First let me pose a general question: What is the proposed relationship between "recognition" and "intuition"? It seems to me that for those who believe that repetition and the resulting recognition are the main source of chess/Go strength this is a serious question. In this frame does "intuition" amount to anything more than plagiarism?
In addition, what is the source of innovation in this world? When we look at modern Go, does anyone seriously believe that the rise of Korea and China has been based on a more rigorous application of historical experience? Hasn't it rather been the more rigorous search for and application of new ideas that conflict with classical experience? How has the search been conducted? It certainly has not yet reached the point where we can credit the use of computers.
Recently (just after the Japanese team managed to finish at the bottom of the table in the Chinese League qualifier) I had the opportunity to ask Kato Atsushi 9p what it would take for Japan to regain some sort of competitiveness with China and Japan. Needless to say, we were drinking but Kato-sensei tends to be pretty frank in any case. He replied that when the Ki'in arranged for Cho U, Yamashita, Takao, and Iiyama to go to Ichigaya every day and study with the younger crew like Ichiriki and Ida there might be some hope; but otherwise forget it. The present approach in Japan of basically individual study cannot compete with what is going on in the other countries.
It seems to me that another problem with the recognition school is that of assessment. In every position we see two sides. Which stands better? What does better mean? Problems are easy, they are constructed that way. But what shall we do about game records? Is our assessment based on the final winner in the game? This seems rather nonsensical based on the dramatic ups and downs we see in games between even top pros. But if we are to form some other judgment, what criteria shall we use? For we have to judge, right? If we cannot decide who stands better, do we "intuitively" apply the lessons of White's play or Black's to our own games? In the novel "First Kyu" the protagonist, Wook, solves this conundrum by studying the games of Wu (Go Seigen?) and those of Takagawa from the single player's point of view. The opponents are just foils against whom the masters demonstrate their art. Wook does not seek simply to memorize the patterns but rather to understand the choices made. Obviously he is a traditionalist. He is overjoyed when Wu's play begins to make sense after he works through the 300-odd games in his book only 8 times!
I have also been reading some writings on chess recently to see what insight they can give me into the challenge of improving at Go. I particularly enjoy the "Novice Nook" columns at Chesscafe.com since they are much more aimed at the challenge of teaching and learning chess than specifically at the novice player. The current issue "Analysis Insights" contains the following interesting comment relevant to this thread when discussing a whole-board position given to numerous students for their analysis/assessment:
'While some who took time did solid analysis, with others it was much more like the dreaded "Hand-Waving"... That is, rather than attempting the analysis earlier, they just generalized the factors in the position (doubled pawns, king in front of pawns) and made a decision based on those factors. That overlooks the fact that
principles are made to help you decide what you should do if you can't calculate the answer. If you can calculate the answer, not only is resorting to principles unnecessary, it can be very counterproductive. Someone could object and say they "need the principles, because they can't calculate the answer." This might be true, but no strong player would consider this problem difficult, and if you don't
try to calculate the lines carefully in a problem, you will never learn to do so, and thus master a necessary skill. Your inability to calculate problems will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Practice may not make perfect, but practice will surely make better.' [emphasis in the original]
In addition, I am currently reading "Lessons with a Grandmaster" by Joel Sneed and Boris Gulko. Sneed is a strong amateur and a professional psychologist. Gulko is the grandmaster. The book is a review of a number of Gulko's games in which he challenges Sneed to analyze various positions and explain his thinking. Gulko then criticizes the analyses and explains his professional POV. He contrasts the amateur and professional approach. Below are a few comments perhaps relevant to this thread...
'Boris: In a previous tournament that year against Azmaiparashvili, Radjabov played 4...Nf6. I thought that he might have been worried about my preparation for the game. This is an interesting psychological moment. He was young and I was experienced, and in general, more experienced players excel in quiet positions and endgames where experience plays a more important role than the calculation of concrete variations (which benefits young players)...
Joel: That's really interesting. It is consistent with research on the rise and fall of fluid and crystallized intelligence across the lifespan. Fluid intelligence (e.g. problem solving) tends to decline with age, whereas crystallized intelligence (knowledge) remains stable or perhaps may even improve slightly...'
'Boris: Your thoughts are generally correct but too general. Here it is important to find a concrete way. When you have a position with an advantage in time you have to find an object of attack...'
'Boris: The move b2-b3 is very difficult to see, but for me it was easy to find because of the classic game between Geller and Lerner (Minsk 1979). In a similar position, Geller played b2-b3 and developed the initiative by attacking the e5-pawn...'
'Joel: This looks to me like a draw. It is an even rook and pawn ending. Many of these positions are drawn even when one side is up a pawn. Are you trying to push your opponent into a mistake? Did you think you were a better endgame player?...
Boris: I exchange pieces I don't need and get rid of pieces he needs for counterplay. In this position Black actually has a big advantage. I can create several weaknesses in his camp and have opportunity to increase the pressure. In general, this position is very difficult for White. Rook endgame rules are relative, as are all rules in chess...'
'Boris: Ponomariov was a young star at the time with one serious problem, he had a narrow opening repertoire and against anything that wasn't 1 e4 he played the Tarrasch Defense. So my strategy was to get him into an unfamiliar position because I was more experienced and had more knowledge of different kinds of positions. I thought to myself: "anything but the Tarrasch".'
'Joel: It seems in both diagrams my initial idea is strong and then I go through some analysis and arrive at the wrong move. Can you say something or give some advice about the thinking process and how one thinks or makes decisions in a systematic way?
Boris: It is not a thinking problem. You are not self-confident enough. Sometimes you see good moves but don't trust yourself...'
'Boris: You spend too much time verbalizing and not enough time and energy calculating...'
'Boris: Chess players need to make both positional considerations and calculate variations, but in the right proportion. Your analysis very often is too general and you don't try to find specific finesses in the position based on calculations. You didn't solve this problem because you tried to solve it with generalities not concrete calculations which, by the way, is the most important part of chess...'
It is interesting that in the book there are several exchanges criticizing Sneed's reliance on general considerations. However, as a reader I think that one is missing. There are times that Joel seems to start with a basic assessment that White, for example, stands better and then proceeds to explain/rationalize that idea in terms of the basic strategic ideas that he is familiar with. He then uses those ideas to filter his candidates for the next move. Gulko, on the other hand, always seems to assess the current situation based on an expected continuation (with explanations ready and waiting for why not the alternatives) and a concrete list of advantages/disadvantages at the end of that continuation. I do not believe this puts Gulko in the "Move First, Think Later" camp. However, it would seem to make him an excellent example of the "increased use of concrete analysis" in modern chess as described by John Watson.
As part of preparing this post I downloaded the free sample of the kindle version of "The Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy" by John Watson from Amazon. Everyone who is interested in this thread and has the ability to download the piece should do the same and read the beginning section of chapter 1 - "The Nature of Middlegame Theory". It is a wonderfully articulate summation of his thoughts on the past and present situation. Along the way it reminds us that Reti wrote, "The aim of the modern school is not to treat every position according to one general law, but according to the principle inherent in the position..." already in 1921 (published in English as "Modern Ideas in Chess" in 1923), which was four years
before Nimzowitsch codified chess in "My System".
In turning to how he will deal with the subject in the rest of the book Watson writes:
"In light of the above, the very attempt to elucidate modern chess in general terms may seem old-fashioned and misguided. And yet, our modern literature of games collections, annotated games, and magazine articles reveals a large pool of profound and revealing comments by strong players about new and subtle ways of thinking about the game. Even more powerfully, their games speak to us. It is still possible to discover general wisdom in the mass of modern practice; we simply have to realize that the new ideas will be more qualified and specific than the bold and often discredited generalities of former times. Furthermore there is a dynamic interconnectedness in chess which needs be taken into account; thus, modern guidelines will often have more to do with techniques, sequences and procedures than with static rules..."