"Pattern recognition" DEBUNKED

its all double dutch to me ,I ,m sorry but it seems the whole premise of this thread is for the protagonists to appear intellectual and flaunt their superior knowledge of an intangible premise and overide questioning , not to inform .!

but I will download it and if I have 10 yrs left in me I may grasp the foreword. Ziryab

I think a lot of people think of pattern recognition the wrong way. The ability is not about recalling things you've memorized. It's a part most intelligence tests (just part). When psychologists test for pattern recognition, they show the subject patters to see if they can recognize them. These are not patterns that they expect the subject to have previously seen or route memorized in the past - in fact, that would make the test invalid. they're trying to assess the subjects' ability to notice the relationships between groups of numbers, shapes, ideas, etc.

In chess, I think that GMs and many other good chess players benefit from have this ability in spades. When we (less talented players) practice tactics, only part of our improvement comes from memorizing positions. I think most of the improvement results from the practice/improvement at recognizing relationships as described above.

For example, the newer one is at chess, the more likely they are to hang pieces to simple one-move captures. By practicing tactics, we train our brains to 'recognize' when pieces are hanging. This has nothing to do with memorizing relative positions of pieces on the board - it's just about seeing and 'noticing' that your queen is on a bishop's open diagonal. That's a simple example but the concept holds for more complicated tactics. It's all about being able to notice and cogitate relationships. The OP is right in suggesting that you don't have to have seen the exact pattern before in order to recognize it. It's no different than the ability to see in someone's facial expression that they are angry. You don't have to have seen that person angry before, or the exact facial expression.

do any of you think psychology comes into play in chess ,that when you realise someone has reacted positively or negatively to ones last move and therefore they become more likely to underestimate your abilities ,leaving you on a good counter attack position ,by throwing a red herring into play I,ve managed to turn many certain defeats into draws,conversley the opposite is also true when you play a good game your opponents react very carefully.

Psychology is everything but psychology is misunderstood by psychologists who seem to think it must involve a statistical approach. Always play the opponent first and then the board. Play around with the clock time you're using. Extra clock time can be converted to complexity and back again in an attempt to get your opponent to enter a position/state of mind s/he can't handle.

I sometimes deliberately pretend to think for several minutes in an opening where I know exactly what I'm going to play. I don't waste the time because I'm genuinely analysing weird replies my opponent might make, which gets me thinking better. By hesitating for a couple of minutes otb I'm sending a false signal. Is this gamesmanship?

Get rekt caveman, you debunked your debunk yourself.

yep its a game all said and done ,bar cheating and or abuse,everything else is fair ' tactical manipulation', its nessessary in combat,Chess is based around traps ,its the ultimate wargame and alls fair ..etc

Optimissed wrote:

I sometimes deliberately pretend to think for several minutes in an opening where I know exactly what I'm going to play. I don't waste the time because I'm genuinely analysing weird replies my opponent might make, which gets me thinking better. By hesitating for a couple of minutes otb I'm sending a false signal. Is this gamesmanship?

my standard time is 3m. Now I don't see it. How can i fix it. I'm a free user

excellent

It's great strategy is what it is.

That @Urk makes a lot of sense.  i've often wondered how someone could learn a 1000 or so patterns and recognize them.   i often just figure it out a tactic but do recognize some.  Like when to attack with the Greek Gift - Queen, Bishop and Knight in the right spots and opponents Knight not.  A beginner would never see that.  i'm still learning.  Does anyone know, how many 'pattern recog's' there actually are?  (didn't read the whole thread)   i have a book by Garry K. that says there are only about 3 patterns, pins, skewers and forks.    What were we talking about?  Something @Urk said.  Never mind.  

 

We were talking about casting pearls before swine.

I suppose there are more meaningful patterns for sronger players than for weaker ones. Chess contains various elements .... even our analysis might be focussed on various elements and priories and we can weight it depending on how we see our strategy. That is, we can look for more or less surprising moves or more or less moves that preserve the positive structural elements in our game at the expense of the opposition's. Sight of the board includes a quick assessment of how many pieces are active and whether weak points on either side seem threatened. Then there are specific plans, which could be thought of as patterns. Overprotection is another simple pattern so probably Kasparov was being disingenuous. Other patterns include simple pawn formations.

 

...and monkeys with typewriters.

Horvath-Vigus?
WTF?
I've pulled off far better combos than that that I had never seen before.

Ziryab's students are being lied to by a simpleton.

 

Yea. Me too. I never said that pattern recognition was everything, nor even the main thing. But it is useful, powerful, and most important, easily developed.

You did say it was the main thing.

 

Corrrection. I posted a quote from Magnus Carlsen saying something that you could take this way. Carlsen, of course, has never been observed to speak in hyperbole.

I see.
It was somebody else's fault; you never said that "pattern recognition" was the main thing, and when somebody else said it, it was just hyperbole.

Get stuffed.