Five Seconds or Sixty? Presentation Time in Expert Memory

For many years, the game of chess has provided an invaluable task environment for research on cognition, in particular on the differences between novices and experts and the learning that removes these differences, and upon the structure of human memory and its paramaters. The template theory presented by Gobet and Simon based on the EPAM theory offers precise predictions on cognitive processes during the presentation and recall of chess positions. This article describes the behavior of CHREST, a computer implementation of the template theory, in a memory task when the presentation time is varied from one second to sixty, on the recall of game and random positions, and compares the model to human data. Strong players are better than weak players in both types of positions, especially with long presentation times, but even after brief presentations. CHREST predicts the data, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Strong players' superiority with random positions is explained by the large number of chunks they hold in LTM. Their excellent recall with short presentation times is explained by templates, a special class of chunks. CHREST is compared to other theories of chess skill, which either cannot account for the superiority of Masters in random positions or predict too strong a performance of Masters in such positions.     

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.     

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。     

The generality of the levels of processing hypothesis: An application to memory for chess positions

The generality of the levels of processing approach to memory was tested by using chess positions rather than words as stimuli. Experiment 1 compared recall following semantic orienting instructions (find the best move and determine which side has the advantage), formal orienting instructions (determine the number of pieces on light squares and the number of pieces on dark squares), and intentional learning instructions using 19 novice chess players as subjects. Formal orienting instructions produced poorer recall than did either semantic orienting or intentional learning instructions, which yielded similar levels of retention. These results were replicated in Experiment 2 with 16 tournament chess players. Chess rating correlated with recall .82 under semantic orienting instructions but only —.15 under formal orienting instructions. It was concluded that the levels of processing framework has applicability outside the area of verbal learning.     

Effects of part-set cuing on experienced and novice chess players' reconstruction of a typical chess midgame position

A typical midgame chess position was presented to participants for 30 sec. Participants then reconstructed the presented position on a second board from memory. Following a brief distraction phase, participants were asked to reconstruct the position a second time with 0, 6, or 12 of the original pieces present. It was hypothesized that cue presentation during second reconstruction would be more disruptive to experienced players' recall than to novices'. Recall was measured in terms of correct pieces placed, new items generated (reminiscence), and previously recalled items omitted (forgetting). Analysis indicated that cues neither facilitated nor inhibited recall: experienced players performed better than novice players across recall indices, with the exception of reminiscence at which both groups performed similarly.     

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 role of attack and defense semantics in skilled players’ memory for chess positions

There is much evidence that chess skill is based on chunks in memory that represent parts of positions from previously encountered games. However, the content of these chunks is a matter for debate. According to one view, (1) the closer two pieces are to each other on a board (proximity), the more likely they are to be in the same chunk, and (2) skilled players encode the precise locations of pieces. An alternative view is that what information is encoded in a chess chunk is determined more by processing of the attack/defense relations during evaluation. In three experiments, participants evaluated positions and completed recognition tests. Experiment 1 supported the view that expert players make more use of attack/defense relations than of locations of pieces in a recognition test. Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrated that, for both long and short presentation times, expert players' recognition for a piece within a position was primed more by a piece related by attack or defense than by a piece merely proximal. These findings challenge theories of expertise for chess that assume a primary role for proximity and location in determining which pieces are grouped together in memory.     

Chess players' intake of task-relevant cues

Patterns of chess pieces are important for chess players in storing information in memory-recall tasks. It also may be assumed that these patterns play a central role in the perceptual coding of task-relevant cues. Two perceptual classification experiments were done to test this assumption. Chess-players' intake of task-relevant cues was studied by measuring the reaction times of subjects in counting the minor pieces on the chessboard or searching for checks in the game and in random positions. Surprisingly, there was no interaction between the level of skill and the type of position. In Experiment 3, both a perceptual classification task and a memory-recall task using the same positions were presented to a group of chess players at the same session. In the perceptual classification task, there was no interaction between the level of skill and the type of position, but in the recall task there was strong interaction. The result suggests that the information intake of chess players, in its lowest levels, is not dependent on the learned patterns. The role of the patterns becomes important in defining the information to be looked for, but the patterns are not important in the early-stage perceptual structuring of a position.     

In search of templates

This study reflects a recent shift towards the study of early stages of expert memory acquisition for chess positions. Over the course of 15 sessions, two subjects who knew virtually nothing about the game of chess were trained to memorise positions. Increase in recall performance and chunk size was captured by power functions, confirming predictions made by the template theory [Cogn. Psychol. 31 (1996) 1; Memory 6 (1998) 225; Cogn. Sci. 24 (2000) 651]. The human data were compared to that of a computer simulation run on CHREST (Chunk Hierarchy and REtrieval STructures), an implementation of the template theory. The model accounts for the pattern of results in the human data, although it underestimates the size of the largest chunks and the rate of learning. Evidence for the presence of templates in human subjects was found.     

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.     

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.     

Chunk hierarchies and retrieval structures: Comments on Saariluoma and Laine

The empirical results of Saariluoma and Laine are discussed and their computer simulations are compared with CHREST, a computational model of perception, memory and learning in chess. Mathematical functions such as power functions and logarithmic functions account for Saariluoma and Laine's correlation heuristic and for CHREST very well. However, these functions fit human data well only with game positions, not with random positions. As CHREST, which learns using spatial proximity, accounts for the human data as well as Saariluoma and Laine's correlation heuristic, their conclusion that frequency-based heuristics match the data better than proximity-based heuristics is questioned. The idea of flat chunk organisation and its relation to retrieval structures is discussed. In the conclusion, emphasis is given to the need for detailed empirical data, including information about chunk structure and types of errors, for discriminating between various learning algorithms.     

Recall or evaluation of chess positions revisited: the relationship between memory and evaluation in chess skill

We extend work by Holding and Reynolds (1982) on recall and problem solving with quasirandom chess positions. We tested 17 chess players on both quasirandom and structured chess positions. Consistent with the earlier study, initial recall of quasirandom chess positions is unrelated to chess skill level, and quality of the move selected in subsequent problem solving is related to skill level. However, recall following problem solving is related to chess skill level. These results support the view that pattern recognition processes underlie superior performance by skilled chess players, contrary to the conclusions of Holding and Reynolds (1982). Mechanisms such as long-term working memory retrieval structures (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995) or templates (Gobet & Simon, 1996a) could explain the effective encoding of quasirandom positions during problem solving.     

Visual span in expert chess players: evidence from eye movements

The reported research extends classic findings that after briefly viewing structured, but not random, chess positions, chess masters reproduce these positions much more accurately than less-skilled players. Using a combination of the gaze-contingent window paradigm and the change blindness flicker paradigm, we documented dramatically larger visual spans for experts while processing structured, but not random, chess positions. In addition, in a check-detection task, a minimized 3 × 3 chessboard containing a King and potentially checking pieces was displayed. In this task, experts made fewer fixations per trial than less-skilled players, and had a greater proportion of fixations between individual pieces, rather than on pieces. Our results provide strong evidence for a perceptual encoding advantage for experts attributable to chess experience, rather than to a general perceptual or memory superiority.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.