Chess is all about patterns? • page 2/3 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

i see it this way, patterns (or chunks or whatever) are the atoms of chess. So just like understanding atoms is not all there is about the world, understanding patterns is not all that chess is about. There's more obviously.

CM Sarg0n

edited

#12

You can call it simply experience if this better suits you. People sometimes have problems with the term "chunk" but it is practically the same. Carlsen has gathered probably 100.000 patterns/chunks/parts of experience.

Nobody knows exactly what a chunk really is, for me it's something like:

-castled position without bodyguard on f6 (f8), BQ battery leads to Qh7#
-the same on g7
-Q and B reversed no mate at least
-N on g5 + Q same.
-best bodyguard against a bunch of attacks is the Nf3/Nf6. Being an obstacle itself controlling important attacking squares like g4, h5, h7

And so on. Also more subtle.

You can call it simply experience if this better suits you. People sometimes have problems with the term "chunk" but it is practically the same. Carlsen has gathered probably 100.000 patterns/chunks/parts of experience. Nobody knows exactly what a chunk really is, for me it's something like: -castled position without bodyguard on f6 (f8), BQ battery leads to Qh7# -the same on g7 -Q and B reversed no mate at least -N on g5 + Q same. -best bodyguard against a bunch of attacks is the Nf3/Nf6. Being an obstacle itself controlling important attacking squares like g4, h5, h7 And so on. Also more subtle.

Toscani

edited

#13

With chess, we need to lead the game into our planned pattern. I image a game without the pieces to see the pawn structure, and search for an outposts for the pieces. A player needs to be concerned about the key squares. Finding the escape routes before checkmating the king or capturing a piece.

It's not that easy to maneuver into a chess pattern, but if we plan for it and our opponent follows through, then the game is going as planned. Patterns are created by leaders, not followers. To draw a game, keep the positions balanced. Throwing a position off balance helps to win games.

Chess is more about knowing how to maneuver into a position than pattern recognition. An object does not just appear out of thin air, it gets created. Puzzles are created for us, so they just appear before us and we follow through to solve the problem. We must be followers before being leaders. So doing puzzles is great to follow the leaders, but once we mastered puzzles, we still need to learn to become leaders of the chessboard.

Search the web for chess maneuvers, like the Rubinstein's Maneuver and learn how to lead the pieces to victory.
Learn the W maneuver, triangulation, opposition, en passant, castling and so on. Terminology is important, so there is a glossary of terms that needs to be learned to help find ways of maneuvering the pieces and pawns into a winning game.

It's essential to know chess methods and to use chess principles with your life skills to play well.

Chess is electrifying with all these series, batteries and combinations of moves requiring skill and care.

A chess pattern is not the whole game. A chess pattern is more of a guiding light at the end of a tunnel.

With chess, we need to lead the game into our planned pattern. I image a game without the pieces to see the pawn structure, and search for an outposts for the pieces. A player needs to be concerned about the key squares. Finding the escape routes before checkmating the king or capturing a piece. It's not that easy to maneuver into a chess pattern, but if we plan for it and our opponent follows through, then the game is going as planned. Patterns are created by leaders, not followers. To draw a game, keep the positions balanced. Throwing a position off balance helps to win games. Chess is more about knowing how to maneuver into a position than pattern recognition. An object does not just appear out of thin air, it gets created. Puzzles are created for us, so they just appear before us and we follow through to solve the problem. We must be followers before being leaders. So doing puzzles is great to follow the leaders, but once we mastered puzzles, we still need to learn to become leaders of the chessboard. Search the web for chess maneuvers, like the Rubinstein's Maneuver and learn how to lead the pieces to victory. Learn the W maneuver, triangulation, opposition, en passant, castling and so on. Terminology is important, so there is a glossary of terms that needs to be learned to help find ways of maneuvering the pieces and pawns into a winning game. It's essential to know chess methods and to use chess principles with your life skills to play well. Chess is electrifying with all these series, batteries and combinations of moves requiring skill and care. A chess pattern is not the whole game. A chess pattern is more of a guiding light at the end of a tunnel.

jupp53 edited

#14

THE genius of psychology in the 20th century and probably in the whole history is George A. Miller. His input is influenced by Kybernetics.

If I got it right his work is about the human way of structuring information and handle it by doing. As the size of a memory chunk or a cognitive pattern depends on individual factors, not on objective factors, the concept contradicts to usual understanding in our world.

Hey this chess book has 200 positions with each one side of explanation. It must have more information than this one with 50 positions.
You know this is wrong. This is thinking in merchandise categories. This is misleading in cases fixing a price is not the main task.

So the correct use of a chess pattern would be to describe which information you see in a position as features and lines. This simple thought is so complicated, that most chess authors deny it and sell something like "xxx positions you must know". This has the same value as "Destroying white with the xxx attack". Serious books and articles recognise it and talk serious about the level they aim at.

THE genius of psychology in the 20th century and probably in the whole history is George A. Miller. His input is influenced by Kybernetics. If I got it right his work is about the human way of structuring information and handle it by doing. As the size of a memory chunk or a cognitive pattern depends on individual factors, not on objective factors, the concept contradicts to usual understanding in our world. - Hey this chess book has 200 positions with each one side of explanation. It must have more information than this one with 50 positions. You know this is wrong. This is thinking in merchandise categories. This is misleading in cases fixing a price is not the main task. So the correct use of a chess pattern would be to describe which information you see in a position as features and lines. This simple thought is so complicated, that most chess authors deny it and sell something like "xxx positions you must know". This has the same value as "Destroying white with the xxx attack". Serious books and articles recognise it and talk serious about the level they aim at.

CM Sarg0n

edited

#15

Just a random googling of "chess & chunks":

http://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/articles/chunking.htm
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302499073_Using_Chunks_to_Categorise_Chess_Positions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chunking_(psychology)

I think you have something to read on this lazy Sunday. ;)

Just a random googling of "chess & chunks": http://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/articles/chunking.htm https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302499073_Using_Chunks_to_Categorise_Chess_Positions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chunking_(psychology) I think you have something to read on this lazy Sunday. ;)

jupp53 edited

#16

I recommend the book of Adriaan De Groot. Aljechin's protocol is a great example. Comparing this to the Tata Steel videos on youtube with the memory task for the participants of the tournament will show that nothing has changed with human memory performance in the last 90 years. ;)

Jonathan Rowson - Chess for zebras is clearly a very good book. But chess players prefer his Seven Deadly Sins if I read the reviews correctly. A proof, that chess players should not rant about their thinking qualities. :) :) :)

I recommend the book of Adriaan De Groot. Aljechin's protocol is a great example. Comparing this to the Tata Steel videos on youtube with the memory task for the participants of the tournament will show that nothing has changed with human memory performance in the last 90 years. ;) Jonathan Rowson - Chess for zebras is clearly a very good book. But chess players prefer his Seven Deadly Sins if I read the reviews correctly. A proof, that chess players should not rant about their thinking qualities. :) :) :)

CM Sarg0n

edited

#17

I think both of Rowson's books are superb. As well as Hendrik's MFTL.

jupp53

#18

Yes.

But Zebras is outstanding. You can remark the intense studies of Rowson in the five years between the two books.

Yes. But Zebras is outstanding. You can remark the intense studies of Rowson in the five years between the two books.

Youcandothis

#19

Clearly chess is not patterns only, just like it's not tactics only. It's a lot of things combined that give players their strength.

CM Sarg0n

#20

Have you read the given links? @Youcandothis
Wonder why all the people object this chunking approach.

You can call the patterns experience, chunks whatever you like. But that doesn’t really matter. Even converting, handling the clock, everything is stored in chunks/patterns.

Have you read the given links? @Youcandothis Wonder why all the people object this chunking approach. You can call the patterns experience, chunks whatever you like. But that doesn’t really matter. Even converting, handling the clock, everything is stored in chunks/patterns.