Originally posted by arrakisShe is an amazing woman and an interesting chess teacher, in one of her books, she outright admits she can't/doesn't even calculate, and is an advocate of pattern recognition exercises that allow you to make several good moves within a few seconds.
http://www.comcast.net/news/strange/index.jsp?cat=STRANGE&fn=/2005/08/03/193897.html
Originally posted by DeadBeSwallowedPattern recognition becomes a big part of the game at that point. However what happens when you have a position you don't recognise. What do you do then? Give up?
How do you know she is lying or not? How do you think players like Fischer can win in games where he has one minute and his opponents have 10 minutes?
Originally posted by XanthosNZThose games rarely come about though, unless you play games against players who deliberately try to mix things up and make the game as strange as possible, but usually when opponents do this, they are hurting themselves, they don't do it because they are good moves.
Pattern recognition becomes a big part of the game at that point. However what happens when you have a position you don't recognise. What do you do then? Give up?
Originally posted by DeadBeSwallowedWhat are you talking about? Are you saying that every single is similar? Do you know how many possibilities there are for each and every chess move during a chess game? There is no way that ANY grandmaster has played every position, and knows every little intricacy from "pattern recognition". Calculation IS NEEDED. Also, a move is only as good as the idea behind it, so don't say that strange moves are often inferior. Perhaps it is an innovation? Also, Bobby Fischer was a superior player to begin with, and you have no idea how rapidly he could calculate (and with un-belieavable precision). The End.
Those games rarely come about though, unless you play games against players who deliberately try to mix things up and make the game as strange as possible, but usually when opponents do this, they are hurting themselves, they don't do it because they are good moves.
Originally posted by DeadBeSwallowedSo if all her moves are based on pattern recognition rather than calculation it shouldn't matter how much time she spends on her moves. I mean it doesn't take more than 15 seconds or so to notice a pattern.
Those games rarely come about though, unless you play games against players who deliberately try to mix things up and make the game as strange as possible, but usually when opponents do this, they are hurting themselves, they don't do it because they are good moves.
So why doesn't she play that fast against other GM's?
Originally posted by XanthosNZObviously, Polgar has to calculate, although the process is probably largely subconscious and probably operates differently than the highly analytical process laid out by Kotov.
So if all her moves are based on pattern recognition rather than calculation it shouldn't matter how much time she spends on her moves. I mean it doesn't take more than 15 seconds or so to notice a pattern.
So why doesn't she play that fast against other GM's?
Also, one can qualify when the analysis actually happens. She may not analyze all that much OTB at tourney time, but may exhaustively analyze positions at home.
Originally posted by checkmate99Kotov laid out a highly analytical process for chess calculation? Where did he do so? I want to study this.
Obviously, Polgar has to calculate, although the process is probably largely subconscious and probably operates differently than the highly analytical process laid out by Kotov.
Also, one can qualify when the analysis actually happens. She may not analyze all that much OTB at tourney time, but may exhaustively analyze positions at home.