or draw then you beat me. I only can win with a win.  

Put your money where your mouth is!

      My point always was that Lu Shanglei must know a messy line since he  insists in playing the line. And that line must be known to others too.  How exactly beating me in on line chess proves that Lu Shanglei ,Ni Hua and Topalov don't know a messy line that is  difficult to play in OTB? 

   

 

Well you indicate I am worse than a 1200 rated player--why are you afraid to play me?

Just because a player plays an opening [The Ponziani in this case] does not mean he knows EVERYTHING about the opening. He very apparently did not know that if he plays this variation he should lose...



I said you don't know what mistake is , something that 1200 players do. That is what I said.

You are complaining for people altering your claims and you are doing exactly the same.

 

We can play if you pay me. I won't reveal Topalov's secret line that only I and my on line group knows for free.

 

ponz111

DeirdreSkye  This is a cop out. You are afraid to play me. You say I do not know what a mistake is--something 1200 rated players do know.

 Topalov does not have a secret line against the Ponziani variation I posted.

No, I am not going to pay you. I repeat this is your cop out as you are afraid to play me. 

If I do not know what a mistake is and I say 4. Bb5 is a mistake in the line I posted than you should be able to beat me. Not to mention I will give you draw odds--if you draw or beat me--I will count it as a win for you.

Put your money where your mouth is!Laughing

marvin-040483

To improve pattern recognition, solve tactics.

ponz111

I have taken my dispute with DeirdreSkye off this forum and made a new forum called Ponziani Line.

In that forum I am again challenging DeirdreSkye to a game...

ghost_of_pushwood

Stay tuned for the next spine-tingling chapter! (hey, wasn't Leonard Nimoy in this one?)...

Image result for leonard nimoy zombies of the stratosphere

Chesslover0_0
IMBacon wrote:
Chesslover0_0 wrote:
AnhVanT wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
AnhVanT wrote:
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.

     When you don't know what to do, resigning is the worst thing you can do.

Try , find something, an open file is the simpler. If there is no open file, try to open one. Resigning in positions that are not dead lost is lack of fighting spirit and it is far worse than hope chess or not knowing what to do.

    Some things in chess are more important than calculation, pattern recognition or analytical skill. One of them is fighting spirit. If you are disappointed too easy then chess is not for you.

    Play , do mistakes and learn from them, never resign without fighting.

 

I did not resign because I lost my fighting spirit. The game is just boring because my opponent is passive. I love playing a complicated game, a losing game, or a fighting game because they are excited. Playing a boring game against a passive opponent discourages me.

The game is boring? really? Why are you here,there is not one facade,not ONE area of Chess that's boring,not one,so this is the same argument that people have in Street Fighter.  "Oh he plays boring" It's more like no,he's whipping your a$$ and you don't know what to do about it,so saying it's boring is just an excuse.    

Now if your opponent were playing passive,what does that mean? you mean positionally? You should never be bored and with enough knowledge you should always have something to do over the board,may we take a peek at the game?   

I don't mean to come at you like that but I have an aversion to "boring" when there is so much to do not just in Chess but life I don't know why people complain about ever being bored,if at any point I felt the game was boring,I'd quit playing and go do something else.  Chess is never boring to me,ever,especially a competitive game,there is ALWAYS something to do when it's your turn,always,you can do something strategically,tactically or positionally,which will of course improve your game,now if you didn't know what to do,that's fine,that happens to me at times too.  I was playing a correspondence (online) game and got frustrated,I wasn't dead lost but it seems that my variations were hitting brick walls,I ended up giving the game up,looking back I shouldn't have done that,of course I was upset at some other things as well,that's the thing with these competitive sports/games,some times the fight isn't always just with your opponent,it's with your self as well. 

When someone starts talking about "boring" positions, the are generally low rated players.  What "boring" translates to is:  "I dont understand the position..."

I agree IMbacon and that's fine,he just has to learn more but it's a false statement to say my opponent played "boring",I don't think I was incorrect in saying that boring for most Chess players is usually positional Chess and not "fireworks" Chess that Tal and other tacticians used to play.  I enjoy those games as well but I enjoy a nice quiet positional Anatoly Karpov positional masterpiece just as much and those games are probably more instructional from a strategic/positional standpoint. 

Chesslover0_0
ilovesmetuna wrote:

so called "calculation in chess" is basically pattern recognition.

I'd say so in a sense because you need something to calculate to and that's usually where your patterns come in,it's easier to calculate if you know the pattern,you can some times go pretty deep because you "see right through" everything to the matter you're trying to get to on the board.  Whereas if you don't know many patterns,even a problem that's only 2 moves deep can give you trouble,so I would say so,yes,pattern recognition does help calculation but not the other way around. 

 

sirjimmytyler

Yeah, I agree with Chesslover0_0. If you know a bunch of the pattens its a lot easier to explicitly check them of than to come up with them though pure calculation.

 

For example I came across one I had never seen before where both sides have a pawn one move off becoming a queen.  You sacrifice a rook to force their king onto the backrank and then when you queen promotes it checks their king allowing you to stop them from promoting their pawn.

A bunch of 1700+ puzzles on chesstempo.com have this pattern which is easy to spot if you know to look for it but really not obvious if you are just calculating.

 

Chesslover0_0
sirjimmytyler wrote:

Yeah, I agree with Chesslover0_0. If you know a bunch of the pattens its a lot easier to explicitly check them of than to come up with them though pure calculation.

For example I came across one I had never seen before where both sides have a pawn one move off becoming a queen.  You sacrifice a rook to force their king onto the backrank and then when you queen promotes it checks their king allowing you to stop them from promoting their pawn.

A bunch of 1700+ puzzles on chesstempo.com have this pattern which is easy to spot if you know to look for it but really not obvious if you are just calculating.

 

Exactly,and if calculate just for the sake of calculating then you may not be able to see as deep,so knowing patterns is pretty much essential to playing good Chess.