3 ms·
I am reminded of this article on learning math: http://www.ams.org/notices/201010/rtx101001303p.pdf http://www.ams.org/notices/201010/rtx101001303p.pdf """The
by gahahaha 15y ago
I am reminded of this article on learning math: http://www.ams.org/notices/201010/rtx101001303p.pdf http://www.ams.org/notices/201010/rtx101001303p.pdf
"""The alternative route to acquiring problem-
solving skill in mathematics derives from the work
of a Dutch psychologist, De Groot (1946–1965),
investigating the source of skill in chess. Research-
ing why chess masters always defeated weekend
players, De Groot managed to find only one
difference. He showed masters and weekend
players a board configuration from a real game,
removed it after five seconds, and asked them to
reproduce the board. Masters could do so with an
accuracy rate of about 70% compared with 30%
for weekend players. Chase and Simon (1973)
replicated these results and additionally demon-
strated that when the experiment was repeated
with random configurations rather than real-game
configurations, masters and weekend players had
equal accuracy (±30%). Masters were superior only
for configurations taken from real games."""
And what I'm thinking is that maybe (just maybe) you just haven't programmed enough to become a "master programmer" with the ability to remember your program like master chess players remember their games.
- gwern 15y agoThere are other results on chess, you know, like grandmasters spending more effort on falsifying their suggested moves: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.117.8670&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.117... Correlation is not causation, and of the two correlations, I think falsificationism is more useful than quick board-encoding - you don't play chess from memory, you play the position the game is currently at.