4 ms·

The point they are trying to make is it comes from memorizing the right things. You don't become a chess master by memorizing opening moves, you become one by m

by muzani 2y ago

The point they are trying to make is it comes from memorizing the right things. You don't become a chess master by memorizing opening moves, you become one by memorizing strong and weak states on the board. The ability to memorize opening moves may lead you into a stronger mid game, but it's not creativity. Creativity is searching for patterns where they can mate in three, or spotting positions where the bishop can attack two pieces at once in two moves.

Jensson 2y ago
> The point they are trying to make is it comes from memorizing the right things No it doesn't, understanding a concept doesn't come from memorizing N facts, if it did we could easily make everyone understand math in school but we can't. Some people understand math trivially with no effort and no work memorizing (they wont remember the formulas, but they can explain how it works and can reproduce something similar to the formulas), others don't understand even with massive amounts of effort and memorizing every formula. > You don't become a chess master by memorizing opening moves, you become one by memorizing strong and weak states on the board. That is just a theory, there is little behind that. Much more likely you become a chess master by training a board state evaluator in your hand that is really good at evaluating board states, not by memorizing lots of board states. Memorizing board states is deep blue, it is much worse than AlphaGo etc, so that is for sure not the best way to get good, and for sure not the way humans get good, humans get good similar to how AlphaGo gets good, not how deep blue did it. That board state evaluator allows you to also remember board states easily, but you don't build that by memorizing board state patterns.
- simiones 2y ago
  Memorizing is clearly a necessary, but not sufficient part of learning. If you are to become an expert in any subject whatsoever, from math to football fandom, you will need to develop an ability for remembering huge amounts of raw facts. One of the first hurdles in a math education is memorizing the multiplication tables. In biology or medicine you have to learn literally hundreds of systems that happen to exist in a certain way, and from all of the raw facts, could very well be a different way. > Some people understand math trivially with no effort and no work memorizing (they wont remember the formulas, but they can explain how it works and can reproduce something similar to the formulas), others don't understand even with massive amounts of effort and memorizing every formula. Sure, you can wing it at a primary or high school level if your teachers are impressed by your understanding. But you will never become a math expert if you don't remember the specific formulae, and many other more complex things. Even if you are fully able to deduce the theorems from scratch, you won't be able to function if you have to invent and then prove every single theorem you want to use. > Memorizing board states is deep blue, it is much worse than AlphaGo etc, so that is for sure not the best way to get good, and for sure not the way humans get good, humans get good similar to how AlphaGo gets good, not how deep blue did it. No, it is precisely the other way around. DeepBlue is deducing how good a board state is by trying to calculate all possible follow-up moves up to a depth of 13 or something. In contrast, AlphaGo has memorized patterns occuring in billions of games (in a lossy archive format, of course) and basically can recall games that are close enough to the current game and what you need to do to win from the current position. And this is exactly how chess masters mostly work as well, to the extent that it has been studied, and based on their own reporting. They just recognize positions or certain aspects of a position, and can recall how the game works from that position.
will1am 2y ago
I think memorization is a tool to deep understanding

by muzani 2y ago

Jensson 2y ago

> The point they are trying to make is it comes from memorizing the right things No it doesn't, understanding a concept doesn't come from memorizing N facts, if it did we could easily make everyone understand math in school but we can't. Some people understand math trivially with no effort and no work memorizing (they wont remember the formulas, but they can explain how it works and can reproduce something similar to the formulas), others don't understand even with massive amounts of effort and memorizing every formula. > You don't become a chess master by memorizing opening moves, you become one by memorizing strong and weak states on the board. That is just a theory, there is little behind that. Much more likely you become a chess master by training a board state evaluator in your hand that is really good at evaluating board states, not by memorizing lots of board states. Memorizing board states is deep blue, it is much worse than AlphaGo etc, so that is for sure not the best way to get good, and for sure not the way humans get good, humans get good similar to how AlphaGo gets good, not how deep blue did it. That board state evaluator allows you to also remember board states easily, but you don't build that by memorizing board state patterns.

simiones 2y ago
Memorizing is clearly a necessary, but not sufficient part of learning. If you are to become an expert in any subject whatsoever, from math to football fandom, you will need to develop an ability for remembering huge amounts of raw facts. One of the first hurdles in a math education is memorizing the multiplication tables. In biology or medicine you have to learn literally hundreds of systems that happen to exist in a certain way, and from all of the raw facts, could very well be a different way. > Some people understand math trivially with no effort and no work memorizing (they wont remember the formulas, but they can explain how it works and can reproduce something similar to the formulas), others don't understand even with massive amounts of effort and memorizing every formula. Sure, you can wing it at a primary or high school level if your teachers are impressed by your understanding. But you will never become a math expert if you don't remember the specific formulae, and many other more complex things. Even if you are fully able to deduce the theorems from scratch, you won't be able to function if you have to invent and then prove every single theorem you want to use. > Memorizing board states is deep blue, it is much worse than AlphaGo etc, so that is for sure not the best way to get good, and for sure not the way humans get good, humans get good similar to how AlphaGo gets good, not how deep blue did it. No, it is precisely the other way around. DeepBlue is deducing how good a board state is by trying to calculate all possible follow-up moves up to a depth of 13 or something. In contrast, AlphaGo has memorized patterns occuring in billions of games (in a lossy archive format, of course) and basically can recall games that are close enough to the current game and what you need to do to win from the current position. And this is exactly how chess masters mostly work as well, to the extent that it has been studied, and based on their own reporting. They just recognize positions or certain aspects of a position, and can recall how the game works from that position.

will1am 2y ago

I think memorization is a tool to deep understanding