## Friday, June 01, 2007

### What was a pattern again?

For the first time, the investigation of 8 problems from Polgars middlegamebook took me 2 hours per problem. In these two hours I made myself familiar with all variations of the solution, with the aid of a computer.

Now I'm revising the same problems again, which takes another 2 hours per problem. The investigation narrows down to the following: how kan I translate a series of subsequent moves IN TIME into a geometrical pattern IN SPACE?

In order to train patterns, you must first have a pattern, right? And a pattern is geometrical, right? The transformation of subsequent moves in time into a geometrical pattern doesn't happen automatic. A conscious effort is necessary.

Update:
I got a comment from a guy named Mocca on my previous post about pesky weeds.
He feeds the suggestion that he is somehow related to Monroi. I answered him.

1. Not all geometry is spatial. Not all patterns are spatial. We recognize the pattern of someone walking, even just from three lights placed on their body in the pitch dark. At a glance we see enough to predict the future...

2. Blue,
to the mind there is a difference between the following:

1th: You are here and imagine that you go out to the mall. Imagine you moving over the roads untill to got there.

2nd: You imagine yourself a few 100 meters above the ground, looking down at the road to the mall.

In the first case you make use of your short term memory for every detail of the trip. Which can be confusing if the trip is long.

In the second case, you see the road AS A WHOLE. You can simply predict what is going to happen, since you see everything that is relevant.

It's this difference that I'm talking about.

3. Ahh, egocentric versus allocentric representation! I will need to chew on this....It may be interesting...

This is discussed here.

4. It is likely a coincidence, but Mandik discusses allocentric/egocentric representations and their relation to consciousness here.

5. I think you are misunderstanding pattern.

The pattern is the pieces on the chess board, matched to a similar pattern that is memorized by the brain.

And it isn't really the same
pattern per se, but rather something that allows quick determination of candidate moves.

Your brain is very very good at matching similar details. But it needs to have had previous programming. Without the programming you would have to calculate every move, every time, and that is just not efficient or doable.

IE, that looks like a tactic. calculate. Yep, that is a tactic all right.

The more of these you do, the easier it is to recognize these in your games. And you will play better.

6. Suppose you take it to superposition theory! Then the pattern becomes a matter of the perspective of the observer.

Consider the observer is aware a pattern exists in his universe, then the recognition may exists. But its all probablistic at that point.

Now, has anyone seen my cat? Here Shroder...

7. HBF,
you might not have noticed, but the past 4 years I have solved 100K+ (meaning: more than 100,000) tactical problems. Alas it didn't bring me what you suggest it will bring me. That's the very reason I'm thinking about other approaches to the matter.
The patterns I'm talking about are not the pieces but the squares they cover. The invisible yet imaginable patterns.

8. Blue,
that are very interesting articles which give me a few idea's to work out.
Both articles don't talk about the things I believe to play a crucial role though: time and short term memory usage.
The egocentric representation of a path (to the mall)has an element of time in it. If I'm in point A, I see the world from point A. If I'm in B, I'm not aware of how the world looked like when I was in A. Nor I'm I aware how the world looks when I will be in C.

The allocentric representation is more abstract and allows me to see A, B and C at the same time.

I belief that the egocentrical look to the world bears heavily on the short term memory. Just as amateurs always see the position on the board as "new", which makes that they have to invent everything time and again.

9. After leaving a queen en prise, I don't look at the board. In my mind, anyway, she's in a superposition. Perhaps my opponent blundered as badly as me.