Author: Oliver Roese
Date: 06:17:02 08/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 2001 at 10:35:47, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On August 16, 2001 at 07:55:23, Oliver Roese wrote:
>
>>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
>
>
>One of De Groot's experiments dealt with recognizing patterns, in a hidden way.
>
>He picked two groups of people. One group knew little about chess. The other
>group were GrandMasters and IM players.
>
>He set up some totally random positions that had nothing to do with real games,
>ie both kings in check, pawns on impossible squares, etc. He would let one
>person at a time look at the position for a few seconds, then ask them to go
>to another board and recreate the exact position. everyone was able to
>accurately recall the locations of roughly 7 of the pieces, whether the person
>was a GM or novice.
>
>He then set up some normal positions reached during real games. And he repeated
>the test. Novice still got roughly 7 pieces right. GMs got almost everything
>right. Occasionally they would get two pieces on different squares, but the
>"theme" was still there. IE knight pinned on the king by a bishop at either a3
>or b4, so the GM would mislocate the bishop. It was obvious that the GM was
>using "patterns" to categorize parts of the board.
>
>BTW, 7 +/- 2 is a well-known estimate for short-term memory in a human. We
>can generally recall 5-9 distinctly different pieces of data. The thing is,
>what is a piece? For 7 random digits, it might be 7 digits are 7 pieces of
>data. But if the first 3 are your phone area code, you might recall more of
>the digits as that 3-digit "chunk" takes a single "block" of STM.
>
>Cute stuff...
Thanks for the info.
i dont say anything against that. It is useful to know, especially for
programmers. It explains lots of rules for good programming style i know of.
On the other hand it says absolutely nothing about the question how to _count_
these patterns.
Oliver
O
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.