So, about intuition... how does it feel?

GM Genna Sosonko: "Behind the word 'intuition' lies our subconscious experience or knowledge of games and ideas either our own or those of others.  ... [I]ntuition is the knowledge we have formed in our minds on a subconscious level. ... I cannot conceive that a person who has just learnt chess could have developed a sense of intuition." quoted in Beliavsky/Mikhalchishin. Secrets of Chess Intuition. p.7

I already told you my position, while you hide behind your sources, without using your own reasoning. And I have read so much about "intuition", it's absurd. The history of philosophy is steeped in theories about "intuition". My love of philosophy, and my degree in philosophy never refers to wikipedia. Next you'll be citing dictionary definitions:D 

When I play shogi, there are certain areas where I can apply the skills I have in chess.  Combinations aimed at mating the opponent's king have some similarities in both games.  There are other areas though, most notably opening theory, where my chess knowledge is of little or no use.  The two games are just too different for analogies to bear much fruit.  I do know that it would be possible to hone opening systems based on examining the patterns most commonly found in master games, and comparing game results, but without actually playing through a wide range of games it is not at all clear how I should develop my pieces.  Domain knowledge transfers most easily in areas of the greatest similarity.

I don't know how others see intuition, but, FWIW, fo me it's extrapolation from similar existing knowledge plus guesswork. The more knowledge, the better the extrapolation, leading to less guesswork. The ability to draw on the correct knowledge, from which to extrapolate, is a matter of practice and correction via negative feedback.

OK, I need a drink!

 Do you even know what you're arguing here? You said that intuition comes from experience, and I agree, but you somehow negated the idea that one can have an intuitive understanding of chess, w/o having "a wealth of knowledge" about the game. I said, since the game is about pattern recognition, one need not have much knowledge at all about the game, since pattern recognition can be gained from other experiences in the world, which explains the prodigy. Then you use an example to explain "innate" knowledge, almost as if you are arguing against "intuition" being "innate". But I never said nor implied this. My argument is against the limit you put on intuition, not that intuition is some mystical gift.

If you don't know how to play chess you can have all the intuition in the world but you still can't play chess.

To have intuition in chess you need chess knowledge! If you study/solve tactics you'll develop intuition for tactics, you know when you should look for combinations.

 Am I writing in Croation again? I didn't say I agreed with the limit you put on intuition, it is exactly the above statement that I disagreed with. When I play chess, I have an intuition, or feel about a position. I know where that comes from; the habit of playing thousands of games, developing pattern recognition, and then intuitively knowing what I should do. But that took years. Someone with very little experience in the game also intuitively knows what to do, and crushes me. How do they develope intuition, in a game they've only recently learned? Pattern recognition from other experiences that they had. The only mystery about it, is from where exactly? Someone studying fractals for a time, may be able to learn chess so much more quickly than others, and we say that person intuitively understands the game. Not out of habit, which is where I intuitively know, but out of being able to apply geometrical patterns they have been studying, to chess. This could be one of many examples, to explain generally where someone had developed pattern recognition to apply to chess.  

So is it possible to play intuitive chess without deep knowledge of chess? Of course.

Some learns faster than others.

Evidently, you're writing in American.

i agree with much wat was said about TACTICAL intuition. i try to solve puzzles with tactics software quickly and when i cannot i look at the solution 2 or 3 times. now my second round of solving 2500 puzzles i do much better.

about POSITIONAL intuition. i am reading a mastergames book (by dr.Max Euwe) and non of the games are in openings i play. My question is:

am i waisting time filling my head with positions i will never see. even worse is:

 am i hardwiring rules that apply in many openings/positions but not in the ones i play. could this mean studying mastergames could be counterproductive in improving intuition????   

You'll learn something annyway, but it would be more usefull to study games with the openings you play.

I think that we apply the term 'intuition' to something a little more fluffy than just memorizing as many positions as possible at subconscious level. It implies an ability to connect similar patterns, or generalize from a specific instance to a general rule which is then applied. It is not mystical, but it is not as simple as you make it out to be either. After all, chess players don't learn something like the principle of two weaknesses by memorizing all the possible positions when it occurs.

 i'll learn something for shure but it could be the wrong lesson for me... i can calcutate some forcing tactics but postitions with multiple replies i cannot see/calculate (i am working on my board vision)

Max Euwe often rejects rules wich where set by people like Nimzowitch because of the position. so you could say he warns us, not to follow rules ridgidly. but when the rules and games become part of our subconsiousnes it could influence/spoil our "best" move??

You are the one to bring up "innate" in your Plato example. And why you still don't understand what I did and did not agree with, about what you wrote makes me suspicious of how clearly I'm writing, because I thought I explained it. I'll try this: 

"In order to have an intuition about chess, one must have paid a great deal of attention, stored the information, and been able to recall that information at a subconscious level."

The above statement means that one can have an intuitive understanding of chess, without having "a wealth of knowledge" about the game, because pattern recognition could have been developed through other experiences, so long as the subject was paying attention. The definition above allows for an "involuntary" understanding of patterns, stored at a "subconscious level", and then applied to the game of chess.

Afterall, you even say: "the involuntary and implicit storage and recall patterns is "intuition"". Therefore, if one were to pay attention to any experience, pattern recognition may be stored at a "subconscious level", and applied to chess. This person's immediate intuitive understanding of chess could have been involuntarily absorbed and stored from other experiences. 

To my mind, intuition is related to connectionist notions such as expert systems, and is notably different from rules or explicit propositional knowledge.  When you use your intuition, you compare your current position to positions you have had or seen in the past, noting both the similarities and the differences.  You need not have formulated a general rule, but instead try to figure out on the spot how the changes in the position would likely affect the assessment.  You synthesize different parts of your experience to solve a practical problem without ever needing to formulate any rules of general application.

I'll admit I haven't read everyone's replies. I once heard  radio 4 thing that basically said that intuition is 'expertise frozen in action', i.e. it is earned rather than innate. e.g. when we meet a person, having met many people, we subconsciously take considerations in such as their appearance, the way they talk etc. and compare it with our past experiences and make a subconscious judgement on them based on our expertise. This is a form of intuition, i.e. "I don't like that guy", "why?" "I don't know, he just seems a bit off."

'talent', however, is a more contentious subject.

 You cite "Intuition is based on experience" and something, "that can be developed". You may have not read what I wrote. The only help I can give you, is that I think knowledge is based on experience, AKA, 'empiricism': Our knowledge comes from our senses. If we are not in the habit of seeing chess positions, we move awkwardly. If we are in a habit of seeing positions, we develope a recognition of patterns. That recognition of patterns can be so accute, that one says they "feel" what to do in certain positions without calculating, to the end, or remembering past chess games. This "feel" for the position, is interchangeable with "intuitively knowing" the position. But pattern recognition can also be developed in other experiences besides chess, yet applied to chess. Therefore, a geometrician, for example, can actually have an "intuitive" understanding of chess, without having a wealth of knowledge(experience) of chess, just because what the geometrician does, fosters "pattern recognition" which they can apply to the 64 squares.

Btw, trystie, do you know any good sites for phil debates ? I had one but it is not very active now.

Years ago I would do philosophy forums, Atos. I can't remember the names now, sorry

It's okay trystie, we'll turn chess.com into phil.com lol.