robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (07/11/84)
References: The idea that chess grandmasters analyse faster by "chunking" (thinking in terms of groups of moves) is only applicable to partial analysis of some positions. There are many forcing and non-forcing tactical sequences which a chessplayer, having thought them out once, need not rethink. Simple examples are: - Routine endgames, such as K+P vs K, where the winning procedure is known from a set of positions - A queen sacrifice on KN8 to force a smothered mate by a knight on KB7, of a king on KR1. In positions that have a mixture of tactical threats and positional considerations, "chunking" will not save the grandmaster much time. Every move that s/he analyzes must be considered for the precise answers that are available in the specific game. I think that grandmasters benefit more from what might look like intuition, but is more often a matter of experience. In the study of how chess players think by (Andries?) de Groot, all players up through the master level tended to start analyzing an unfamiliar middle-game position by checking its material balance. Grandmasters generally began by making a comment such as, "this position seems to have come out of a Catalan Opening..." The implication is that Grandmasters are familiar with many types of positions, and know from experience what sorts of methods will lead to wins for each type of position. This experience acts as a powerful filter, allowing the grandmaster to concentrate upon far fewer possibilities in each position for deep analysis. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison