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

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.

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!!

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!

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

ghost_of_pushwood wrote:

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

What's a skyscraper?

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

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?

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...

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.

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!

To improve pattern recognition, solve tactics.

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.