Yet Another Hypothesis: Chunking and Pattern Recognition
There is a lot of talk about the value of MDLM's method, pattern recognition, and puzzle solving, and isn't it just memorization of patterns, etc. And, it is in large part memorization. Hopefully, though, we who practice this method are taking the time to understand why the moves are as they are and are attempting to blow holes in the solutions as presented. That way we become comfortable that they are correct and that what we are learning isn't junk.
However, there is still the question of why exactly the method works. We talk about pattern recognition and the ability to sense when tactics are present on the board or not. This is all great, but it doesn't seem to answer the question of what it is that has actually happened in our brains to help us with tactical situations on the board. I hypothesize that it is here that we need to bring in Dr. De Groot. It was De Groot who first came up with the idea of "chunking." Basically, he said that masters and experts have been exposed to enough situations on the board that their brains more quickly identify patterns on the board than do class players. Therefore, what De La Maza's circles approach does is to give us that chunking by forcing us to overlearn certain tactical situations. If this holds true, then we have to be able to conclude that this also applies to strategy and to endgames and to any other area of chess learning.
However, there is still the question of why exactly the method works. We talk about pattern recognition and the ability to sense when tactics are present on the board or not. This is all great, but it doesn't seem to answer the question of what it is that has actually happened in our brains to help us with tactical situations on the board. I hypothesize that it is here that we need to bring in Dr. De Groot. It was De Groot who first came up with the idea of "chunking." Basically, he said that masters and experts have been exposed to enough situations on the board that their brains more quickly identify patterns on the board than do class players. Therefore, what De La Maza's circles approach does is to give us that chunking by forcing us to overlearn certain tactical situations. If this holds true, then we have to be able to conclude that this also applies to strategy and to endgames and to any other area of chess learning.
posted by CelticDeath at 2:42 PM
2 Comments:
You are quite right. Prof. de Groot was my main inspirator to start with this program.
Indeed, grandmasters and experts see the board as almost a language. There experience with a multitude of games gives them this source of pattern recognition.
I think the program has worked for others because it does one thing in particular. It makes you look at many, many, many chess positions, and forces you to calculate and examine chess on a daily basis. Instead of just grabbing a book and going through the moves, it's forcing you to consider positions and moves, and look for a solution.
My round of circle 3 level 10 problems was night and day compared to circle 1. And it wasn't memorization, it was just seeing things more clearly. While I haven't gotten much better at the upper level problems, the ease with which I can recognize low level tactics has grown exponentially. Much of that is just exposure to a massive amount of situations.
Anyway, my two cents.
Post a Comment
<< Home