I am now attempting to memorize the initial set-up of 50 boards simulataneously.
How many rating points is a photographic memory worth?
Sort:
trysts wrote:
It's good to see ducks in this thread
Give it time and they will appear in a thread eventually.
batgirl wrote:
I am now attempting to memorize the initial set-up of 50 boards simultaneously.
My head hurts imagining the required brainpower
How many times have you done this? What is your record so far? Have you seen how this improved your rating? Can you give us an estimate +-50 points?
Not only has it improved my rating, it's improved my love life and cleared up my complexion. My attempt record to date is 50, my success record is almost one.
trysts wrote:
It's good to see ducks in this thread
It's good to see ducks anywhere. (
)
batgirl wrote:
It's an eider, a sea duck.
Thanks :)
batgirl wrote:
It's an eider, a sea duck.
?
that look like a platypus.
kco wrote:
that look like a platypus.
It does lay eggs...
Just as the cycle of recording a played-back recording eventually results in the same harmonic frequencies, the same topics eventually surface in every single thread, no matter what the starting topic was.
mrguy888 wrote:
kco wrote:
that look like a platypus.
It does lay eggs...
Ahh, but which came first....
Eternal_Patzer wrote:
For weak players a photographic memory probably is less useful than you would think. Here's Dan Heisman's "thought experiment" on the subject of perfect memory (for opening moves)
Taken From his "Novice Nook" column at Chesscafe, found here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman127.pdf
How much does memorizing extra opening moves help?
Try the following "thought experiment," which reveals quite a bit about the
relative importance of memorizing opening sequences:
1. Assume that when a player is "in the book" he can play at a 3000
playing strength, but after he is "out of book" his strength returns to his
current rating.
2. Assume that because of the exponentially growing number of
variations, as one studies further into the same opening line one gets
diminishing returns. One cannot only learn fewer moves deeper per
study time, but the chances that any opponent will play those moves also diminishes. If we lock the average player away for two years and
he studies only opening lines, he can probably go about four ply (two
moves) deeper before either his knowledge is exhausted or a similar
rated opponent takes him out of book.
3. Finally, compare three "theoretical" chess matches: In Match A, two
GMs rated 2700 FIDE play; In Match B, two players rated 1700; and in
Match C, two players rated 700.
In Match A obtaining a slight opening advantage is important. Because GMs
rarely make big mistakes, it is possible for a GM to hold onto a slight
advantage and play for a extended period – perhaps the entire game – for a
win or at worst a draw. Therefore, although the players' strength may fall off
300 points when they get out of book (3000-2700), getting a slight advantage
out of the opening is a big deal for players that usually only make tiny
mistakes.
In Match B the playing strengths fall off 1300 points (from 3000 down to
1700) as soon as the players get out of book. That large drop-off means that it
is very easy for the player who gets a slight advantage to throw it all away (or
more) on any one move. A slight advantage might be the equivalent of less
than a pawn, say 0.1-0.3 pawn equivalent, but players rated 1700 routinely
make moves that are much less than optimum. In complicated positions, they
err much more than that.
So for players at this level getting a small advantage out of the opening is
nice, but it is primarily the psychological aspect of an opening advantage (to
give them some confidence) that helps the most. Learning a couple of extra
moves will thus likely have a very small effect on the outcome of the game. It
is much more effective to spend that study time learning to play better than a
1700 once you are out of the opening! There's only approximately two moves
that will benefit from the extra opening study, but more than thirty moves out
of the book. Therefore, what you do after you are out of book has a much
bigger effect than knowing two more moves, even if once in a while your
opponent falls into an opening trap and you win the game immediately.
In Match C the situation deteriorates considerably, as the ratings fall off 2300
points after the book moves. With this level of play, getting a slight advantage
from the opening, or even a distinct one, is almost meaningless. The optimum
learning strategy for 700 players is not to try to memorize more opening
moves, but rather to learn how to identify and make safe moves, even in the opening.
*mind blown*
TheGrobe wrote:
mrguy888 wrote:
kco wrote:
that look like a platypus.
It does lay eggs...
Ahh, but which came first....
Satoshi Tajiri.
And I thought I could hold on to a 1 pawn advantage cause I made it... once, maybe twice...
Sorry, it lost my mind.
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
Just as the cycle of recording a played-back recording eventually results in the same harmonic frequencies, the same topics eventually surface in every single thread, no matter what the starting topic was.
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
Just as the cycle of recording a played-back recording eventually results in the same harmonic frequencies, the same topics eventually surface in every single thread, no matter what the starting topic was.
Are you talking about... ducks?
Eternal_Patzer wrote:
For weak players a photographic memory probably is less useful than you would think. Here's Dan Heisman's "thought experiment" on the subject of perfect memory (for opening moves)
Taken From his "Novice Nook" column at Chesscafe, found here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman127.pdf
How much does memorizing extra opening moves help?
Try the following "thought experiment," which reveals quite a bit about the
relative importance of memorizing opening sequences:
1. Assume that when a player is "in the book" he can play at a 3000
playing strength, but after he is "out of book" his strength returns to his
current rating.
2. Assume that because of the exponentially growing number of
variations, as one studies further into the same opening line one gets
diminishing returns. One cannot only learn fewer moves deeper per
study time, but the chances that any opponent will play those moves also diminishes. If we lock the average player away for two years and
he studies only opening lines, he can probably go about four ply (two
moves) deeper before either his knowledge is exhausted or a similar
rated opponent takes him out of book.
3. Finally, compare three "theoretical" chess matches: In Match A, two
GMs rated 2700 FIDE play; In Match B, two players rated 1700; and in
Match C, two players rated 700.
In Match A obtaining a slight opening advantage is important. Because GMs
rarely make big mistakes, it is possible for a GM to hold onto a slight
advantage and play for a extended period – perhaps the entire game – for a
win or at worst a draw. Therefore, although the players' strength may fall off
300 points when they get out of book (3000-2700), getting a slight advantage
out of the opening is a big deal for players that usually only make tiny
mistakes.
In Match B the playing strengths fall off 1300 points (from 3000 down to
1700) as soon as the players get out of book. That large drop-off means that it
is very easy for the player who gets a slight advantage to throw it all away (or
more) on any one move. A slight advantage might be the equivalent of less
than a pawn, say 0.1-0.3 pawn equivalent, but players rated 1700 routinely
make moves that are much less than optimum. In complicated positions, they
err much more than that.
So for players at this level getting a small advantage out of the opening is
nice, but it is primarily the psychological aspect of an opening advantage (to
give them some confidence) that helps the most. Learning a couple of extra
moves will thus likely have a very small effect on the outcome of the game. It
is much more effective to spend that study time learning to play better than a
1700 once you are out of the opening! There's only approximately two moves
that will benefit from the extra opening study, but more than thirty moves out
of the book. Therefore, what you do after you are out of book has a much
bigger effect than knowing two more moves, even if once in a while your
opponent falls into an opening trap and you win the game immediately.
In Match C the situation deteriorates considerably, as the ratings fall off 2300
points after the book moves. With this level of play, getting a slight advantage
from the opening, or even a distinct one, is almost meaningless. The optimum
learning strategy for 700 players is not to try to memorize more opening
moves, but rather to learn how to identify and make safe moves, even in the opening.
I just think by learning an opening really well, the positional ideas behind it and knowing all the traps like the back of your hand, it would give a person a large advantage on someone who doesn't know anything. if the opponent leaves book, you still have a solid position and know the plan, for what you are playing. if they make one of the (sometimes many) common, natural but mistake moves you can immediately take advantage of it. I don't think it's useful for a non-professional player to learn any line more than maybe 10-12 moves deep, unless it's one of those easily recalled forcing lines that lead to some endgame.
this kind of opening knowledge should be supplemented with learning chess principles, but I would assume someone who is taking the time to learn this much about any given opening would also be familiarizing or have familiarized themselves with these things.
If one person who just learned the principles was playing against someone with that knowledge as well as 10 moves of an opening and it's positional ideas, I think the latter person would likely have a slight pull if they're "on" the whole way through. they would have a better idea of which principles to heed, are the most important in many of the resulting positions. something along these lines.
It's good to see ducks in this thread