Interesting Sci Am article on becoming an expert. Much of the available data is based on the study of chess grandmasters (GM) – the ‘fruit fly’ of this arena.
” I see only one move ahead, but it is always the correct one.” (Jose Capablanca, chess GM from early 1900′s) Just the first few seconds of thought separates the newbie from the expert. Article quote (AQ) – “This rapid, knowledge-guided perception, sometimes called apperception, can be seen in experts in other fields as well. Just as a master can recall all the moves in a game he has played, socan an accomplished musician often reconstruct the score to a sonataheard just once. And just as the chess master often finds the best movein a flash, an expert physician can sometimes make an accuratediagnosis within moments of laying eyes on a patient.”“Alfred Binet, the co-inventor of the first intelligence test, askedchess masters to describe how they played such games. He began with thehypothesis that they achieved an almost photographic image of theboard, but he soon concluded that the visualization was much moreabstract. He does not have to remember every detail at all times, because he canreconstruct any particular detail whenever he wishes by tapping awell-organized system of connections.”
The key appears to be ‘possession of such intricately structured knowledge‘. In studying GM vs Masters – they analyzed about the same number of moves ahead, but the GM’s appeared to ‘look at’ better moves, not more. “a weaker player may calculate for half an hour, often looking manymoves ahead, yet miss the right continuation, whereas a grandmastersees the move immediately, without consciously analyzing anything atall. Other fields – computer programming, bridge, music – have shown similar results, leading to the conclusion:”experts rely more on structured knowledge than on analysis“. Reconstruction of chess positions by GM was much better when the positions ‘made sense’ – ie, were non-random positions. This is felt to be due to ‘chunking’ – use of meaningful patterns. There are some questions about this theory’s ability to explain some aspects of expertise: specifically, the ability of experts to perform well with distractions / blindfolds (in chess example). Also “… brain-imaging studies done in 2001 at the University of Konstanz inGermany provide support for the theory by showing that expert chessplayers activate long-term memory much more than novices do.”
“By measuring the time it takes to commit a new chunk to memory and thenumber of hours a player must study chess before reaching grandmasterstrength, Simon estimated that a typical grandmaster has access toroughly 50,000 to 100,000 chunks of chess information. A grandmastercan retrieve any of these chunks from memory simply by looking at achess position, in the same way that most native English speakers canrecite the poem “Mary had a little lamb” after hearing just the firstfew words.”
The 10 year rule
“The one thing that all expertise theorists agree on is that it takesenormous effort to build these structures in the mind. Simon coined apsychological law of his own, the 10-year rule, which states that ittakes approximately a decade of heavy labor to master any field.”
Effortful study
“Ericsson argues that what matters is not experience per se but”effortful study,” which entails continually tackling challenges thatlie just beyond one’s competence. That is why it is possible forenthusiasts to spend tens of thousands of hours playing chess or golfor a musical instrument without ever advancing beyond the amateur leveland why a properly trained student can overtake them in a relativelyshort time. It is interesting to note that time spent playing chess,even in tournaments, appears to contribute less than such study to aplayer’s progress; the main training value of such games is to point upweaknesses for future study.” This last bit is used to explain why the learning curve is steep at first for novices – ie you learn quickly . You then reach an acceptable level of performance, and perform more ‘automatically’, with little or no improvement
Nature v Nuture“Although nobody has yet been able to predict who will become a greatexpert in any field, a notable experiment has shown the possibility ofdeliberately creating one. László Polgár, an educator in Hungary,homeschooled his three daughters in chess, assigning as much as sixhours of work a day, producing one international master and twograndmasters–the strongest chess-playing siblings in history. Theyoungest Polgár, 30-year-old Judit, is now ranked 14th in the world. The Polgár experiment proved two things: that grandmasters can bereared and that women can be grandmasters. It is no coincidence thatthe incidence of chess prodigies multiplied after László Polgárpublished a book on chess education. The number of musical prodigiesunderwent a similar increase after Mozart’s father did the equivalenttwo centuries earlier.”
The experts conclude that “motivation appears to be a more important factor than innate ability. The preponderance of psychological evidence indicates that experts aremade, not born. What is more, the demonstrated ability to turn a childquickly into an expert–in chess, music and a host of othersubjects–sets a clear challenge before the schools.”
Expertise
Reply