Has anyone seen the August issue of Scientific American? It has a very interesting article about how one becomes an "expert" in a given field, and the article uses Chess as its main example. It talks a bit about the psychology of the master, how the thinking process of the master differs from that of the amateur, and how one should train to be a master. It's quite an interesting read. I reccomend checking it out.
P.S. I sincerely appologize if I put this in the wrong section, however I feel that this was the best place to put it, as most of the article does deal with chess.
It has to be somewhere online. Maybe it's similar to this one: People, it's not that hard to just search for it online: http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0005CCF5-D9D7-1CF6-93F6809EC5880000
Apparently, the article is called the Expert Mind:
"A man walks along the inside of a circle of chess tables, glancing at each for two or three seconds before making his move. On the outer rim, dozens of amateurs sit pondering their replies until he completes the circuit. The year is 1909, the man is José Raúl Capablanca of Cuba, and the result is a whitewash: 28 wins in as many games. The exhibition was part of a tour in which Capablanca won 168 games in a row.
How did he play so well, so quickly? And how far ahead could he calculate under such constraints? "I see only one move ahead," Capablanca is said to have answered, "but it is always the correct one.""
To get it, you could buy the magazine as a PDF for $5 or get it at a bookstore.
Originally posted by mjordan2ndWhats the front cover? I only see the July issue. Dang.
Has anyone seen the August issue of Scientific American? It has a very interesting article about how one becomes an "expert" in a given field, and the article uses Chess as its main example. It talks a bit about the psychology of the master, how the thinking process of the master differs from that of the amateur, and how one should train to be a master. I ...[text shortened]... r I feel that this was the best place to put it, as most of the article does deal with chess.
I read the whole article but didn't see anything new. Filled with statements like "To accumulate this body of structured knowledge grandmasters typically engage in years of effortful study, continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond their competence. The top performers in music, mathematics and sports appear to gain their expertise in the same way, motivated by competitioin and the joy of victory." I've seen people spend years of "effortful study" and never get beyond 1500. The author, Philip Ross is fairly highly rated in USCF, however, he simply presents a rehash of old studies, especially de Groot (who recently passed away). I'd like to see a new scientific study of chess performance, as clinical as one can get, using a variety of age groups. I believe it would be relevant to many fields, not just chess. I'm sorry, I read the article carefully but wasn't enlightened one bit.