On the benefits of over-long books.pic.twitter.com/r49KDsyWst
-
I agree. But it’s a false dichotomy to suppose that memory and understanding are completely different things. In many cases they’re closely related.
A striking instance of this is de Groot and Simon’s work, where they estimated that expert chess players typically have internalized 25,000-100,000 different types of piece configuration. This lets them understand the board in ways completely inaccessible to beginners.
-
-
OK good point. Still, I don't think that's the generic case. And even with chess, you get to recognise configurations if you love analysing games.
-
It’s a very interesting question how generic it is; I suspect we don’t yet have good evidence. The analysis point seems spot on, and consistent with memory research: the more deeply you think about something, the more firmly encoded it will become in memory.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
While I agree that chess knowledge is much less "principles based" and more modular than usually thought I'd still be really surprised if anything resembling an explicit instantiation of those 100.000 positions actually exists somewhere in the mind.
-
Yeah. The whole point of implicit knowledge is that masses of individual facts or situations can be represented more efficiently and presented to consciousness as a feeling.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.