Originally posted by orion25that was what I was trying to explain. I don't see how I "forget" that 🙂.
you forget that pattern recognition is also subconsious, pretty much the way you explain it actually, you don't think hey I've seen this before, you just find the solution much quicker or even instantly. It's tactics training, not study... (study is refered to the conscious mind while training to the subcounsious)
hi PP
I've never played any combination that I made up at the board.
I've had seen the pattern/idea before and it suggested itself to me
in my calculations.
Your quote.
I must have solved like 20K tactical puzzles and I really don't recall
saying "oh, I had seen such structure before in such such position or game".
Just proves what a waste of time studying via a screen is.
When you see someone you know your mind immedialtly recognises
their face. It's instant. Once met never forgotten.
Sometimes you may forget their name or where you met them but you
Never Forget a Face.
What you have been doing is looking at pictures of faces.
You have not been introduced to them, you have not spoken to them,
you have not seen them smile, frown, laugh or cry.
That is why every new position you look at is a complete stranger.
The mind requires 3D images for the memory to click.
You have to see or solve the idea/pattern on a board
It's the only way. It has to be done.
I know it's laborious and a pain (though I enjoy it).
It's what worked for me and I can only tell you what worked for me.
How on earth can you be expected to recognise someone in a sea
of faces if you have never met them before.
The more people you meet the better chance you have of picking them
out of the crowd.
Some wear bright coloured clothes and are easy to spot.
Other disguise themselves but with 3d training you can still spot them.
I expect others to argue in favour of screen training. So be it.
I have 100's of GM's including 13 World Champions who never learned
their trade via a screen on my side.
It's what worked for me and I can only tell you what worked for me.
another quote:
thousands would have reached master level in terms of tactical ability in like 1 hour,
because there are actually very, very few patterns that you can distinguish.
🙂
There are thousands of faces to meet on the chessboard and even
after a lifetime you will not meet them all.
Chess is 99% tactics is often quoted and I've use it myself.
However it's not uncommon for a game to be decided by one tactical
trick (the winning of a piece/pawn) and then technique.
The mating combination is the easist to play, it ends the game.
You don't have to look out for stings in the tail or rely on technique.
I and a lot of other players on this site could spot and play most
mating combinations that have appeared in WC matches.
That does not put us in the same class as World Champions.
The hard bit, the very hard bit is getting to the position in the first place.
The abilty to solve combinations is a required skill but it's not
the only skill one requires to be a good chess player.
Originally posted by greenpawn34let me summarize what you've said in reply to my post:
hi PP
I've never played any combination that I made up at the board.
I've had seen the pattern/idea before and it suggested itself to me
in my calculations.
Your quote.
[b]
I must have solved like 20K tactical puzzles and I really don't recall
saying "oh, I had seen such structure before in such such position or game".
Just proves wha uired skill but it's not
the only skill one requires to be a good chess player.[/b]
"another quote:
thousands would have reached master level in terms of tactical ability in like 1 hour,
because there are actually very, very few patterns that you can distinguish.
🙂
There are thousands of faces to meet on the chessboard and even
after a lifetime you will not meet them all.
...
"your quote.
I must have solved like 20K tactical puzzles and I really don't recall
saying "oh, I had seen such structure before in such such position or game".
Just proves what a waste of time studying via a screen is."
...
"I have 100's of GM's including 13 World Champions who never learned
their trade via a screen on my side."
hey, it's you again, right, anti-tech guy. do you realize what you've said can be applied to any technology in history? I'm sure there were many, many great travelers, I mean world champion travelers, grandmaster level travelers in the world before the invention of engines, or even the wheel for god's sake!
and about the infinite amount of distinguishable tactical patterns. be welcome to name more than 30 and I'll shut up. there simply aren't that many. what you're talking about is simply different tactical positions. of course there are an infinite amount of them! what kind of argument is that? that's what I'm saying. every different position is somehow a different application of certain and a limited number of themes, and what you implicitly suggest as tactical training (even if you don't realize that's what you're suggesting), which is "learning the themes" is totally worthless. I learned every tactical theme in like the first week of my chess life, and I totally sucked at tactics.
you don't get better at tactics the same way you get better at openings or endgames. you don't build up a tactical reference base that you keep coming back to. knowing the concepts and themes mean absolutely nothing. you solve thousands and thousands of puzzles or calculate tactical (whatever that is) positions that carry the same themes over and over.
that's why, asking for proof of improvement with tactical analysis with computers (or any other training material) is meaningless.
"hey, it's you again, right, anti-tech guy. "
That's me, doubt if I'll ever change. Though I do listen to others and
am seeing where computers can help.
I can also see where it does not help and infact can actually damage
your chess.
So.
Hey it's you again - I want to become a good chess player without
the effect.
You are proof, by your own admission.
"I learned every tactical theme in like the first week of my chess life,
and I totally sucked at tactics."
that doing 20k of on screen tactics does not appear to work.
Sorry you are not a Tal or Alekhine after one week.
Never mind, perhaps next week.
Good Luck
Originally posted by greenpawn34why are you being so difficult? this is beginning to seem deliberate. are you completely out of arguments?
"hey, it's you again, right, anti-tech guy. "
That's me, doubt if I'll ever change. Though I do listen to others and
am seeing where computers can help.
I can also see where it does not help and infact can actually damage
your chess.
So.
Hey it's you again - I want to become a good chess player without
the effect.
You are proof, by your o u are not a Tal or Alekhine after one week.
Never mind, perhaps next week.
Good Luck
what I meant was, I got OK (not master level OK, but maybe low-expert level OK) in tactics only after doing around 20K puzzles, which cost me, I don't know, a life ?🙂.
the point was, this did NOT happen in the week I learned all the tactical themes like fork, pin, intervention etc. it happened after years of painstaking effort. learning tactical themes is almost useless.