- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Why Are People Good At Chess?

#3

Great article, but think the conclusion misses the point of 'Chunking Theory', which till today is one of the best theories of memory, maybe even consciousness (predictive processing / Active Inference).

Almost all introductory psychology books include Chunking Theory when describing short-term, and long-term memory (Miller's experiment). Miller's experiment had nothing to do with chess, and till today for psychology, Miller remains much more important than deGroot, Chase, Simon,..., who are actually more useful for computer science than psychology. (Note Simon won the Nobel Prize for economics, and Chess Chunking and Chase Simon 1973 might not even be in his top 10 accomplishments.

But within Psychology, Miller stands above any of the chess researchers, and Chunking stands alone just on the reputation of Miller, even had it never been applied to chess studies.

From that Chunking Theory is useful for a 'general theory of expertise', where there is a universal path in all fields from Novice to Master, that can be explained by Chunking Theory.

Chess is only useful as a field of experiment, as other simple games like Tower of Honoi, chess just being the most complicated (requiring most amount of memory), and the rating system to differentiate skill levels with clear multiple skill levels from chess novice to master.

But other than being a subject of study for expertise and memory, Chunking has nothing to do with chess, and is a general theory that applies to all mental activity.

Also note, after the mid 1990s, chess is hardly an interest of pyshological study at all, and now Chunking Theory is mostly used by trainers for Sports and Music, and sometimes Math. And for competence training for professionals like pilots and medical doctors.

So an accurate history of chunking and chess, must include why chess was the main area of study (drosophila of psychology and computer science research from mid 1940s till 1980s), then once chunking theory was developed to be useful for sports training and music, chess has been diminished to the annuls of history, as now chunking demonstates the limited faculty of chess skill.

Great article, but think the conclusion misses the point of 'Chunking Theory', which till today is one of the best theories of memory, maybe even consciousness (predictive processing / Active Inference). Almost all introductory psychology books include Chunking Theory when describing short-term, and long-term memory (Miller's experiment). Miller's experiment had nothing to do with chess, and till today for psychology, Miller remains much more important than deGroot, Chase, Simon,..., who are actually more useful for computer science than psychology. (Note Simon won the Nobel Prize for economics, and Chess Chunking and Chase Simon 1973 might not even be in his top 10 accomplishments. But within Psychology, Miller stands above any of the chess researchers, and Chunking stands alone just on the reputation of Miller, even had it never been applied to chess studies. From that Chunking Theory is useful for a 'general theory of expertise', where there is a universal path in all fields from Novice to Master, that can be explained by Chunking Theory. Chess is only useful as a field of experiment, as other simple games like Tower of Honoi, chess just being the most complicated (requiring most amount of memory), and the rating system to differentiate skill levels with clear multiple skill levels from chess novice to master. But other than being a subject of study for expertise and memory, Chunking has nothing to do with chess, and is a general theory that applies to all mental activity. Also note, after the mid 1990s, chess is hardly an interest of pyshological study at all, and now Chunking Theory is mostly used by trainers for Sports and Music, and sometimes Math. And for competence training for professionals like pilots and medical doctors. So an accurate history of chunking and chess, must include why chess was the main area of study (drosophila of psychology and computer science research from mid 1940s till 1980s), then once chunking theory was developed to be useful for sports training and music, chess has been diminished to the annuls of history, as now chunking demonstates the limited faculty of chess skill.
#4

If anyone is interested in Chunking Theory, I would actually look into the literature regarding 'speed reading', and practice speed reading, which is almost exclusively based on chunking theory, and unlike chess, speed reading is actually one of the most useful skills one can master.

In the last few decades, there are now complete linguistic theories of language acquisition based on Chunking Theory that is cutting edge, very little interesting research regarding chess and chunking in last 20 years.

Also, Chunking Theory has theoretical implications for the collapse of the wave function and theories of quantum consciousness, where forming a chunk requires a 'collapse of the wave function'.

If anyone is interested in Chunking Theory, I would actually look into the literature regarding 'speed reading', and practice speed reading, which is almost exclusively based on chunking theory, and unlike chess, speed reading is actually one of the most useful skills one can master. In the last few decades, there are now complete linguistic theories of language acquisition based on Chunking Theory that is cutting edge, very little interesting research regarding chess and chunking in last 20 years. Also, Chunking Theory has theoretical implications for the collapse of the wave function and theories of quantum consciousness, where forming a chunk requires a 'collapse of the wave function'.
#5

Very nice review of the literature. This is how I look at it. Piano players who memorize lengthy compositions cannot think about every note or even phrasing. They must chunk things together which takes 10s of thousands of hours of practice to learn how to do that. A music composer is a different animal. They must be familiar with all of the phrasings and the notes and how they can be combined meaningfully to invoke emotion. Chess players can memorize long variations but ultimately they have to compose. That is, they have to chunk but also use formal operations thinking to derive the correct move. In particular, what can be chunked in chess is tactics and pattern recognition as it applies to positional chess. However, it requires formal operations to put all of this together. That is, recognition is all that is required of piano players but composers and chess players must learn how to put it all together. This is what is so disappointing about most of the research in this area. One should be designing experiments to test how much is chunking and how much is formal operations thinking in real life situations. Early experiments focused on looking at a position for a very short period of time as opposed to giving individuals time to show that they can improve their understanding of the position by having more time to think. Kotov's Think Like a Grandmaster is an excellent example of this. Kotov trained to think about chess positions in a certain way. Does training ppl in his method really work? Modern trainers focus purely on tactics but then you have players like Magnus who take advantage of that by putting them in strategic positions that they don't understand. I believe studies that induce blundering is a good way to understand thinking processes because it shows how we can trip ourselves up. Is it because we see a tactic and play a move before looking a little deeper and finding the best tactic? Or is it an overall understanding of the position that avoids blunders? I find all of this very interesting. Chess can teach us how we learn, understand and evaluate.

Very nice review of the literature. This is how I look at it. Piano players who memorize lengthy compositions cannot think about every note or even phrasing. They must chunk things together which takes 10s of thousands of hours of practice to learn how to do that. A music composer is a different animal. They must be familiar with all of the phrasings and the notes and how they can be combined meaningfully to invoke emotion. Chess players can memorize long variations but ultimately they have to compose. That is, they have to chunk but also use formal operations thinking to derive the correct move. In particular, what can be chunked in chess is tactics and pattern recognition as it applies to positional chess. However, it requires formal operations to put all of this together. That is, recognition is all that is required of piano players but composers and chess players must learn how to put it all together. This is what is so disappointing about most of the research in this area. One should be designing experiments to test how much is chunking and how much is formal operations thinking in real life situations. Early experiments focused on looking at a position for a very short period of time as opposed to giving individuals time to show that they can improve their understanding of the position by having more time to think. Kotov's Think Like a Grandmaster is an excellent example of this. Kotov trained to think about chess positions in a certain way. Does training ppl in his method really work? Modern trainers focus purely on tactics but then you have players like Magnus who take advantage of that by putting them in strategic positions that they don't understand. I believe studies that induce blundering is a good way to understand thinking processes because it shows how we can trip ourselves up. Is it because we see a tactic and play a move before looking a little deeper and finding the best tactic? Or is it an overall understanding of the position that avoids blunders? I find all of this very interesting. Chess can teach us how we learn, understand and evaluate.
#6

@DIAChessClubStudies said in #3:

Great article, but think the conclusion misses the point of 'Chunking Theory', which till today is one of the best theories of memory, maybe even consciousness (predictive processing / Active Inference).

The article is about chunking theory in relation to explaining chess skill. I don't dispute that chunks are an important concept for other areas. But I don't agree that chunking theory is what explains chess skill predominantly.

So an accurate history of chunking and chess, must include why chess was the main area of study (drosophila of psychology and computer science research from mid 1940s till 1980s), then once chunking theory was developed to be useful for sports training and music, chess has been diminished to the annuls of history, as now chunking demonstates the limited faculty of chess skill.

But how does chunking demonstrate the 'limited faculty of chess skill'? The 'Criticism' and 'Summary' section of the blog shows plenty of observations that chunking theory doesn't explain in the context of chess.

@DIAChessClubStudies said in #3: > Great article, but think the conclusion misses the point of 'Chunking Theory', which till today is one of the best theories of memory, maybe even consciousness (predictive processing / Active Inference). The article is about chunking theory in relation to explaining chess skill. I don't dispute that chunks are an important concept for other areas. But I don't agree that chunking theory is what explains chess skill predominantly. > So an accurate history of chunking and chess, must include why chess was the main area of study (drosophila of psychology and computer science research from mid 1940s till 1980s), then once chunking theory was developed to be useful for sports training and music, chess has been diminished to the annuls of history, as now chunking demonstates the limited faculty of chess skill. But how does chunking demonstrate the 'limited faculty of chess skill'? The 'Criticism' and 'Summary' section of the blog shows plenty of observations that chunking theory doesn't explain in the context of chess.