chess is memorization
Sort:
JustAdroit wrote:
My point is proven
hopesheswaitingforme wrote:
Is not the one who can recall 70000 positions in chess simply better than the one who can recall merely 10000? They do not win through greater intelligence than the other, but because they can respond accurately through consistent study or repetition of moves.
I asked ChatGPT how many possible positions there are in chess after just 3 moves and it said around 121 million. Good luck memorizing.
Jan 26, 2025
0
#46
It’s clear that after all these comments proving his wild claim he made in rage to be false has shattered his fragile ego
Jan 26, 2025
0
#47
"I can't get better at the game so instead I bully someone that is 300 rating points below me to feel better about myself, also I have an extremely high IQ and love the smell of my own farts" - This guy probably
Jan 26, 2025
0
#48
He says chess is only memorization and pattern recognition, what he doesn’t realize is that’s the only aspects of puzzle solving in the brain. The brain doesn’t solve puzzles with emotions. Our brains solve puzzles by using memory and patterns.
Jan 26, 2025
0
#49
He just keeps crashing around the forums insulting people and using insults to cover faulty logic.
Jan 26, 2025
0
#50
hopesheswaitingforme wrote:
Sobrukai wrote:
Computers have been working day and night to find the best move for an unimaginably large number of unique positions, and they still are not even close. You seriously think a human could just know and memorize all of the perfect moves in any given position? Ridiculous, you don't know what chess is or how it works.
You are the prime example of why chess does not require highly intellectual people, you say "computers have been working day and night to find the best move for an unimaginably large number of unique positions" but wtf does this contribute to my initial text?
A human, a gm, does not attempt to perform algorithmic processes rather they recognize familiar patterns through situations they have already gone through.
Recognizing, i say RECOGNIZING patterns can be learned, you don't need to be a machine to do so, any top chess player RECOGNIZES the best moves in a specific situation.
So no, i do not think it's ridiculous to believe a person could reach top levels of chess through memorization and the study of patterns which leads to recognition and identification when performed.
Thanks for the insult kiddo, I really needed that.
Anyways, you claimed in your initial post that chess is mostly a a game of memorization, and that a player that memorized 70,000 positions would play better than a player that has memorized 10,000 positions (both sound impossible but whatever). You then claim that all a chess player must do is recognize the best move, and that's all that is needed. This may be true in the opening stages of a game where it's all theory, or middle games that arise off of heavly studied openings. However, it is very unlikely that a game of chess will be a completely copy of another where the best moves can simply be recognized and pulled from memory. The vast majority of games end up in middlegames or endgame positions that have never been played or studied before, so players cannot simply recognize the best move and play it. Players in those positions (which occur in the vast majority of games) must utilize their understanding of chess to formulate strategies, spot tactics, and more, not simply recognition of a studied position.
I think @mikewier synthesized my view perfectly, and the games between Ding and Gukesh are a perfect examples where as early as the opening chess players had to ditch their memorization and switch to their understanding of the game.
Do you really think Ding would take 38 minutes on move 4 of game 11 if he had everything memorized?
blackmore324 wrote:
"I can't get better at the game so instead I bully someone that is 300 rating points below me to feel better about myself, also I have an extremely high IQ and love the smell of my own farts" - This guy probably
He sent me a challenge request silly, for some reason after losing he said "my point is proven" so i sent the game.
Sobrukai wrote:
hopesheswaitingforme wrote:
Sobrukai wrote:
Computers have been working day and night to find the best move for an unimaginably large number of unique positions, and they still are not even close. You seriously think a human could just know and memorize all of the perfect moves in any given position? Ridiculous, you don't know what chess is or how it works.
You are the prime example of why chess does not require highly intellectual people, you say "computers have been working day and night to find the best move for an unimaginably large number of unique positions" but wtf does this contribute to my initial text?
A human, a gm, does not attempt to perform algorithmic processes rather they recognize familiar patterns through situations they have already gone through.
Recognizing, i say RECOGNIZING patterns can be learned, you don't need to be a machine to do so, any top chess player RECOGNIZES the best moves in a specific situation.
So no, i do not think it's ridiculous to believe a person could reach top levels of chess through memorization and the study of patterns which leads to recognition and identification when performed.
Thanks for the insult kiddo, I really needed that.
Anyways, you claimed in your initial post that chess is mostly a a game of memorization, and that a player that memorized 70,000 positions would play better than a player that has memorized 10,000 positions (both sound impossible but whatever). You then claim that all a chess player must do is recognize the best move, and that's all that is needed. This may be true in the opening stages of a game where it's all theory, or middle games that arise off of heavly studied openings. However, it is very unlikely that a game of chess will be a completely copy of another where the best moves can simply be recognized and pulled from memory. The vast majority of games end up in middlegames or endgame positions that have never been played or studied before, so players cannot simply recognize the best move and play it. Players in those positions (which occur in the vast majority of games) must utilize their understanding of chess to formulate strategies, spot tactics, and more, not simply recognition of a studied position.
I think @mikewier synthesized my view perfectly, and the games between Ding and Gukesh are a perfect examples where as early as the opening chess players had to ditch their memorization and switch to their understanding of the game.
Do you really think Ding would take 38 minutes on move 4 of game 11 if he had everything memorized?
i've spoken on this earlier, and now because everyone's argument seems to be a repetition of the arguments before, i do not feel the need to restate my position or write anything detailed until i see a unique argument.
but for your sake i will do so one last time,
Look at #34, as i stated. It is true a game will not be a 1/1 exact replica of any game played before, but that wasn't my claim?
If as you claim, in each and every chess game a entirely new situation, one that has never been seen before and no pattern exists to recognize, prediction would lose it's meaning. Chess wouldn't be chess as you know it, for as you would agree i imagine, thinking forward is a significant part of chess right?
The principle would be as followed:
Memorization and recognition of patterns is denied ("majority of middlegame and endgame position have never been played or studied before, so players cannot recognize the best move") and since a new situation should come into existence if a never before played position takes place (as you claim) patterns would be undefined, therefore non-existent.
Since there would be no patterns to recognize, from which to extrapolate. Thinking ahead or setting goals also becomes non-existent, because there is no basis to build a plan on.
Is what we call "problem-solving" not recognition of something that has already happened so you can accordingly respond to it? ...
I agree, thinking ahead is a big part, yet doesn't thinking ahead rely on the player's prior games or experiences and the recognition of patterns that causes them to be able to predict their opponents next move, is this not "thinking ahead"
I'd say a comparable analogy would be a sport. Let's take a martial art, for example.
In martial arts training, a fighter practices various strikes, throws, submissions holds, etc (depending on whichever fighting style it is). This kind of practice is certainly repetitive - the fighter hopes to reach a point where "muscle memory" takes over, and they can perform these specific maneuvers without much conscious thought at all.
During an actual fight, these memorized sequences will certainly be used. A boxer throws the same combinations he has practiced a thousand times before. A Tae Kwon Do expert delivers the same roundhouse kick that he can do in his sleep. A chess player jumps on a Greek Gift sacrifice the instant he spots it on the board.
But what about all the moments in between? Are all MMA fights pure memorization, from beginning to end? Is a Soccer game entirely memorized, due to the players practicing the same kicks and passes hundreds of times before?
If two people have a conversation - aren't they simply recalling memorized patterns - words and expressions that they've already learned, and arranging them into sentences to represent their thoughts?
I suppose we could say so. But I also would call a conversation more than just memorized words and phrases ... just as I think of a chess game as more than just memorized patterns and moves.