Practice other than playing games apparently has only a modest role in the development of chess expertise

Evidence that chess expertise rests on practice alone mostly comes from studies using a correlational retrospective recall paradigm, which confounds amount of study with number of games played and possible innate talent. Researchers also often use latest performance rating and include participants who play and study little. Study 1 partially replicated such studies with improvements such as use of peak rating and a large, skilled sample. Number of internationally‐rated games played was the strongest predictor of peak rating. Total study hours was a significant but weaker predictor. Study 2 controlled for sampling confounds by including only very well‐practiced players who had played at least 350 internationally‐rated games. Total study hours did not predict rating at 350 games. Study 3 found that the subjective phenomenon of reaching a performance ceiling and undertaking specific practice to get beyond it does occur but does not distinguish between stronger and weaker players. Study 4 found that many players play relatively few internationally‐rated games mostly because of other commitments, such as work and education. Extensive study may go along with great interest in and persistence at chess but apparently lacks a major causative role in chess performance level.     

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.     

Testing the accuracy of the retrospective recall method used in expertise research

Expertise typically develops slowly over years, and controlled experiments to study its development may be impractical. Researchers often use a correlational, retrospective recall method in which participants recall career data, sometimes over many years before. However, recall accuracy is uncertain. The present study investigated the accuracy of recalled career data for up to 38 years, in over 600 international chess players. Participants’ estimates of their entry year into international chess, total career games played, and number of games in a typical year were compared with the known true values. Entry year typically was recalled fairly accurately, and accuracy did not diminish systematically with time since list entry from 10 years earlier to 25 or more years earlier. On average, games-count estimates were reasonably accurate. However, some participants were very inaccurate, and some were more inaccurate in their total-games counts and entry-year estimates. The retrospective recall method yields usable data but may have some accuracy problems. Possible remedies are outlined.     

Individual differences in expertise development over decades in a complex intellectual domain

Learners acquire expertise at different rates and reach different peak performance levels. Key questions arise regarding what patterns of individual differences in expertise development occur and whether innate talent affects such development. International chess is a good test domain for both issues, because it has objective performance measures, actual practice measures (number of games), longitudinal population data, and minimal gatekeeper influence. Players’ expertise development typically follows either a logarithmic or a power-function curve, approaching asymptote by around 750 games. A comparison of eventual top players and other eventually well-practiced players typically reveals a performance difference at domain entry, which widens progressively with practice and then stays large and constant. The data show various correlated signs of apparent greater natural talent in eventual top players: precocity (indexed by entering the domain and gaining the grandmaster title much younger on average), faster acquisition of expertise (indexed by fewer years and games needed to gain the grandmaster title from domain entry), and a higher peak performance level after extensive actual practice. A factor analysis found evidence for an underlying natural talent factor that constrains ultimate performance level.     

随机棋局存在专家记忆优势效应吗?

专家在其擅长领域中 ,对有意义刺激所表现出的记忆优势效应 ,已为诸多研究所证实。然而 ,对于随机刺激 ,专家是否存在记忆优势 ,尚未有明确的研究结果。文章以中国象棋为实验材料探讨这一问题 ,在一定程度上克服了先前研究中实验材料的局限性。实验结果表明 ,随机刺激不存在专家记忆优势效应。作者还比较了模板理论和限制调节理论 ,认为前者优于后者     

The effects of time pressure on chess skill: an investigation into fast and slow processes underlying expert performance

The ability to play chess is generally assumed to depend on two types of processes: slow processes such as search, and fast processes such as pattern recognition. It has been argued that an increase in time pressure during a game selectively hinders the ability to engage in slow processes. Here we study the effect of time pressure on expert chess performance in order to test the hypothesis that compared to weak players, strong players depend relatively heavily on fast processes. In the first study we examine the performance of players of various strengths at an online chess server, for games played under different time controls. In a second study we examine the effect of time controls on performance in world championship matches. Both studies consistently show that skill differences between players become less predictive of the game outcome as the time controls are tightened. This result indicates that slow processes are at least as important for strong players as they are for weak players. Our findings pose a challenge for current theorizing in the field of expertise and chess.     

A Critique of Howard's Argument for Innate Limits in Chess Performance or Why We Need an Account Based On Acquired Skill and Deliberate Practice

In this issue Howard reported that the effect of chess study is surprisingly small among elite chess players, who continue playing more games in international chess tournaments. In contrast, we show that individual differences in chess study are the likely causes of both higher chess ratings and more chess games played in international tournaments, which is often very costly and includes airfare, hotel, and tournament registration fees. The low correlation between his estimates of study time and chess rating is shown to be a consequence of his methodology of relying on a couple of questions in an internet survey rather than the standard methodology in expert performance research involving a 30‐minute interview tracing yearly engagement in many different practice activities. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

模板理论与限制调节理论的比较研究

直接针对专家记忆优势效应的理论主要有两个,模板理论和限制调节理论。模板理论认为,专家记忆优势效应是由于专家将许多模板存储于长时记忆中;而限制调节理论认为,专家记忆优势效应是由于专家能够抽取与目标关联的限制来建构刺激物。文章以中国象棋为实验材料．对两个理论进行了比较,实验结果否定了限制调节理论。     

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.     

Does playing blindfold chess reduce the quality of game: comments on chabris and hearst (2003)

Blindfold chess is a special type of chess game where both the board and pieces are not visible to its players. This paper aims to determine whether the quality of the game played blindfolded is lower than when played under normal conditions. The best chess program was used to analyze games played by the world's top Grandmasters under both conditions. We have analyzed the Monaco 1993–1998 data set introduced by Chabris and Hearst (2003) . The results showed that although a larger number of mistakes occurred while playing blindfolded, no significant statistical difference between the rapid and blindfold games has been found. Nevertheless, by applying the same methodology to the Monaco 2002–2007 data set a substantial difference between the blindfold and the rapid chess game was noticed. In this paper, we have addressed the possible improvement of the chess game quality and the advances in chess programs that may be responsible for detecting more blunders.     

Effect of expertise acquisition on strategic perception: the example of chess

The two experiments presented here study perceptual processes implemented by chess players in situations related to their domain of expertise. The aim was to determine how patterns are perceived as a function of their strategic value when players acquire expertise. In this study, conducted on novice and more experienced players, it is hypothesized that with acquisition of expertise players would quickly encode familiar patterns and then rapidly focus their attention on patterns with a higher immediate strategic value. In Experiment 1, participants had to carry out a change-detection task that used the "flicker paradigm". The results showed that during the perception of standard chess positions, experienced players--but not novices--quickly focused their attention on the most strategic patterns. In Experiment 2, experienced players and novices carried out a recognition task after having encoded chess positions for 1 or 5 s. The results indicated early encoding of familiar patterns without immediate strategic value, followed by the encoding of more strategic patterns. Taken together, the results of these two experiments are consistent with the results by both de Groot and Gobet (1996) and McGregor and Howes (2002) about the strategic content of Chase and Simon's chunks (Chase & Simon, 1973b).     

中国象棋经验棋手与新手的知觉差异:来自眼动的证据

为探讨中国象棋领域内的专长效应及象棋专长的知觉编码优势,研究采用中国象棋棋局为实验材料,对比了经验棋手和新手在观看象棋棋局时视觉搜索、变化觉察和对棋盘的记忆。实验1呈现真实棋局和随机棋局,要求被试观看5秒后复盘,结果发现经验棋手的复盘正确率高于新手;经验棋手注视棋盘的眼跳幅度和瞳孔直径更大;经验棋手更多注视棋子间而不是棋子本身。实验2采用移动窗口范式控制了观看棋盘时视野大小,结果发现经验棋手在副中央凹呈现时复盘正确率更高,而新手不受视野大小的影响。实验3采用闪烁范式要求棋手觉察变化的棋子,结果发现经验棋手的觉察速度和正确率都优于新手;而且经验棋手在报告变化前就利用中央凹和副中央凹注视到了变化的棋子。结论认为:中国象棋与国际象棋类似,也存在专长的知觉编码优势效应;经验棋手不仅对棋盘记忆更好,而且可以利用存贮的组块和长期练习经验选择性加工棋盘结构信息,利用副中央凹提取信息,具有更大的知觉广度。研究为象棋专家可以利用副中央凹加工棋盘及具有更强的知觉编码能力提供了直接的证据。     

Does high-level intellectual performance depend on practice alone? Debunking the Polgar sisters case

The famous Polgar sisters started chess very young, undertook extensive study, and two became grandmasters. This case often is cited as decisive evidence that practice alone is key in development of expertise, that innate talent is unimportant or non-existent, and that almost anyone can become a grandmaster. But on close examination these claims do not hold up. Performance differences among the sisters cannot be accounted for by practice differences. Furthermore, two sisters reached peak performance levels comparable to those of many far less-practiced players entering the international domain around the same time and only one sister ever reached the top ten. Contrary to a popular view, the case does not show that becoming a grandmaster requires only practice and raises innate talent as a plausible contributor.     

Visualization,pattern recognition,and forward search: effects of playing speed and sight of the position on grandmaster chess errors

A new approach examined two aspects of chess skill, long a popular topic in cognitive science. A powerful computer‐chess program calculated the number and magnitude of blunders made by the same 23 grandmasters in hundreds of serious games of slow (“classical”) chess, regular “rapid” chess, and rapid “blindfold” chess, in which opponents transmit moves without ever seeing the actual position. Rapid chess led to substantially more and larger blunders than classical chess. Perhaps more surprisingly, the frequency and magnitude of blunders did not differ in rapid versus blindfold play, despite the additional memory and visualization load imposed by the latter. We discuss the involvement of various cognitive processes in human problem‐solving and expertise, especially with respect to chess. Prior opposing views about the basis of general chess skill have emphasized the dominance of either (a) swift pattern recognition or (b) analyzing ahead, but both seem important and the controversy appears currently unresolvable and perhaps fruitless.     

A psychometric analysis of chess expertise

This study introduces the Amsterdam Chess Test (ACT). The ACT measures chess playing proficiency through 5 tasks: a choose-a-move task (comprising two parallel tests), a motivation questionnaire, a predict-a-move task, a verbal knowledge questionnaire, and a recall task. The validity of these tasks was established using external criteria based on the Elo chess rating system. Results from a representative sample of active chess players showed that the ACT is a very reliable test for chess expertise and that ACT has high predictive validity. Several hypotheses about the relationships between chess expertise, chess knowledge, motivation, and memory were tested. Incorporating response latencies in test scores is shown to lead to an increase in criterion validity, particularly for easy items.     

Children and chess expertise: The role of calibration

Summary Three studies of calibration are reported. Calibration refers to the accuracy with which one can predict one's own performance. In the first study child chess players, non-chess playing parents, and statistics students were asked to predict chances of winning chess games against hypothetical opponents. These subjective probabilities were compared to the actual probabilities, based on the Elo rating system. Better players' predictions were better calibrated. Confidence and ratings are negatively correlated, indicating that with lower ratings, players are overconfident. Skilled child players' predictions were better calibrated than any of the adults'. In the second study subjects were asked to estimate chances of winning in conjunctive situations, e. g., winning all the rounds in a tournament. Again, better child players were more accurate in their predictions and more accurate than adults. In the third study, child players were asked to predict their chances of winning in a non-chess domain after hearing a hypothetical win/loss history. Higher-rated players' predictions were again better calibrated, even though the domain was outside their expertise. The motivational and cognitive implications of calibration are discussed.     

Selecting the Better Model by Using Data,Occam's Razor,and a Little Common Sense: Reply to Ericsson

The issue is which model, practice‐alone or innate talent affecting learning speed and limiting asymptotic performance level, better accounts for expertise development in international chess. The innate talent model does much better by the usual criteria. A study to determine what innate talent for chess might consist is now needed. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Deliberate practice predicts performance over time in adolescent chess players and drop‐outs: A linear mixed models analysis

In this study, the longitudinal relation between deliberate practice and performance in chess was examined using a linear mixed models analysis. The practice activities and performance ratings of young elite chess players, who were either in, or had dropped out of the Dutch national chess training, were analysed since they had started playing chess seriously. The results revealed that deliberate practice (i.e. serious chess study alone and serious chess play) strongly contributed to chess performance. The influence of deliberate practice was not only observable in current performance, but also over chess players' careers. Moreover, although the drop‐outs' chess ratings developed more slowly over time, both the persistent and drop‐out chess players benefited to the same extent from investments in deliberate practice. Finally, the effect of gender on chess performance proved to be much smaller than the effect of deliberate practice. This study provides longitudinal support for the monotonic benefits assumption of deliberate practice, by showing that over chess players' careers, deliberate practice has a significant effect on performance, and to the same extent for chess players of different ultimate performance levels. The results of this study are not in line with critique raised against the deliberate practice theory that the factors deliberate practice and talent could be confounded.     

Individual differences in chess expertise: a psychometric investigation

Starting from controversies over the role of general individual characteristics (especially intelligence) for the attainment of expert performance levels, a comprehensive psychometric investigation of individual differences in chess expertise is presented. A sample of 90 adult tournament chess players of varying playing strengths (1311-2387 ELO) was screened with tests on intelligence and personality variables; in addition, experience in chess play, tournament participation, and practice activities were assessed. Correlation and regression analyses revealed a clear-cut moderate relationship between general (and in particular numerical) intelligence and the participants' playing strengths, suggesting that expert chess play does not stand in isolation from superior mental abilities. The strongest predictor of the attained expertise level, however, was the participants' chess experience which highlights the relevance of long-term engagement for the development of expertise. Among all analysed personality dimensions, only domain-specific performance motivation and emotion expression control incrementally contributed to the prediction of playing strength. In total, measures of chess experience, current tournament activity, intelligence, and personality accounted for about 55% of variance in chess expertise. The present results suggest that individual differences in chess expertise are multifaceted and cannot be reduced to differences in domain experience.     

Training experts: individuation without naming is worth it

There is growing evidence that individuation experience is necessary for development of expert object discrimination that transfers to new exemplars. Individuation training in human studies has primarily used label association tasks where labels are learned at both the individual and more abstract (basic) level, and expertise criterion requires that individual-level judgments become as fast as basic-level judgments. However, there are training situations when the use of labels is not practical (e.g., with animals or some clinical populations). Moreover, labeling itself can facilitate object discrimination, thus it is unclear what role labels play in the acquisition of expertise in such training paradigms. Here, participants completed an online game that did not require labels in which they interacted with novel objects (Greebles) or control objects (Yufos). Games either required individuation or categorization. We then assessed the impact of this exposure on an abridged Greeble training paradigm. As expected, participants who played Yufo games or Greeble categorization games showed a significant basic-level advantage for Greebles in the abridged training paradigm, typical of novices. However, participants who played the Greeble identity game showed a reduced basic-level advantage, suggesting that individuation without labels may be sufficient to acquire perceptual expertise.