Is Chess anything more than memorization?

There is Calculation. At least 3 ply.

On pattern recognition, is a technique meant to speed up the learning process and not that the learning process is composed only of pattern recognition. If the student can't tell why a pattern works then he may incur into false pattern recognition... which we're a witness of every time someone sacs a piece for nothing and claims he's playing like Tal or Kasparov.

And I wasn't kidding on the unsubstantiated part.

Philidor wrote one (not plural) book with very, very few games in it. Bilguer's Handbook appeared in 1843, but Bilguer died in 1840 so he actually wrote nothing. The initial five editions (1843, 1852, 1858, 1864, and 1874) were by von der Lasa (Bilguer's friend in life), composed mostly by wrong openings analysis. Staunton had a weekly newspaper column where, sometimes, he analyzed a game. But Staunton was into closed games and Morphy had contempt for such games, so it can't be said Morphy was influenced positively by Staunton's articles, nor that Morphy saw patterns that defined his own games.

What may be said is that Morphy read the chess books and articles published in Europe, and thought something in the line of: "These guys are nuts! I'll go there ASAP, kick their butts and become the King of the World!" But... patterns? Nah.

Chess is easy.... just move the pieces!

I referred to "the works of Philidor, Bilguer, Staunton, etc. …". I did not refer to books by Philidor. I see no reason to rule out that Morphy learned patterns from Philidor's book. I agree that I was too casual in thinking of Bilguer's Handbook as a work of Bilguer, but, again, I see no reason to rule out that Morphy learned patterns from it. Staunton wrote many books, endeavoring to cover both open and closed games. In one of them, he briefly discussed 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Bg4 4 dxe5 Bxf3 5 Qxf3 dxe5 6 Bc4. I see no reason to rule out that Morphy learned patterns from Staunton's works. I did not exhast the list of materials available in Morphy's time. In 1859, he referred to "the long series of games contested between Labourdonnais and McDonnell" as "beautiful models of chess strategy". I should perhaps reiterate the idea that Morphy originated many patterns. And, again, I am not comfortable with talk of memorizing patterns. I agree that the learning process is not composed only of pattern recognition.

It's not that Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca or Alekhine weren't aware of other's ideas on the game, but that those "borrowed" ideas, even when valuable, were not representative of their own games.

Take Morphy's treatment of open positions. No one before played like that. Or Lasker's Pf4–f5 leaving a hole in e5 in his game against Capablanca in 1914, or Capablanca's positional's pawn sacrifice against Nimzowitsch in 1911, not to mention Alekhine's Re8–e3 hanging a Rook for 6 moves in his game against Reti in 1925. Those examples show innovation due to understanding, not memory.

The purpose of teaching chess through pattern recognition is to train the student in the process of analysis and not memorizing. But as some amateurs see some form of, let's say, a Greek Sacrifice repeated several times in their classes, they believe than whenever they can play Bd3xh7+ followed by Nf3-g5+ and Qd1–h5, they get a won game... which isn't always the case.

+1

I have no quarrel with the notion that available ideas were not representative of the innovations in the games of Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, or Alekhine. I was just trying to indicate that, in each case, there were indeed available ideas. If I am following GoGopher correctly, the current concern is with beginner-level stuff. I continue to agree that the learning process is not composed only of pattern recognition.

I believe you're following @GoGopher line of thought accurately, and that's why I'm arguing.

As before, some amateurs believe that pattern recognition is meant to "imprint" and image in their brains when the methodology is about analyzing similar positions in order to make the student more accurate when analyzing similar positions by himself due to having identified some key features.

Using the Greek Sacrifice I mentioned before, it's not only the sequence I gave what has to be considered but whereas Black can protect h7, if there's an escape route for the King through e7, or if after Nf3-h5+ the King goes to g6 instead of g8 there are ways to bring reserves in time, or there's a Qd1–g4 threatening a discovered check or Qg4-h4-h7, which requires the Ng5 to be defended and f6 under control, and so on.

Then again, pattern recognition is meant to help us to know in advance which details in the position are likely to be relevant but doesn't spare us from analyzing.

You have nothing to memorise. Remember that club player that crushed Capablanca once. People asked him how did he do that amazing achievement. He said: «It's easy, you just have to make always the best move»

I am not sure what the details are in GoGophers thinking, but I have no quarrel with your above comment about pattern recognition.

@kindaspongey how much has memorization helped you in your games?

Are you challenging me?😏

I am unaware of any unit of measure for this sort of thing. In any case, I do not think that my personal experience would be a very good test case for the efficacy of memorization. If I remember correctly, you are something of an advocate for the value of memorization, but I wonder if you realize that the attempt at memorization can be a very different experience for someone with a rating hundreds of points below yours.

On here your rating is low but you are almost 2000 USCF rated right?

I am just wondering if you employ a lot of memorization techniques.

Attempting to imitate Robert De Niro: You talking to me?

My USCF rating is only about 1500.

I am not doing much of anything to improve at the moment.

I'm bored 

"... Memory is too valuable to be stocked with trifles. Of my fifty-seven years I have applied at least thirty to forgetting most of what I had learned or read, and since I succeeded in this I have acquired a certain ease and cheer which I should never again like to be without. If need be, I can increase my skill in Chess, if need be I can do that of which I have no idea at present. I have stored little in my memory, but I can apply that little, and it is of good use in many and varied emergencies. I keep it in order, but resist every attempt to increase its dead weight. ..." — Emanuel Lasker, Lasker’s Manual of Chess

On the other hand, in the same book:

"... nobody can wholly escape the dire necessity of compiling variations and of examining and memorizing them. And therefore such a compilation is correctly included in a manual of chess." - Lasker's Manual of Chess (algebraic edition)

I think I found a better analogy than memorization.  But first, thanks to those that responded and taught me a few things.  I don't think it's memorization, except for a few openings that can catch an uneducated chess player like me by surprise.

I guess I thought chess would be like running.  At first, maybe you can only run a 1/4 mile or 1/4 km, for those of us not in the USA.  But if you go running every day, you'll keep getting better and better - it's pretty simple.  Chess is not like that.  If I just play every day, I won't get any better once I work my way past the new players.  Chess is more like dance...once you get the basics down, then there is more to learn, then more after that, etc.  Only a few dancers get to perform on Broadway.

Do you guys agree with my analogy?

Anyways, this game is way too much work.  I thought/hoped it would be like running, where I can just play every day and get better naturally.  I can't.  Therefore I think I'm calling it quits.  If I play, I'll be happy to be rated 700 and just have fun.  I'm not sure what kind of brain someone must have in order to want to learn this torturous waste of time game, but it's certainly not in my brain.

Cheers!

If you were talking about the chess.com forums, yes. I think there can be no question that in general the forums are a waste of time and useless...however that % is up in the air.

Other than that, bon voyage. Dont worry, you've been here before and you'll be here again. Just under a different name..but the same type of message. Its a game of musical chairs...while you were here, 'you' were on other forums...and now you go somewhere else and eventually another 'you' will be here. Dont worry, you all get to say you are unique and special, genius IQ. If you happen to meet 'me' on another place, say hi?