Originally posted by WulebgrYou are right, my professional literature Cognitive Psychology MUST be less accurate than your internet site.
I'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?
Good grief.
mmm hmmm.
I'm just saying, don't used mixed terms.
Good Grief to you.
Originally posted by tamuziIt seems to me that psychology stinks because it cannot liberate the Human from rigid preoccupations regarding the world and themselves; I think that it is a tool of minor importance, for the Human has the chance to really open his eye of Wisdom otherways; but that's another story my friend😵
unless combined into linguistics, I agree
Originally posted by tamuziRead the link: it is a professional site of a Fernand Gobet, a leading researcher on chess and learning, memory, cognition. His computer model, CHREST: Chunk Hierarchy and Retrieval Structure "simulates human behavior in perception and memory chess experiments." The references that he cites--from the leading studies regarding chess and cognition--demonstrate that my use of the word chunking is rooted in the professional literature.
You are right, my professional literature Cognitive Psychology MUST be less accurate than your internet site.
You need to learn the difference between scholarship produced for the consumption of other scholars--i.e. professional literature--and tertiary works produced for the consumption of novices and initiates in classrooms--textbooks. Ask your professor to explain it to you.
I pointed out in my initial post in this thread that cheater1's claim to offer a "scholarly post on chess" is nonsense because his central claim demonstrates ignorance of the relevant scholarly work in the field. Do you have an issue with that?
I would think not, because you offered the first sensible post in this thread:
Originally posted by tamuzi
Why are we confusing Perfect memory with situation recognition?
There is great stress in chess to not memorize lines, but rather the ideas behind the lines. When elite chess players see a set-up (they will recognize it from seeing it/playing it often enough) but they will be able to pick up the game because they know the chess patterns that allow them to analyze at any point.
Photographic memory doesn't not come into play here, rather normal repetition memory that we all have.
I think you would have an easier time trying to argue that the greats are great because they understand and apply patterns much better than we patzers. Because honestly, chess is a closed system, the game is patterned and knowing these patterns is what makes one successful.
It's too bad that you were subsequently confused by my cryptic, "He [Binet] found that the key was pattern recognition, and what scholars since have come to call chunking." I could have written more, of course, and it might have been more clear. Binet's initial study of blindfold chess players, and the drawing by Sittenfeld--one of his subjects--have been referenced and expanded in dozens of subsequent works.
I did not say that chunking was the same thing as pattern recognition, but that eighty years of scholarship from Binet (1994) to Chase and Simon (1973) have deployed such terms to explain the mental processes associated with chess skill. The notion of chunking, was introduced by Chase and Simon. These scholars, and those since, do not have all the answers, but they have demonstrated that photographic memory is not the key.
Even so, the term photographic memory gets bantered about in casual conversations among laymen, and occasionally shows up in scholarly literature too. It certainly has been put forth in descriptions of Magnus Carlsen's tremendous gifts of memory (as Tryfon Gavriel pointed out), gifts that seem to render him unique even in the exclusive group of super-GMs. I hear teachers, especially in elementary schools where I teach chess, use the term photographic memory to refer to a wide variety of memory skills. It is a common and popular misunderstanding that the term photographic memory connotes superior memory skills. Even the source cited by cheater1 challenges that myth, as I've already noted.
As stated here not only previously by myself and later on by others,photographic memory is not essential to quality chess play,standard quality but well trained regular memory is required for best play. Only specific portions of each board position are the main areas of concentration for the best of players in determining the most suitable candidate moves,from which the final choice is selected by correct or incorrect analysis of the consequences of the moves chosen for consideration.The method most often used to select the possible candidate moves is to recall from normal memory those patterns of chessboard positions which from experience appear most likely to lead to a winning position,be it reliant purely upon tactical considerations or combined with positional,or positional alone.Memory of previously experienced identical or similar board positions is therefore the main tool most often but not exclusively used in move play decision,but this does not imply the use of photographic memory which is as previously stated an entirely different type----------------😉
Everyone here is an amateur chess player. The idea is to enjoy the game, it is not essential to become a grandmaster. In order to give people as good a game as you can it is good to try to improve, but it really isn´t compulsory.
Having said all that, the thing that distinguishes strong players from lesser mortals, more than any other factor is the ability to calculate the consequences of moves accurately. Imagination, cunning and strategic insight are all well and good, but the technical ability to work out what is going to happen a few moves down the line is what really distinguishes players.
Having a good memory is useful for this. I´m sure this scenario is familiar. You spot a move, but work out it´s no good, and look for something else. You don´t find anything satisfactory, and then rediscover the move from earlier. You remember that it was promising and play it and then have your opponent show you the problem you forgot about. Wishful thinking overrides your memory.
However memory plays second fiddle to being able to see what´s in front of you. For most people the main problem is failing to spot all their opponents possibilities. One of my favourite tricks is to have pieces doing their new task on their new square, but also their old task on the old square which they can no longer do. This is a one move blunder which is due to a failure to visualise a simple change in the position properly Clearly, if you want to calculate really deeply then being able to remember the position you are calculating is important - but it´s no use if you can´t see one move deep. Work on that first. You´ll probably find that being able to do that makes it easier to do the memory tricks that are being discussed.
Originally posted by Black SocksI was making two separate points. The first was that it´s a game. There´s no absolute reason for people to improve unless they want to. The way people write it sometimes sounds as if not being very good is some kind of moral weakness. The second is that there´s no point in trying to calculate 10 moves deep if you keep missing half your opponents possibilities.
You miss the point. Where is the fun in your explanation ? We play because it is fun.
As an addendum to my post, when people are playing chess you hear ¨I forgot about that¨ a lot less than ¨I didn´t see that¨.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou've hit upon one of the key blunders that frequently undermines long periods of deep analysis. Often the piece in question that was controlling a key square is now sitting on the side of the board.
One of my favourite tricks is to have pieces doing their new task on their new square, but also their old task on the old square which they can no longer do. This is a one move blunder which is due to a failure to visualise a simple change in the position properly
'Missing 'opponents possible best moves in any game is quite obviously a fatal error,this is of course why in any game be it chess or something else it is necessary to play both sides of the game as one game and not two separate games.A desire to play better in any competitive game/sport etc although usually desirable for most players is quite obviously a personal decision and not atal a necessity for simple enjoyment without too much seriousness involved. good for some,not so desirable for some others,a simple choice!------------🙂
Originally posted by cheater1You are right about everything. However I am not sure if photographic memory alone will work. Also the ability to calculate variations fast, visualize, plan etc.
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.
It is very interesting in this political correct world we live in, many morons believe that every individual is equal, and that there are no differences between the races. Absolute hogwash.
IQ is mostly genetic and influenced very little by the environment .
But yes, with hard work, dedication and passion there is a personal barrier which is dependent on a particular type of intelligence you possess as well as dependent on photographic memory.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtwell said, Bruce
Everyone here is an amateur chess player. The idea is to enjoy the game, it is not essential to become a grandmaster. In order to give people as good a game as you can it is good to try to improve, but it really isn´t compulsory.
Having said all that, the thing that distinguishes strong players from lesser mortals, more than any other factor is the ...[text shortened]... ind that being able to do that makes it easier to do the memory tricks that are being discussed.