under stand

memory versus understanding.


here i think is the crucial point. to say that a grandmaster dude has 100,000 patterns in memory makes me want to quickly get 100large into MY memory. just think, if i had 100dogs worth of patterns in my bean i would be like... like a guy with a huge bean that's for sure.

but... i have been thinking. about two things.

1 - why tempo hasn't said "welcome to the new knight Sparfy, the "Retard Knight" or something. and...


2 - the 100,000 patterns. and here is my thinking: do they know 100k because they memorized them? or do they now know how to see those things and that makes 100k?


ok - let me explain... or at least make it more difficult for you to follow.

i can recognize a crud load of hockey attacks. like with 3 on 2 and 2 on 3 and when you get a guy at such and such a place and all. but show me a specific play and i wouldn't be able to tell you if they score on it. my memory is not that good. but i could tell you how dangerous it looks. what the odds of scoring. and so i think that chess is the same in some ways. the granddaddy dude can look at a board, and maybe he can remember some of the position - but i am thinking he can look and tell you how dangerous it is. based on his UNDERSTANDING of the way it works. and so i think that the 100k is a SIDE EFFECT of learning the amazing basics of chess.

so. i would say it would be better to learn to understand WHAT makes a position good or bad... not to try to just add to your memory. i don't want to rely on my memory i want to rely on my thinking.


in other news i have my CTS rating up to the 1440s now... so 60 points to go :-)

open up and sat AHHH!!!

so i think i am weak in opennings. just saying. so i have been trying to figure out some good weird ones. things i can just learn a bit - not spend 3 years mastering. been fun. playing new opennings for me the dainish and smith-mora-less gambit