Author: Oliver Roese
Date: 11:56:32 08/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 2001 at 12:26:09, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>On August 11, 2001 at 11:26:31, Oliver Roese wrote:
>
>>On August 09, 2001 at 12:06:45, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote:
>>
>>>On August 09, 2001 at 05:25:37, Graham Laight wrote:
>>>
>>>>Here's the link:
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1480000/1480365.stm
>>>>
>>>>Seems the brain magnetic resonance scanning confirms what we've all suspected -
>>>>that GMs tend to use their memory, wheras weak players have to do it by
>>>>calculation (the chess computer method).
>>>>
>>>>The number of patterns a GM is said to be familiar with seems to have
>>>>mysteriously risen from 50,000 ("Chess Skill In Man And Machine") to 100,000 -
>>>>any idea how that happened, anyone?
>>>>
>>>>-g
>>>
>>>It is not clear to me what a "pattern" is, as long as it is not clearly defined
>>>the number of patterns can be any number you want.
>>>José.
>>
>>Good point.
>>Those patterns probably exists just as dreams of some (bad?) scientists.
>>Nevertheless if there is something out there who knows how to identify and
>>count these patterns, please tell us about them.
>>
>>Oliver
>
>I don't know anything about this cognitive stuff, but here is an example of a
>pattern.
>
>If you are watching a human play chess, and the human (white) has a bishop on
>a4, the human will very rarely play b3, even if black has no b-pawn to trap the
>bishop.
>
>This is true all the way up the a-file. If the bishop is on a6, the human isn't
>going to play b5.
>
>When people say "pattern" they are thinking about sexy attack patterns on the
>king-side, but there are plenty of little things they strive for or avoid
>elsewhere.
>
>bruce
Sure, i know what you are talking about.
This is that could be coined as "first-order"-terms (from dr hyatt), in analogy
to multidimensional taylorseries.
But i personally dont think that these kind of information is stored
explicitely, as the name suggests it.
Since that would be trillions of patterns to handle.
For example i might dont play b3, since i feel/think that
this leaves the bishop in bad shape. This is something different
than to match a pattern.
In a relational database i have no difficulties to count the rows
with a simple statement.
But the human mind is surely not a relational database.
So why do some scientists continue to count pattern??
How do they do that?
Thats my point.
Oliver
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.