Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site milford.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!milford!bill
From: bill@milford.UUCP (bill)
Newsgroups: net.games.chess
Subject: Chess + Memory: an example
Message-ID: <119@milford.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Jan-86 13:58:43 EST
Article-I.D.: milford.119
Posted: Mon Jan 13 13:58:43 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Jan-86 07:58:05 EST
Organization: Telecomp,Inc. , Milford Ct.
Lines: 41

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.