4 ms·
I'm pretty sure this isn't how chess masters actually play chess. That'd be too slow and error prone. They pattern match very heavily in the beginning and towar
by m0zg 7y ago
I'm pretty sure this isn't how chess masters actually play chess. That'd be too slow and error prone. They pattern match very heavily in the beginning and towards the end. And all those patterns would be wrong on a larger board with more chess pieces. At least for chess.
- mindgam3 7y agoI hate to break it to you, but this is exactly how chess masters play chess. Including bullet. Source: am a master, rated 2500 in bullet.
- m0zg 7y agoYet you yourself also mention openings and endgame above in the thread. What's that if not pattern matching?
- mindgam3 7y agoWait, are you referring to the comment in which I refer to them as “fringe concepts”, “already moot”, and “edge cases”? Please don’t attempt to twist my words in order to support your own bogus position. Act like a chess master and just resign already.
- m0zg 7y agoI'm not a chess master myself, my knowledge of this topic is from what I've read of Kasparov. The guy is all about patterns. He even advises to play using a physical board as much as possible, to improve _visual_ recognition of patterns. Thing is, you might not even recognize this as "pattern recognition" per se. Call it "intuition", call it "experience", or whatever you like, but combinatorially I'm pretty sure you're not searching the entire tree of possible positions several moves ahead - that's literally impossible to do for a human to do in the finite time allotted to a game. You're relying on patterns to constrain the search, much like a modern neural algorithm would constrain its search using a cost function. That's what's meant by "pattern recognition" here, not rigid recognition of fixed positions. That is also combinatorially impossible for a human to precisely memorize.
- ScottBurson 7y ago"Center control", "square control", etc. all sound to me like things discovered by pattern matching. Yes, the patterns are large and somewhat abstract, but they're still patterns.
- newen 7y agoNo, huge majority of those patterns are going to transfer over to the 10x10 board.
- m0zg 7y agoHow? Remember, there'd have to be more pieces, and the new pieces could have different moves. The game would also be dramatically more difficult, combinatorially.
- newen 7y agoChess is already very difficult, combinatorially. Chess players learn patterns with the current pieces. Those patterns include patterns that work both locally and globally. When learning a particular pattern, chess players typically can generalize that pattern to other cases. (This is what tactics training is all about. You're almost never going to find the exact same pattern that you learn in tactics training in the real world but tactics training will help you recognize similar patterns.) New pieces are going to give you new patterns you have to learn. But ranks, files, and diagonals are not going away. New pieces will likely be a bishop-knight combo piece and a rook-knight combo piece as in Seirawan chess. Therefore, they will still have common patterns you can recognize. The larger board is not a non-issue but it's not anywhere near as drastic a change as you're making it out to be. Most tactics in chess don't make use of the fact that the board is 8x8 rather than 10x10. They'll work in both boards.