Recall or evaluation of chess positions as determinants of chess skill

Previous research has found that the ability to recall briefly presented chess positions varies with playing strength, except when random positions are used. The suggestion therefore arises that mastery consists of recognizing configurations that are associated with plausible moves. This approach is tested by comparing the memory scores and move-choice protocols of players in six skill categories, using random chess positions. Contrary to any strong form of recognition-association hypothesis, differences in chess skill are shown to persist although memory differences are abolished. It is further shown that the moves selected are not based on those few pieces that are remembered. Skill-related differences in the accuracy of positional evaluations also occur, but they are less marked than in earlier results. An alternative approach to chess skill seems appropriate, in which memory effects may function at the evaluation phase.     

Specialization effect and its influence on memory and problem solving in expert chess players

Expert chess players, specialized in different openings, recalled positions and solved problems within and outside their area of specialization. While their general expertise was at a similar level, players performed better with stimuli from their area of specialization. The effect of specialization on both recall and problem solving was strong enough to override general expertise—players remembering positions and solving problems from their area of specialization performed at around the level of players 1 standard deviation (SD) above them in general skill. Their problem-solving strategy also changed depending on whether the problem was within their area of specialization. When it was, they searched more in depth and less in breadth; with problems outside their area of specialization, the reverse. The knowledge that comes from familiarity with a problem area is more important than general purpose strategies in determining how an expert will tackle it. These results demonstrate the link in experts between problem solving and memory of specific experiences and indicate that the search for context-independent general purpose problem-solving strategies to teach to future experts is unlikely to be successful.     

Visuospatial representations used by chess experts: A preliminary study

Blindfold chess is played without the players seeing either the pieces or the board. It is a skill‐related activity, and only very skilled players can construct the mental images required. This is why blindfold chess provides a good task with which to investigate the spatial memory and skilled mental images of expert players. In a PET investigation, we compared memory performance and problem solving in very experienced chess players with their performance in an attention task, in which the subjects classified the names of chess pieces. The memory task predominantly activated the temporal areas, whereas problem solving activated several frontal areas. The relevance of these findings to concepts such as general imagery, skilled imagery, apperception, and long‐term working memory are discussed.     

Judgment and decision-making: experts' and novices' evaluation of chess positions

The present study examined how experts differ from nonexperts in estimation and evaluation during a judgment-and-decision task. In the experiment, the performance of 125 chess players (21 women and 104 men) whose mean age was 32.5 yr. (SD = 13.3) was examined to assess decision processes with an emphasis on postdecision differentiation and consolidation. Chess players of differing skill made evaluations of a complex middle-game chess position. The experimental condition was made by the means of chess articles with enclosed information, either about the current chess position or about other similar positions. Both novices and experts upgraded their chosen alternative in a postdecision phase more than intermediate level chess players did. Various explanations of these results are discussed.     

Meta-analysis of age and skill effects on recalling chess positions and selecting the best move

A meta-analysis was conducted of studies that measured the effects of both age and skill in chess on the tasks of selecting the best move for chess positions (the best move task) as well as recalling chess game positions (the recall task). Despite a small sample of studies, we demonstrated that there are age and skill effects on both tasks: age being negatively associated with performance on both tasks and skill being positively associated with performance on both tasks. On the best move task, we found that skill was the dominant effect, while on the recall task, skill and age were approximately equally strong effects. We also found that skill was best measured by the best move task. In the case of the best move task, this result is consistent with the argument that it accurately replicates expert performance (Ericsson & Smith, 1991). Results for the recall task argue that this task captures effects related to skill, but also effects likely due to a general aging process. Implications for our understanding of aging in skilled domains are also discussed.     

Recall of rapidly presented random chess positions is a function of skill

A widely cited result asserts that experts’ superiority over novices in recalling meaningful material from their domain of expertise vanishes when they are confronted with random material. A review of recent chess experiments in which random positions served as control material (presentation time between 3 and 10 sec) shows, however, that strong players generally maintain some superiority over weak players even with random positions, although the relative difference between skill levels is much smaller than with game positions. The implications of this finding for expertise in chess are discussed and the question of the recall of random material in other domains is raised.     

Planning abilities and chess: A comparison of chess and non‐chess players on the Tower of London task

Playing chess requires problem‐solving capacities in order to search through the chess problem space in an effective manner. Chess should thus require planning abilities for calculating many moves ahead. Therefore, we asked whether chess players are better problem solvers than non‐chess players in a complex planning task. We compared planning performance between chess (N=25) and non‐chess players (N=25) using a standard psychometric planning task, the Tower of London (ToL) test. We also assessed fluid intelligence (Raven Test), as well as verbal and visuospatial working memory. As expected, chess players showed better planning performance than non‐chess players, an effect most strongly expressed in difficult problems. On the other hand, they showed longer planning and movement execution times, especially for incorrectly solved trials. No differences in fluid intelligence and verbal/visuospatial working memory were found between both groups. These findings indicate that better performance in chess players is associated with disproportionally longer solution times, although it remains to be investigated whether motivational or strategic differences account for this result.     

Perception in chess

This paper develops a technique for isolating and studying the perceptual structures that chess players perceive. Three chess players of varying strength — from master to novice — were confronted with two tasks: (1) A perception task, where the player reproduces a chess position in plain view, and (2) de Groot's (1965) short-term recall task, where the player reproduces a chess position after viewing it for 5 sec. The successive glances at the position in the perceptual task and long pauses in the memory task were used to segment the structures in the reconstruction protocol. The size and nature of these structures were then analyzed as a function of chess skill.     

Chess knowledge predicts chess memory even after controlling for chess experience: Evidence for the role of high-level processes

The expertise effect in memory for chess positions is one of the most robust effects in cognitive psychology. One explanation of this effect is that chess recall is based on the recognition of familiar patterns and that experts have learned more and larger patterns. Template theory and its instantiation as a computational model are based on this explanation. An alternative explanation is that the expertise effect is due, in part, to stronger players having better and more conceptual knowledge, with this knowledge facilitating memory performance. Our literature review supports the latter view. In our experiment, a sample of 79 chess players were given a test of memory for chess positions, a test of declarative chess knowledge, a test of fluid intelligence, and a questionnaire concerning the amount of time they had played nontournament chess and the amount of time they had studied chess. We determined the numbers of tournament games the players had played from chess databases. Chess knowledge correlated .67 with chess memory and accounted for 16% of the variance after controlling for chess experience. Fluid intelligence accounted for an additional 13% of the variance. These results support the conclusion that both high-level conceptual processing and low-level recognition of familiar patterns play important roles in memory for chess positions.     

Working memory in chess

Three experiments investigated the role of working memory in various aspects of thinking in chess. Experiment 1 examined the immediate memory for briefly presented chess positions from master games in players from a wide range of abilities, following the imposition of various secondary tasks designed to block separate components of working memory. Suppression of the articulatory loop (by preventing subvocal rehearsal) had no effect on measures of recall, whereas blocking the visuospatial sketchpad (by manipulation of a keypad) and blocking the central executive (by random letter generation) had equivalent disruptive effects, in comparison with a control condition. Experiment 2 investigated the effects of similar secondary tasks on the solution (i.e., move selection) of tactical chess positions, and a similar pattern was found, except that blocking the central executive was much more disruptive than in Experiment 1. Experiment 3 compared performance on two types of primary task, one concerned with solving chess positions as in Experiment 2, and the other a sentence-rearrangement task. The secondary tasks in each case were both designed to block the central executive, but one was verbal (vocal generation of random numbers), while the other was spatial in nature (random generation of keypresses). Performance of the spatial secondary task was affected to a greater extent by the chess primary task than by the verbal primary task, whereas there were no differential effects on these secondary tasks by the verbal primary task. In none of the three experiments were there any differential effects between weak and strong players. These results are interpreted in the context of the workingmemory model and previous theories of the nature of cognition in chess.     

Recall memory for visually presented chess positions

A series of three experiments replicated and extended earlier research reported by Chase and Simon (1973), de Groot (1965), and Charness (Note 1). The first experiment demonstrated that the relationship between memory for chess positions and chess skill varies directly with the amount of chess-specific information in the stimulus display. The second experiment employed tachistoscopic displays to incrementally "build" tournament chess positions by meaningful or nonmeaningful chunks and demonstrated that meaningful piece groupings during presentation markedly enhance subsequent recall performance. The third experiment tested memory for one of two positions presented in immediate sequence and demonstrated that explanations based on a limited-capacity short-term memory (Chase & Simon, 1973) are not adequate for explaining performance on this memory task.     

Chess players' recall of auditorily presented chess positions

Abstract

Chess players' recall of auditorily presented chess positions were studied in three experiments. The results of the first two experiments showed that the skilled chess players are better at recalling game and random positions. This contradicts the standard finding that they perform better only in game positions. In the third experiment, the memory load was increased by increasing the number of positions to be recalled simultaneously from one to four positions. Skilled subjects are still far better at recalling game positions, but they score no more than moderately skilled subjects in recalling four random positions.

The results are in contradiction with the direct chunking hypothesis. Skilled chess players do not fail to recall random positions because there are no chunks in them, but because they are not, under some special conditions, able to encode them properly. It is necessary to postulate more complicated encoding mechanisms than a simple recognition-based activation of a chunk in long-term memory.     

The effects of speed on skilled chess performance

Two types of mechanisms may underlie chess skill: fast mechanisms, such as recognition, and slow mechanisms, such as search through the space of possible moves and responses. Speed distinguishes these mechanisms, so I examined archival data on blitz chess (5 min for the whole game), in which the opportunities for search are greatly reduced. If variation in fast processes accounts for substantial variation in chess skill, performance in blitz chess should correlate highly with a player's overall skill. In addition, restricting search processes should tend to equalize skill difference between players, but this effect should decrease as overall skill level increases. Analyses of three samples of blitz chess tournaments supported both hypotheses. Search is undoubtedly important, but up to 81% of variance in chess skill (measured by rating) was accounted for by how players performed with less than 5% of the normal time available.     

Recall of random and distorted chess positions: Implications for the theory of expertise

This paper explores the question, important to the theory of expert performance, of the nature and number of chunks that chess experts hold in memory. It examines how memory contents determine players’ abilities to reconstruct (1) positions from games, (2) positions distorted in various ways, and (3) random positions. Comparison of a computer simulation with a human experiment supports the usual estimate that chess Masters store some 50,000 chunks in memory. The observed impairment of recall when positions are modified by mirror image reflection implies that each chunk represents a specific pattern of pieces in a specific location. A good account of the results of the experiments is given by the template theory proposed by Gobet and Simon (in press) as an extension of Chase and Simon’s (1973b) initial chunking proposal, and in agreement with other recent proposals for modification of the chunking theory (Richman, Staszewski, & Simon, 1995) as applied to various recall tasks.     

The mind's eye in blindfold chess

Visual imagery plays an important role in problem solving, and research into blindfold chess has provided a wealth of empirical data on this question. We show how a recent theory of expert memory (the template theory; Gobet & Simon, 1996b, 2000) accounts for most of these data. However, how the mind's eye filters out relevant from irrelevant information is still underspecified in the theory. We describe two experiments addressing this question, in which chess games are presented visually, move by move, on a board that contains irrelevant information (static positions, semistatic positions, and positions changing every move). The results show that irrelevant information affects chess masters only when it changes during the presentation of the target game. This suggests that novelty information is used by the mind's eye to select incoming visual information and separate “figure” and “ground”. Mechanisms already present in the template theory can be used to account for this novelty effect.     

The role of constraints in expert memory

A great deal of research has been devoted to developing process models of expert memory. However, K. J. Vicente and J. H. Wang (1998) proposed (a) that process theories do not provide an adequate account of expert recall in domains in which memory recall is a contrived task and (b) that a product theory, the constraint attunement hypothesis (CAH), has received a significant amount of empirical support. We compared 1 process theory (the template theory; TT; F. Gobet & H. A. Simon, 1996c) with the CAH in chess. Chess players (N=36) differing widely in skill levels were required to recall briefly presented chess positions that were randomized in various ways. Consistent with TT, but inconsistent with the CAH, there was a significant skill effect in a condition in which both the location and distribution of the pieces were randomized. These and other results suggest that process models such as TT can provide a viable account of expert memory in chess.     

Personality profiles of young chess players

Although the game of chess has often featured in psychological research, we know very little about people who play chess, especially about children who take up chess as a hobby. This study presents the personality profiles as measured with the Big Five model (BFQ-C; Barbaranelli, Caprara, Rabasca, & Pastorelli, 2003) of 219 young children who play chess and 50 of their peers who do not. Children who score higher on Intellect/openness and Energy/extraversion are more likely to play chess while children who score higher on Agreeableness are less likely to be attracted to chess. Boys with higher scores on Agreeableness are less likely to take up chess than boys with lower scores. Considering that girls score higher on Agreeableness, this factor may provide one of the possible reasons why more boys are interested in chess. Although none of the Big Five factors were associated with self-reported skill level, a sub-sample of 25 elite players had significantly higher scores on Intellect/openness than their weaker chess playing peers.     

Location coding in chess

Whether the chunks used in memorizing chess positions are general and relatively encoded schemata or very precisely coded instances is a problem that has raised some controversy within the psychology of chess skill. As chess research has had a strong impact on expertise research, this problem is important in many areas of skills research other than chess. To resolve it, four experiments were set up. In the experiments it was shown that subjects were better at recalling correctly located non-transposed chunks than transposed chunks, which were similar in structure but incorrectly located on the chessboard. The results imply that the representation of chess-specific patterns in the memory of a chess player contains not only information about the forms of chess-specific patterns, but also about their absolute locations on the chessboard. This provides an explanation for the well-known interaction between skill and type of position and its disappearance in recent experiments by Lories and Saariluoma. It can be argued that the difficulty of recalling random positions is not chiefly caused by the total absence of chunks but by their dislocation.     

The perceptual aspect of skilled performance in chess: Evidence from eye movements

Expert and intermediate chess players attempted to choose the best move in five chess positions while their eye movements were monitored. Experts were faster and more accurate than intermediates in choosing the best move. Experts made fewer fixations per trial and greater amplitude saccades than did intermediates, but there was no difference in fixation duration across skill groups. Examining the spatial distribution of the first five fixations for each position by skill group revealed that experts produced more fixations on empty squares than did intermediates. When fixating pieces, experts produced a greater proportion of fixations on relevant pieces than did intermediates. It is argued that expert chess players perceptually encode chess configurations, rather than individual pieces, and, consequently, parafoveal or peripheral processing guides their eye movements, producing a pattern of saccadic selectivity by piece saliency.     

Cognitive Reorganization and the development of chess expertise

One current research strategy in the study of expertise is to compare experts and novices. An important aspect of decision making involves looking for similarities among problem types. Little is known about such processes. We used grid technique to examine similarity judgments associated with different levels of chess expertise. Novice, expert, and master chess players evaluated 4 sets of 12 chess boards. Average FIC scores showed a curvilinear relation to expertise, suggesting increasing differentiation followed by integration in cognitive frameworks for construing board positions. Additional cognitive measures based on move generation tended to support and extend this structural model.