Abstract
We question Chase and Simon’s (1973) study concerning the content of the chess chunks, and we conduct a new variation of the classic chess reconstruction experiments, analyzing 25 types of possible reconstruction errors of grandmasters, masters, and beginners. The differences between the errors conducted in poor, intermediate, and strategically perfect reconstructions provide insights concerning the encoding of experts. The results obtained shed clear light into the debate concerning the importance of abstract thought (i.e., forward search) vs. perceptual processes (i.e., pattern recognition). We claim that a clear solution to this debate is ultimately unfeasible, as our experiments demonstrate high entanglement of perception and reasoning. Our results provide additional evidence that analogy is central to strategic thought in chess.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
