ThesisPDF Available

The Difference in the Verbal Knowledge of Expert Chess Players Using Think-aloud Protocol


Abstract and Figures

Nine (9) expert chess players with an ELO rating ranging from 1800 to 2600 were asked to verbally report their solution, evaluation, and judgment towards chess board puzzles intended to measure one's tactical ability, positional judgment, and endgame knowledge respectively. The goal of this study was to find out the differences of chess-specific verbal knowledge among expert chess players of different skill levels through think-aloud protocol. The verbal reports gathered were subjected to content analysis.
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Full-text available
Chunking models offer a parsimonious explanation of how people acquire knowledge and have been validated in domains such as expert behaviour and the acquisition of language. In this paper, we review two computational theories based on chunking mechanisms (the chunking theory and the template theory) and show what insight they offer for instruction and training. The suggested implications include the importance of perception in learning, the cost of acquiring knowledge, the significance of segmenting and ordering instruction material, the role of the variability of the instructional material in acquiring schemata, and the importance of taking individual differences into account.
Ergonomics provides a group of powerful tools for the analysis of work, the design of usable products and the improvements of peoples' working environment. This handbook sets out in practical detail the main ergonomics, or human factors, methods along with practical examples. It presents approximately 100 methods, covering the assessment and measurement of physical, environmental, physiological, psychological, social and organizational phenomena. Each of the methods is set out in a very structured form to allow ready comparison covering: background, applications, procedure, a worked example, related methods, standards, approximate training and application times (based on the example), reliability and validity, costs, tools needed, related methods, and a short biography. A distinguished team of editors have drawn on international experts to cover each method.
This chapter describes the progress made toward understanding chess skill. It describes the work on perception in chess, adding some new analyses of the data. It presents a theoretical formulation to characterize how expert chess players perceive the chess board. It describes some tasks that correlate with chess skill and the cognitive processes of skilled chess players. It is believed that the demonstration of de Groot's, far from being an incidental side effect of chess skill, actually reveals one of the most important processes that underlie chess skill—the ability to perceive familiar patterns of pieces. In the first experiment discussed in the chapter, two tasks were used. The memory task was very similar to de Groot's task: chess players saw a position for 5 seconds and then attempted to recall it. Unlike de Groot, multiple trials were used—5 seconds of viewing followed by recall—until the position was recalled perfectly. The second task or the perception task for simplicity involved showing chess players a position in plain view.
A test that sampled game-relevant knowledge of chess was administered to 59 United States Federation-rated players. Knowledge was found to be highly related to chess rating and to the component measures of skill, positional judgment and tactical proficiency. Memory for briefly presented chess positions was moderately correlated with rating and was the only measure in the study that correlated significantly with players' age. To comprehend individual differences in chess skill more fully, a wider research focus is recommended. Investigating how a player's verbal knowledge and familiarity with recurring patterns combine to enable accurate evaluation of chess positions appears to be a particularly promising research approach.
What kinds of information facilitate the identification of expert performance? How well can chess players of different performance levels identify the level of players who produced a chess position, or the moves leading to it? Fifteen chess players with U.S. Chess Federation (USCF) ratings from 1300 to 2210 judged six unfamiliar chess positions taken from games between players with USCF ratings from 1400 to 2600. The moves immediately preceding the starting position were successively revealed, with rating and confidence estimations made at each move. Estimation error decreased as a function of number of moves revealed (p < .001). Higher rated players consistently made lower estimation errors (p < .01). Judges at all personal levels were more accurate about positions arising between players close in rating to themselves. A self-reference heuristic is proposed in which estimation of expertise is made relative to the judge's own projected performance.