3 edits
Originally posted by cheater1
Believe it or not, I HATE attention.
Really? Why do you post in forum's then? Especially daft nonsense like this when you know you're going to get attention. As I keep telling my step-daughter, if she gives in when her daughter cries for something, that's reinforcing the lesson that crying will get her what she wants.
In other words, we've got a kid who's seeking that sort of negative attention. I for one can't be arsed, especially with SOMEONE who can't WORK OUT when EMPHASIS should be used.
Am I flaming you? Beats me. Probably. I don't care though, I'm bored of this drivel.
Now where the hell's the killfile in this site...
I am new to chess, but have quickly fallen in love with the game. When I first read your post, I thought you had a lot of good points, but was surprised at the lashing you took from the others.
I do agree with you, that you shouldn't put anyone down on these forums. This is an opportunity for all of us to learn, we are all created equal.
Confidence is a good thing, but can also be a weakness as well. You said," You would win any debate", but i don't really see you backing your claim? I would like to see you back up what you said, because you had some good points, but it seems to me the others had better ones and checked you on it.
I admire your honestly that you are a misanthrope, but i do find goodness in people and maybe you should see counseling about it? You could debate your Dr on your life and what went wrong to distrust people. Maybe you would lose that one, but who knows. I hope the best for you and would like to keep with the good points on chess. i would like to see you back up your claim.
1 edit
Originally posted by cheater1Clearly, you know nothing about the research. Alfred Binet tested the much vaunted notion of the superiority and effectiveness of a photographic memory in the work that led to his first major publication, Psychologie des Grands Calculateurs et Joueurs d’Échecs (1894).
FACT, the MAIN trait needed to become an elite player is a PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY.
He found that the key was pattern recognition, and what scholars since have come to call chunking. Indeed, all educational theory is built on his understanding of pattern recognition as the key to memory, and the insight that a photographic memory is deficient for most intellectual tasks.
Chess and the study of memory have a long association that goes back to the beginnings of the science of learning. Any time someone praises photographic memory, they reveal--before they say anything else on the subject--that they are ignorant of the relevant scholarship.
Wulegr, although I agree from my earlier post (that cheater1 ignored since he has no way to "debate it"😉 that pattern recognition is the most important part, I think you are off task with chunking.
As far as psychology is concerned chunking involves the changing of stimuli as they enter short term memory in order to make the individual blocks that are memorized larger, but the actual number of things to memorize smaller. This helps memory because normal people can only hold 7 +- 2 things in their STM at a time. Chunking basically streamlines the coding to hold information.
1 edit
Originally posted by tamuziYes I think "chunking" is to do with tricking the limitations of short term memory - for the maximum of 7 or so bits of information. There is a film on Google about Chunking - "My brilliant brain" :
Wulegr, although I agree from my earlier post (that cheater1 ignored since he has no way to "debate it"😉 that pattern recognition is the most important part, I think you are off task with chunking.
As far as psychology is concerned chunking involves the changing of stimuli as they enter short term memory in order to make the individual blocks that are memo ...[text shortened]... things in their STM at a time. Chunking basically streamlines the coding to hold information.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6378985927858479238
I guess chunking plays a very important part in committing games by heart to longer term memory too.
But nevertheless, the term "photographic memory" has been used in relation to GM Carlsen - who represents a clear example for the Super-GM discussion. If it is true that Carlsen can remember games very very easily just from say one play through, then that does offer a significant advantage over ordinary IMs and GMs. Or is it really just "chunking" that he is using ?!
I am not sure though that there are many other Super-GM's who have any claims to "photographic memory" - although Kasparov is legendary for having encyclopaedic opening knowledge.
Apparently someone gave Carlsen a whole database of Sicilian Dragon games, and before that Carlsen hadn't really studied it. He is able to play ultra sharp openings as well as playing all sorts of other openings - which begs the question of his memory advantage to other GMs. How is able to have such a vastly diverse opening repertoire and yet know finesses in mainstream sharp stuff like the Dragon ?! His latest Sicilian dragon win is on a chessbase article:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5255
Originally posted by cheater1Chess GREATNESS cannot be taught or learned
Now is the time for my second SCHOLARLY post on chess.
Chess GREATNESS cannot be taught or learned, you either are born with it or not. Now, for clarity, let me define “greatness” as the chess ELITE. I’m not talking about some 2300 ranked player (there is one on every street corner). I’m not talking about some 2500 GM (they are a dime a dozen). I’m TALKI ...[text shortened]... “Who is your favorite player?” Is everyone here 12 years old?
SUBSTANCE, people, SUBSTANCE.
Fischer concluded this way back in the sixties, tell us something we don't already know!
Originally posted by tamuziI am not off task. I used the term chunking as it is used in much of the research literature. See http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~hsstffg/frg-research/chess_expertise/ for a start.
Wulegr, although I agree from my earlier post ( that cheater1 ignored since he has no way to "debate it" ) that pattern recognition is the most important part, I think you are off task with chunking.
As far as psychology is concerned chunking involves the changing of stimuli as they enter short term memory in order to make the individual blocks that are me ...[text shortened]... things in their STM at a time. Chunking basically streamlines the coding to hold information.
I have a lot of respect for Tryfon Gavriel and his posts on Magnus Carlsen are certainly germane to this discussion. However, there is a world of difference between a journalist making the statement, "Magnus' memory is said to be photographic," and the deployment of the statement, "the MAIN trait needed to become an elite player is a PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY," in a post that pretends to be scholarly.
We can forgive confusion over the lingo regarding memory and cognition in a feature article regarding the tremendous abilities of a fourteen year old chess prodigy. But, a person putting him- or herself forward as an authority on cheating and computers and chess skill that wishes to instruct us regarding the scholarship of memory is another matter. That "scholar" should be better versed in the terminology employed by those that study memory professionally.
A chess player with a photographic memory will have an easier time recognizing random positions. Experts and masters are not better at recalling random positions, however, but they excel at recalling the critical elements in positions that exhibit key patterns.
Originally posted by Tryfon GavrielYou're being very kind by only calling it 'a bit suspect'.
What you said here though is a bit suspect:
"Computers are better than humans is that they draw NOT from knowledge, but from a massive database of moves/positions. That is how photographic memory works, like a computer….a database. "
From the wording in his post, it seems he believes that computers use databases throughout the game, and this is the main reason they have an advantage over humans.
Originally posted by SwissGambitRight. It is clear from the initial post that cheater_1 understands neither chess computers nor human cognition theory.
You're being very kind by only calling it 'a bit suspect'.
From the wording in his post, it seems he believes that computers use databases throughout the game, and this is the main reason they have an advantage over humans.
Computers excel at calculation. They need databases to get to a part of the game where this ability to calculate will produce an advantage. Humans, because they excel in pattern recognition, can sometimes see beyond the horizon of the computer's search. These instances of human advantage have become extremely rare as chess engines and the hardware running them have become more powerful.
There is more to Magnus Carlsen than just the ablity to memorise games.
Much more.
He can calculate very deep and accurate, he has the nerve that top
players require and his positional judgement appears to be spot on.
These three requirements are mandatory for a super GM not a party
trick memorising 100's of games.
Originally posted by tamuziI'm citing professional literature in the field of psychology focused on chess and memory and you're taking issue with my comments based on something you read in a textbook?
wulegr, I'm going straight from my cog psych textbook. Chunking is what I and Tryfon call it.
And I'd like proof that recognizing a position is essential, or helpful in analyzing it correctly, given no time limit.
Good grief.
2 edits
Originally posted by cheater1From the link given:
Now is the time for my second SCHOLARLY post on chess.
[snip]
FACT, the MAIN trait needed to become an elite player is a PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY. Computers are not smart. They don’t have a brain. The reason why computers are better than humans is that they draw NOT from knowledge, but from a massive database of moves/positions. That is how photographic me ...[text shortened]... abase.
http://www.exforsys.com/career-center/memory-skills/photographic-memory.html
[snip]
One of the problems with having a photographic memory is that you may absorb too much information, and you may have to deal with a lot of data that is irrelevant. Having to deal with large amounts of irrelevant data could reduce your ability to efficiently recall information.
From your own citation, we might adduce that skilled chess players need to cull out the irrelevant possibilities in order to select quality candidate moves from the dozens of possibilities at each ply. Chess engines also need to prune ineffective choices, which they do by adding null move heuristics, futility pruning, negamax search, and many other algorithms to strengthen brute force calculation. The strongest engines--Rybka, Hiarcs, Fritz--are noteworthy for their "understanding" of positional factors.
Photographic memory does not seem to be helpful.
Grandmasters exhibit exceptional skills at quickly focusing upon only the most productive candidate moves. How do they do this? Since Binet, psychologists have conducted scientific studies of the memory of skilled chess players. The hypothesis that photographic memory was the key was the first one tested, and consequently the first one to be rejected. Notions of pattern recognition emerged in place of photographic memory ad a working hypothesis. This hypothesis has been further tested and begins to seem a plausible theory.
Chase and Simon, The Mind's Eye in Chess (1973) offered a theory of chunking to explain their results. In their research, they showed subjects random positions and positions from actual played games. There were not substantial differences in the abilities of strong and weak players in remembering the random positions, but there was a strong correspondence between higher Elo and better recollection of portions of the positions from actual games--stronger players remembered castled positions with and without a fianchettoed bishop and dynamic relationships, such as pins
Originally posted by WulebgrMemory is a thing and Intelligence another;
From the link given:
One of the problems with having a photographic memory is that you may absorb too much information, and you may have to deal with a lot of data that is irrelevant. Having to deal with large amounts of irrelevant data could reduce your ability to efficiently recall information.
From your own citation, we might adduce that skil ...[text shortened]... tled positions with and without a fianchettoed bishop and dynamic relationships, such as pins
The chessplayer destroys the Intelligence of his opponent bringing up Hell -Bobby Fischer did it all the time;
Top strategy is used in order to undone whatever preoccupation has done; top strategy is a product of Intelligence.
So the intelligent chessplayer destroys the Hell brought up by his opponent, and then he gets the initiative. This is enough for mobilizing a sharp tactical machine.
Intelligence is not Memory; Memory is many pieces of information available to yourself at will. And Intelligence is to get the maximum out of the position. Therefore the chessplayer has to think out of the box if he deserves to be characterised as "intelligent"; and definately he has not ready answers for every case/ position.
It seems to me that Intelligence as I pose it is a quality that it cannot exist without Understanding. Therefore the chessplayer is not merely "intelligent". He is mature enough to use his Wisdom, thus Wisdom is the quality that makes the difference.
Now, cheater1 insists that the Human is natural born wise😀😀😀