Forums

"Pattern recognition" DEBUNKED

Sort:
Avatar of llama
llama
Dec 28, 2016
0
#101
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

Avatar of BronsteinPawn
BronsteinPawn
Dec 28, 2016
0
#102
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.

Avatar of Ziryab
Ziryab
Dec 28, 2016
0
#103
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.

Avatar of BronsteinPawn
BronsteinPawn
Dec 28, 2016
0
#104
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?

Avatar of kindaspongey
kindaspongey
Dec 29, 2016
0
#105

https://www.chess.com/article/view/learning-chess-patterns-is-easy

Avatar of Ziryab
Ziryab
Dec 29, 2016
0
#106

As kinda points out via a link, IM Silman has debunked the debunker with a bit of common sense backed up through specific examples.

Avatar of BronsteinPawn
BronsteinPawn
Dec 29, 2016
0
#107

 What were you expecting from a caveman?

Avatar of Ziryab
Ziryab
Feb 12, 2017
0
#108

More evidence in support of pattern recognition tempered with calculation: http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2017/02/patterns-and-calculation.html

Avatar of camter
camter
Feb 13, 2017
0
#109
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.