|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
The Psychology of Chess Skill Reviewed by Rick Kennedy
by Dennis H. Holding Holding’s book is an erudite presentation and critique of the current state of research into the nature of “skill” in chess. It is primarily directed, by the author’s own account, to the reader of experimental psychology. “Chessplayers may wonder whether reading this book will improve their game,” Holding notes. Indeed, as the text is advertised by the publisher in the current Chess Life [Ed. Current, as in 1986], the question is relevant. Although the book was not written as an improvement tool, “There are grounds for expecting some benefit to accrue.” More on this, later. A list of the contents sets the tone: The Game and Play of Chess; Individual Differences; Looking and Visualizing; Chess Memory; Memory and Skill, How Computers Play Chess; Planning and Search; Evaluating Chess Positions; Problems and Issues; Skill at Chess. Holding puts forth his SEEK model (Search, EvaluatE, and Know) for explaining differences in chess skill, as opposed to Binet’s (1894) focus upon “Knowledge, memory and imagination”, De Groot’s (1965) focus upon memory, or Chase and Simon’s (1973) elaboration of “chunking.” This is heady, cerebral stuff here, but Holding does a good job of outlining the theories, the research that supports them – and the research he believes refutes them. (He might well consider himself a “hypermodern” in chess skill research.) A reader used to the informal, anecdotal style of Krogius, in Psychology in Chess, or Kotov, in Think Like a Grandmaster, may need to readjust to the more formal, research-and statistically-based Holding. Citings like “(In a study of the course of the average game) the King’s Knight, for instance, stayed on the board for a mean of 19 moves; during this lifetime it moved 3.7 times, and captured 0.8 other men” can leave one breathless. So can de Groot when he estimates that only about 1.76 good moves exist in any given position. What is there then, for the club player and up, beyond the research and theorizing? Can you (by way of analogy) actually improve your physical fitness by studying biochemistry? Some of what I dug up: 1) “…the data seem to show that greater chess skill is typified by deeper and broader searches” 2) “The grandmasters seem to be searching more and searching faster." 3) “The ability to judge chess positions is another important dimension separating different levels of chess skill.” 4) “In most circumstances, a shallower search with an accurate evaluation function will be expected to find better moves than a deep search with a poor evaluation function.| 5) “Choosing a move is not just a matter of waiting passively for th emergence of move associations, but an active, even strenuous, process of selection among anticipated sequences.” 6) “The better players show greater competence in every phase of the SEEK process, conducting more knowledgeable and better planned searches, with more knowledgeable evaluations, in order to anticipate events on the chessboard.” But, I was stopped cold by the following:
I suspect Holding means “investigated in the experimental psychology laboratory.” Pity. Those were just the kinds of things, as a practical chess player, I had hoped to learn about from reading The Psychology of Chess Skill. So… if you’re into “untangling the complexities of human behavior,” you’re familiar with the studies of Chase and Simon, or you think “artificial intelligence” is a subtle contradiction in terms then Holding’s book may well be for you. But, if you’re looking for the next Intimidate Like a Grandmaster, and updated Self Actualization in 25 Moves or Less, or even “Father-Murder” the Easy Way, you’ll have to broaden and deepen your search, so to speak… You can’t go wrong with the classics,
Think Like a Grandmaster (Kotov) and
Psychology in Chess (Krogius) or even Abrahams’ The Chess Mind.
Two new-comers are likely to assist as well – Secrets of a Grandpatzer
(Colby) and How to Become A Candidate Master (Dunne). (This review first appeared in the February 1986 issue of “The Chess Gazette,” and is reprinted with permission. www.chessco.com )
|
The
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
