Rogue_King wrote:
Whats a pattern. I just throw pieces around.
Me too: 
"Pattern recognition" DEBUNKED
Sort:
@ optimissed - Cognitive psychology is the study of the mind in relation to the senses, perception and information processing. Psychology as a discipline also deals with such areas of thought as those concerned with moralities, language, cultural imperatives, emotions, drives, and so on, that have little to do directly with cognition. I'm not particularly interested in psychology myself but I am quite aware of the fact that psychology as a discipline involves much more than the study of cognition and that cognitive psychology is a sub-discipline within psychology.
camter schrieb:
Thanks mate and merry Christmas. Maybe inspiration will hit more often.
Good post, sparxs. You should post more often.
razzarainbow schrieb:
Thanks razza. Merry Christmas.
i like guinness,good post sparkx theory combined with practical use
Dec 28, 2016
0
#86
urk wrote:
"On average, with 10 positions learned a day, it takes 27 years to acquire 100,000 patterns which, in turn, makes it hard to explain how young super-grandmasters, like Magnus Carlsen . . .
"On average, with 10 positions learned a day, it takes 27 years to acquire 100,000 patterns which, in turn, makes it hard to explain how young super-grandmasters, like Magnus Carlsen . . .
Actually it's simple. No one said he needed 100,000 patterns and that he gained them at the rate of 10 per day. In fact the quote itself says 10 per day on average.
This is a disagreement about the numbers, not about the concept of patterns itself.
The main support for patterns (AFAIK) is from De Groot. You should challenge his experiments not some arbitrary 100,000 at 10 per day idea.
I know I'm really late, but I remember seeing this topic a week ago.
Dec 28, 2016
0
#87
Ziryab wrote:
Care to support this with arguments?
When you memorize and fully comprehend a single 35 move chess game, you have absorbed 200+ patterns. This process of learning a single game can be accomplished in two hours if the opening is wholly new. A good teacher can accelerate the process.
Dec 28, 2016
0
#88
BronsteinPawn wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
When you memorize and fully comprehend a single 35 move chess game, you have absorbed 200+ patterns. This process of learning a single game can be accomplished in two hours if the opening is wholly new. A good teacher can accelerate the process.
Care to support this with arguments?
Sure. I'm right. Nah, nah, nah, nah.
How's that?
Or, would you rather that I work my way through one of the games in GM-RAM to show how there are 200 patterns in 35 moves? Would that convince urk and his ilk? Would it convince you?
Let's say that I can only find 90 patterns in a 35 move game. Would my point criticising urk's numbers be invalidated? Someplace on my blog I have a set of eight exercises that all come from unplaced variations in the thirteen move game Mayet -- Anderssen, London or Berlin, 1851 or 1859.* I think that I could easily document at least 25 patterns from that game. Such unplayed possibilities are part of what I mean by "fully comprehend". 200+ may be an exagerration.
*The game score first appears in a publication in the late 1860s, as I recall. It may not have been played at all.
Dec 28, 2016
0
#89
Optimissed wrote:
I believe Sam Harris has a doctorate in cognitive psychology or at least, something like that, and he isn't particularly good at thought.
"he isn't good at thought"
lol, such insight
Dec 28, 2016
0
#90
Ziryab escribió:
BronsteinPawn wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
When you memorize and fully comprehend a single 35 move chess game, you have absorbed 200+ patterns. This process of learning a single game can be accomplished in two hours if the opening is wholly new. A good teacher can accelerate the process.
Care to support this with arguments?
Sure. I'm right. Nah, nah, nah, nah.
How's that?
Or, would you rather that I work my way through one of the games in GM-RAM to show how there are 200 patterns in 35 moves? Would that convince urk and his ilk? Would it convince you?
Let's say that I can only find 90 patterns in a 35 move game. Would my point criticising urk's numbers be invalidated? Someplace on my blog I have a set of eight exercises that all come from unplaced variations in the thirteen move game Mayet -- Anderssen, London or Berlin, 1851 or 1859.* I think that I could easily document at least 25 patterns from that game. Such unplayed possibilities are part of what I mean by "fully comprehend". 200+ may be an exagerration.
*The game score first appears in a publication in the late 1860s, as I recall. It may not have been played at all.
wow. CALM DOWN BRAH.
I wasnt attacking you I was just curious. To believe something I have to see it. Thanks, Ill check your blog.
Dec 28, 2016
0
#91
BronsteinPawn wrote:
Ziryab escribió:
BronsteinPawn wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
When you memorize and fully comprehend a single 35 move chess game, you have absorbed 200+ patterns. This process of learning a single game can be accomplished in two hours if the opening is wholly new. A good teacher can accelerate the process.
Care to support this with arguments?
Sure. I'm right. Nah, nah, nah, nah.
How's that?
Or, would you rather that I work my way through one of the games in GM-RAM to show how there are 200 patterns in 35 moves? Would that convince urk and his ilk? Would it convince you?
Let's say that I can only find 90 patterns in a 35 move game. Would my point criticising urk's numbers be invalidated? Someplace on my blog I have a set of eight exercises that all come from unplaced variations in the thirteen move game Mayet -- Anderssen, London or Berlin, 1851 or 1859.* I think that I could easily document at least 25 patterns from that game. Such unplayed possibilities are part of what I mean by "fully comprehend". 200+ may be an exagerration.
*The game score first appears in a publication in the late 1860s, as I recall. It may not have been played at all.
wow. CALM DOWN BRAH.
I wasnt attacking you I was just curious. To believe something I have to see it. Thanks, Ill check your blog.
I thought your challenge, whatever the motivation, was the most sensible post that I've read in these forums this week. I was trying to have fun with it my mocking the arguments that are most common.
Thanks.
Here are two of my posts on this short game.
http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2014/12/training-with-anderssen.html
http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2014/12/sacrificial-attack.html
There are others, just click on Anderssen in the Index and scroll through. You'll find them.
Dec 28, 2016
0
#92
Ziryab escribió:
I thought your challenge, whatever the motivation, was the most sensible post that I've read in these forums this week. I was trying to have fun with it my mocking the arguments that are most common.
Wow. That sounds worrying, specially considering that Im a half-time troll.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS FORUMS?
Dec 29, 2016
0
#94
As kinda points out via a link, IM Silman has debunked the debunker with a bit of common sense backed up through specific examples.
Feb 12, 2017
0
#96
More evidence in support of pattern recognition tempered with calculation: http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2017/02/patterns-and-calculation.html
Feb 13, 2017
0
#97
Ziryab wrote:
urk wrote:
I don't think it's true that people play well because they're recognizing patterns they've seen before. They're playing well because they understand what to do with the patterns.
As pullin already noted, patterns are dynamic relationships between the pieces, as well as static positions. As I pointed out in http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2016/12/pattern-training.html, these two positions feature the same pattern:
White to move
The position comes from Horvath -- Vigus, Haarlem 1998.
The second position is from a game I played last week in an online blitz game.
White to move
Some patterns are more obvious than others, it would seem, going by this.
Different patterns develop based upon the flow from the opening. Thus one can slowly improve by specializing in particular openings. However, pattern recognition is not about memorizing a specific pattern. It is about learning about seeing similarities within differences and does require intuition and creativity.