Chess is all about patterns? • page 1/3 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

I was reading "Move First, Think Later" book by W. Hendriks the other day, where the notion that chess is all about pattern recognition is very much advocated. It is interesting that his nemesis, Jeremy Silman, who disagrees with him about almost everything, agrees on this point. In his book review he writes:

"
When people ask me how good players got good, I say, “They acquire tens of thousands of chess patterns.” The fact is, the more patterns you absorb the stronger you will be. That includes positional patterns, tactical patterns, structural patterns, piece placement patterns, timing patterns, and on and on it goes. And the way to get patterns? Play over countless grandmaster games quickly… just rack up the numbers as you see pawn structures float by, combinations hit the board, weaknesses exploited, etc. Over time, your subconscious will absorb all the patterns zipping past and suddenly you’ll find that it all just computes. Keep in mind that the more games the better, and if you have aspirations to become an IM or GM, you need to look at 100,000 (preferably lots more than that) games.
"

(full review: http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Move-First-Think-Later-p3741.htm)

Basically, if you go throu 100.000 master games, your brain will absorb patterns and you'll be able to intuitively spot the good candidate moves in almost any given position. There could be, according to Silman, some shortcuts for club players, methods that can help amateurs to sometimes spot the right move even without going throu 100.000 master games. But if you want to be really really strong (titled), going throu games is the only way.

I am wondering how can this theory explain old masters, like Adolf Anderssen or Paul Morphy? Morphy didn't have any master games to go through (let alone 100.000 of them), no puzzle books, no collection of positional exercises. And yet he was a strong player, even in today's criteria he would certanly be a titled player.

So how did old masters learn to play good and solid chess? Something doesn't compute here...

I was reading "Move First, Think Later" book by W. Hendriks the other day, where the notion that chess is all about pattern recognition is very much advocated. It is interesting that his nemesis, Jeremy Silman, who disagrees with him about almost everything, agrees on this point. In his book review he writes: " When people ask me how good players got good, I say, “They acquire tens of thousands of chess patterns.” The fact is, the more patterns you absorb the stronger you will be. That includes positional patterns, tactical patterns, structural patterns, piece placement patterns, timing patterns, and on and on it goes. And the way to get patterns? Play over countless grandmaster games quickly… just rack up the numbers as you see pawn structures float by, combinations hit the board, weaknesses exploited, etc. Over time, your subconscious will absorb all the patterns zipping past and suddenly you’ll find that it all just computes. Keep in mind that the more games the better, and if you have aspirations to become an IM or GM, you need to look at 100,000 (preferably lots more than that) games. " (full review: http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Move-First-Think-Later-p3741.htm) Basically, if you go throu 100.000 master games, your brain will absorb patterns and you'll be able to intuitively spot the good candidate moves in almost any given position. There could be, according to Silman, some shortcuts for club players, methods that can help amateurs to sometimes spot the right move even without going throu 100.000 master games. But if you want to be really really strong (titled), going throu games is the only way. I am wondering how can this theory explain old masters, like Adolf Anderssen or Paul Morphy? Morphy didn't have any master games to go through (let alone 100.000 of them), no puzzle books, no collection of positional exercises. And yet he was a strong player, even in today's criteria he would certanly be a titled player. So how did old masters learn to play good and solid chess? Something doesn't compute here...

vio7 edited

#2

the classical time control back then was longer as it is now(1866 world championship match was 20 moves every 2 hours).

zeroPoint_NRG

#3

Yeah, I think there is someting called talent, gift, call it as you want. I watched a tv show where 3 years old russian boy, plays against Karpov. Of course Karpov beat him, but the question remains the same, how that child plays so good chess, it just had no physical possibility to go through 100K games, that little child even could not speak properly.
There is another famous story about Capablanca, when he was infant and watched a game between his father & father's friend.
Capablanca's father won, but some time after that the future champion point to the players a combination in middlegame where his father gets mated. And at this time Capablanca didnt play chess at all.
The next example is the funny picture that comes in my mind of the young infant Reshevsky playing simul against 9(if i am not misteken about number) masters :)
Same story with unknown little boy in Latvia, which later become famous with the nickname "The Wizard from Riga"
Basically I think, some people for some reason are much more gifted than rest of the people and it is not just the chess, it is about all shperes of the life, physics, mathematics, biology, chemistry,engineering
The miracle happens when that gift is noticed at early age by the others or best by gift bearer itself and then it gets developed.
I think as humanity we owe our progress, to such "gift bearers"

Yeah, I think there is someting called talent, gift, call it as you want. I watched a tv show where 3 years old russian boy, plays against Karpov. Of course Karpov beat him, but the question remains the same, how that child plays so good chess, it just had no physical possibility to go through 100K games, that little child even could not speak properly. There is another famous story about Capablanca, when he was infant and watched a game between his father & father's friend. Capablanca's father won, but some time after that the future champion point to the players a combination in middlegame where his father gets mated. And at this time Capablanca didnt play chess at all. The next example is the funny picture that comes in my mind of the young infant Reshevsky playing simul against 9(if i am not misteken about number) masters :) Same story with unknown little boy in Latvia, which later become famous with the nickname "The Wizard from Riga" Basically I think, some people for some reason are much more gifted than rest of the people and it is not just the chess, it is about all shperes of the life, physics, mathematics, biology, chemistry,engineering The miracle happens when that gift is noticed at early age by the others or best by gift bearer itself and then it gets developed. I think as humanity we owe our progress, to such "gift bearers"

jonesmh

#4

How did great scientists go against conventional knowledge and discover a breakthrough? Who was disgusted by their first taste of beer and still drank as adults? Although we stand on the shoulders of giants, we are constantly proving them wrong. Now we're trying to rewrite our rules due to the success of AlphaZero.

Patterns help us to formulate a plan and suggest candidate moves, but only (correct,) concrete analysis will show us the move we should play.

How did great scientists go against conventional knowledge and discover a breakthrough? Who was disgusted by their first taste of beer and still drank as adults? Although we stand on the shoulders of giants, we are constantly proving them wrong. Now we're trying to rewrite our rules due to the success of AlphaZero. Patterns help us to formulate a plan and suggest candidate moves, but only (correct,) concrete analysis will show us the move we should play.

Benedictine

#5

@LukaCro Kids absorb patterns just by playing, very quickly, so the patterns are gained just by playing in those cases.

In the question of 'is chess just all about pattern recognition?' The answer is, yes basically.

@LukaCro Kids absorb patterns just by playing, very quickly, so the patterns are gained just by playing in those cases. In the question of 'is chess just all about pattern recognition?' The answer is, yes basically.

Kusokosla

#6

I would be very interested to know how old masters trained, I even made a thread about it. My guess is that however little chess literature there was, they knew it well, and other than that they just sat at the board and analyzed.

CM Sarg0n

edited

#7

I think „chunks“ is the more appropriate term which is used in this context (brain science). It comes down to experience.

It is way better to explore those patterns by playing then just to read about them somewhere. The old masters worked chess all day, all night. So they gathered their chunks.

I think „chunks“ is the more appropriate term which is used in this context (brain science). It comes down to experience. It is way better to explore those patterns by playing then just to read about them somewhere. The old masters worked chess all day, all night. So they gathered their chunks.

Toscani

#8

Use the pattern or you'll forget about it.

Kusokosla

#9

One thing worth noting is that old masters worked slowly, games would last up to a full day.. 8 hours. Morphy was really fast in comparison, taking just under an hour per game... So, that’s lots of slow calculating and visualizing. Makes sense... this is how we teach music and language, slow and repetitive.

I always notice if I work slow, solving difficult puzzles without computer tips or hints, my rating goes up, if I blitz without analyzing, rating goes down.

One thing worth noting is that old masters worked slowly, games would last up to a full day.. 8 hours. Morphy was really fast in comparison, taking just under an hour per game... So, that’s lots of slow calculating and visualizing. Makes sense... this is how we teach music and language, slow and repetitive. I always notice if I work slow, solving difficult puzzles without computer tips or hints, my rating goes up, if I blitz without analyzing, rating goes down.

teerdurchzogen

#10

@LukaCro You might want to read the foreword by GM Axel Bachmann of GM Mauricio Flores Rios' book "Chess Structures – A Grandmaster Guide": https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Flores_Rios_Chess_Structures-excerpt.pdf
GM Bachmann says his method to improve was going through close to 100.000 recently played games by masters over the period of a decade. Foreword and preface indicate, that GM Flores Rios used that approach to become a much better player himself when he (initially) felt strong as a tactician, but weak as a positional player (to an extent that he tried to only play super sharp, tactical positions), although he read many books about strategy. Strategic rules don't always apply, and going through master games is very concrete compared to seeing some examples for certain strategical and positional ideas. Personally I think I would need verbally annotated games, they help me the most; arranged by openings (that I play and / or want to learn). That's also very efficient because you learn about openings and ideas in them which you are likely to replicate in your own games.

@LukaCro You might want to read the foreword by GM Axel Bachmann of GM Mauricio Flores Rios' book "Chess Structures – A Grandmaster Guide": https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Flores_Rios_Chess_Structures-excerpt.pdf GM Bachmann says his method to improve was going through close to 100.000 recently played games by masters over the period of a decade. Foreword and preface indicate, that GM Flores Rios used that approach to become a much better player himself when he (initially) felt strong as a tactician, but weak as a positional player (to an extent that he tried to only play super sharp, tactical positions), although he read many books about strategy. Strategic rules don't always apply, and going through master games is very concrete compared to seeing some examples for certain strategical and positional ideas. Personally I think I would need verbally annotated games, they help me the most; arranged by openings (that I play and / or want to learn). That's also very efficient because you learn about openings and ideas in them which you are likely to replicate in your own games.