Author: Oliver Roese
Date: 04:55:23 08/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 15, 2001 at 00:08:26, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On August 13, 2001 at 14:56:32, Oliver Roese wrote:
>
>>On August 12, 2001 at 12:26:09, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>
>>>On August 11, 2001 at 11:26:31, Oliver Roese wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 09, 2001 at 12:06:45, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On August 09, 2001 at 05:25:37, Graham Laight wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Here's the link:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1480000/1480365.stm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Seems the brain magnetic resonance scanning confirms what we've all suspected -
>>>>>>that GMs tend to use their memory, wheras weak players have to do it by
>>>>>>calculation (the chess computer method).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The number of patterns a GM is said to be familiar with seems to have
>>>>>>mysteriously risen from 50,000 ("Chess Skill In Man And Machine") to 100,000 -
>>>>>>any idea how that happened, anyone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-g
>>>>>
>>>>>It is not clear to me what a "pattern" is, as long as it is not clearly defined
>>>>>the number of patterns can be any number you want.
>>>>>José.
>>>>
>>>>Good point.
>>>>Those patterns probably exists just as dreams of some (bad?) scientists.
>>>>Nevertheless if there is something out there who knows how to identify and
>>>>count these patterns, please tell us about them.
>>>>
>>>>Oliver
>>>
>>>I don't know anything about this cognitive stuff, but here is an example of a
>>>pattern.
>>>
>>>If you are watching a human play chess, and the human (white) has a bishop on
>>>a4, the human will very rarely play b3, even if black has no b-pawn to trap the
>>>bishop.
>>>
>>>This is true all the way up the a-file. If the bishop is on a6, the human isn't
>>>going to play b5.
>>>
>>>When people say "pattern" they are thinking about sexy attack patterns on the
>>>king-side, but there are plenty of little things they strive for or avoid
>>>elsewhere.
>>>
>>>bruce
>>
>>Sure, i know what you are talking about.
>>This is that could be coined as "first-order"-terms (from dr hyatt), in analogy
>>to multidimensional taylorseries.
>>But i personally dont think that these kind of information is stored
>>explicitely, as the name suggests it.
>>Since that would be trillions of patterns to handle.
>>For example i might dont play b3, since i feel/think that
>>this leaves the bishop in bad shape. This is something different
>>than to match a pattern.
>>In a relational database i have no difficulties to count the rows
>>with a simple statement.
>>But the human mind is surely not a relational database.
>>So why do some scientists continue to count pattern??
>>How do they do that?
>>Thats my point.
>>
>>Oliver
>
>
>Humans definitely store chess patterns. De Groot proved it quite nicely with
>a test he ran. If you haven't read the book, and want to hear about the test,
>let me know and I will post an explanation here. But it was definitely
>conclusive that 'patterns' are used in playing chess.
>
Would be nice.
>one simple idea is the pattern of your area code. It is far easier to
>remember your own 3-digit area code (or your 5 digit zip-code) than it is
>to remember a random 3 digit or 5 digit number. Because it is a familiar
>pattern of digits...
Familiar patterns are easier to recall.
Ok, but i wonder what does that say in favor of the stored-as-patterns-theory?
Oliver
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.