bill@milford.UUCP (bill) (01/13/86)
In article <192@isieng.UUCP> wendyt@isieng.UUCP (Wendy Thrash) writes: >>> <bill@milford> writes: >>> ...some psychological studies which indicated some >>> unlearned traits which good masters possess but are relatively lacking >>> in the rest of us... > >> Andrew Tannenbaum replies: >> This seems misguided. If the test positions were sensible chess >> positions, then a master would see them the way you would see >> sentences.... > >Andrew is quite correct, but the studies were well-done. On positions arising >from actual (or, at least, possible) games, masters were far superior. Random >arrangements were also tested -- masters were no better than woodpushers. I agree with Andy and Wendy, I badly mis-stated my thesis. What I was fishing for was a characterization of an un-learned trait probably shared by 'chess prodigies' (and maybe math-prodigies and music-prodigies); also that there might be a limit to be gained through slaving over chess books. Once I heard a patser (not me) ask of a master what he could do to correct his bad play; the reply was "Take up golf!" Shelby Lyman had Mednis and Sherwin as his 'regulars' doing analysis of the Karpov-Kasparov match(es). Lyman would continually misplace the pieces on the display board while doing analysis, Mednis and most frequently Sherwin would correct the placements "Uh, Shelby, I think there's a bishop on b4 which you hid in your pocket." When Reshevsky was a guest this became even more pronounced: "The rook isn't on e8 but f8" "Does it make any difference?" "It will if white brings his rook to the seventh rank", snapped Sammy. So in terms of quick memory of board positions: Reshevsky > Sherwin > Mednis > Lyman In terms of chess titles: Reshevsky >= Mednis > Lyman > (?) Sherwin [ I remember Lyman introduced as "IM" but not Sherwin ] Somehow I got the impression that Sherwin would have the potential to be stronger than Mednis or Lyman, (informal measure of my fear of meeting them in across-the-board play!) agreeing with the board-memory ordering. Hope this confuses things further.
tedrick@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (01/15/86)
>So in terms of quick memory of board positions: >Reshevsky > Sherwin > Mednis > Lyman >In terms of chess titles: >Reshevsky >= Mednis > Lyman > (?) Sherwin In terms of chess ability: Reshevsky >> Mednis > Sherwin. (Did someone say that Lyman was a chess player? :-) Let us not forget that Reshevsky was the strongest player in the world at one time but was unable to play a match for the world title due to Soviet machinations. Also I wish someone better than Lyman could be the moderator next time PBS does its chess thing ... Lyman is terrible.