The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 10 of the 110 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis
Open accessAbstract
After reviewing the relevant theory on chess expertise, this paper re-examines experimentally the finding of Chase and Simon (1973a) that the differences in ability of chess players at different skill levels to copy and to recall positions are attributable to the experts' storage of thousands of chunks (patterned clusters of pieces) in long-term memory. Despite important differences in the experimental apparatus, the data of the present experiments regarding latencies and chess relations between successively placed pieces are highly correlated with those of Chase and Simon. We conclude that the two-second inter-chunk interval used to define chunk boundaries is robust, and that chunks have psychological reality. We discuss the possible reasons why Masters in our new study used substantially larger chunks than the Master of the 1973 study, and extend the chunking theory to take account of the evidence for large retrieval structures (templates) in long-term memory.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
79 Sources not found · 59 Own result · 43 Own interpretation · 23 No basis given · 12 Own method · 7 Supported · 6 Not checked yet · 3 No full text of the sources · 2 Partly supported · 1 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The two criteria are bound closely together, theoretically and empirically, in the chess recall tasks, as well as in verbal and pictorial recall tasks that involve semantic clustering (Wixted & Rohrer, 1994).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Other Experimental Evidence for the Chunking Hypothesis
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Wixted & Rohrer, 1994 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The CLUSTERING and Episodic Memory sections (page not available) link semantic relatedness in verbal recall to shorter interresponse times and bursts of responding, supporting the connection between relations and latency for words. Our copy does not establish that connection for chess recall or for pictorial recall involving semantic clustering; its discussion of pictures concerns hypermnesia instead. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“First, specific latency criteria may not provide unambiguous chunk boundaries because, as Wixted and Rohrer (1994) showed, in recall both from STM and LTM, latencies generally become longer as successive items are recalled.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Wixted and Rohrer (1994) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Clustering section reports that interresponse times increase with successive retrievals, and the Conclusion describes slowing recall from episodic and semantic memory. Those passages support the latency trend in long-term memory, but they do not establish it for short-term memory; the paper’s reference to a short-term memory scanning task is a comparison, not evidence of successive recall latencies in STM. The caution about chunk boundaries is the citing authors’ inference. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“We mentioned earlier that Wixted and Rohrer (1994) have shown that latencies generally increase with the number of items previously recalled.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -----------------------------
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Wixted and Rohrer (1994) source
The Clustering section states that interresponse times increase with successive retrievals and explains that, as more items are recalled, retrieval increasingly samples items already recalled. The copy does not provide a page number for this passage. (LLM, conf=0.94)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Thus, even if we assume that none of these pieces are guessed, which is probably not the case, the total of chunks plus pieces placed individually (2.0 and 4.0 for random and game positions, respectively), agrees reasonably well with Zhang and Simon's (1985) estimate that the capacity of visual STM is about 3 chunks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > ---------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Figure 7 about here ----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Zhang and Simon's (1985) source
The opening summary says that nonphonologically encoded STM holds no more than three chunks. The Results describe a visual or semantic short-term memory capable of retaining two or three chunks. The 2.0 and 4.0 figures are the citing authors’ own estimates, not figures attributed to Zhang and Simon. (LLM, conf=0.92)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Hence, the Wixted and Rohrer (1994) summary of findings in the literature on free recall is wholly consistent with the findings on chunking in the chess literature.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Wixted and Rohrer (1994) source
The CLUSTERING section summarizes findings that semantically related items tend to be recalled together and discusses search within clusters. The comparison with chess chunking is the citing authors’ interpretation, not a finding attributed to Wixted and Rohrer. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
In the paper
“Despite important differences in the experimental apparatus, the data of the present experiments regarding latencies and chess relations between successively placed pieces are highly correlated with those of Chase and Simon.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“We conclude that the 2second inter-chunk interval used to define chunk boundaries is robust”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
“Comparing a copy and a recall task, we show that the 2second chunk boundary proposed by Chase and Simon is robust.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
In the paper
“We discuss the possible reasons why Masters in our new study used substantially larger chunks than the Master of the 1973 study”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“We will see that, in spite of this difference in strategy, most of our results accord closely with Chase and Simon's.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Results and Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the game positions, time to study the stimulus position seems to be a linear function of chess skill (28.6, 48.5, and 76.9 s from higher to lower skill).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Total study time.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 116
- Not yet classified. 3
- Probably not a substantial claim. 47
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In their study, the skill of subjects (from 1000 to 2200 ELO) did not correlate with the recall of random positions 3 shown for a few seconds, but effectiveness of the search for the best move in these positions did correlate with skill.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Recognition-Association Assumption
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Holding and Reynolds (1982) source
The Procedure section says players viewed the random positions for 8 seconds for recall, then studied the corrected positions while choosing moves. The Specific Recall Analyses section reports no significant correlation between recall and USCF rating (r = .10), but a significant correlation between good-move scores and rating (r = .75, p < .001). The Subjects section describes six rating classes, with mean ratings from 1,065 to 2,129. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Chunk presentation produced better recall than column presentation; and, in fact, better recall than presentation of the entire position for the same length of time (12 s).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Other Experimental Evidence for the Chunking Hypothesis
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Frey and Adesman (1976) source
The Experiment II Results report higher mean recall with meaningful chunks (13.72 pieces) than with columns (10.69) or the entire-board presentation (12.77). The Discussion describes all three modes as six-slide displays and says the final slide lasted 2 seconds, consistent with the stated 12-second presentation. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“However, studies using interfering material in intervening tasks (Charness, 1974;Cooke, Atlas, Lane, & Berger, 1993;Frey & Adesman, 1976, Gobet & Simon, in press-a) have shown that this material does not interfere much with chess memory, thus implying that, as the interfering tasks reduce retention in STM, some information has to be transferred rapidly to LTM.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Charness, 1974
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cooke, Atlas, Lane, & Berger, 1993 source
- Supportedcites Frey & Adesman, 1976 source
The Experiment III Discussion reports that interpolated processing had little detrimental effect on chess-position recall. The General Discussion interprets this finding, together with Charness’s results, as suggesting that information is processed quickly and passed directly to long-term storage. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Not yet classified.
- Not matched
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Wixted and Rohrer (1994) report inconclusive results on the latencies within clusters: in some studies, latencies increased with position, but did not in other studies.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -----------------------------Insert Figure 5 about here -----------------------------
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Wixted and Rohrer (1994) source
The CLUSTERING section reports that Graesser and Mandler found within-cluster interresponse times increased with output position, a finding replicated by Rubin and Olsen. It also reports that Gruenewald and Lockhead did not find that increase, matching the claim of mixed results. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The large size of chunks we have found adds support to the template theory, inasmuch as the difference in the number of chunks by skill was small and as this number was within the supposed capacity of visual STM (Zhang & Simon, 1985).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Zhang & Simon, 1985 source
The Results section says visual or semantic short-term memory can retain two or three chunks, supporting the capacity estimate for which Zhang and Simon are cited. The large chunks, small skill-level difference, and implication for template theory are the citing authors’ own findings and interpretation, not findings attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
In the paper
“BGP latencies are longer than those found by Chase and Simon (means around 3 s), which may reflect differences in strategies used by our subjects.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -------------------------------Insert Figure 2 about here --------------------------------
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“About 79.5% of the corrected WGP latencies are now below 2 s, with a median of 1.37 s and a mode of 1.13 s, in reasonable agreement with the Chase and Simon's data.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > ------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here ------------------------------
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For our subjects, the median is 2.63 s and the mode is about 2.37 s.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > ------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here ------------------------------
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although no subject actually refused to copy (or to recall) 4 a random position, this task elicited deep negative feelings.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Total study time.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Their subjects studied the stimulus position for a short time (a few seconds), then replaced a few pieces on the copy board, repeating this cycle until all pieces had been replaced.Our subjects (especially the Masters) studied the stimulus position for some dozens of seconds before placing the first piece; later, they rarely revisited the stimulus.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Results and Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The times, consistent for our three skill levels, are close to Chase and Simon's, although a little slower even after the correction for the mouse.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -------------------------------Insert Figure 2 about here --------------------------------
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The corrected distribution of WGP latencies has now a median of 1.49 and a mode of 1.25.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > ------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here ------------------------------
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whatever strategy was used, subjects had to correct numerous color errors.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Total study time.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Stronger players tended initially to try to replace pieces by semantic groups; then, encountering difficulty, switched to reconstructing the position in a more systematic way, roughly line by line or column by column.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Total study time.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the present experiment, 79.5% of the WGP latencies (against only 1.11% of the BGP latencies) are less than 2 s, and 89.3% (against 4.4%) are below 2.5 s.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -------------------------------Insert Figure 2 about here --------------------------------
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The between-glance latency distribution has small peaks at 3.75 and 5.75 s and a median at 7.3 s.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -------------------------------Insert Figure 2 about here --------------------------------
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the random positions, Masters are faster than the others (97.0, 98.8, 128.4 s), but slower than would be predicted from their times in game positions.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Total study time.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We will show that our data generally agree well with the data from the earlier experiments of Chase and Simon (1973a and b), with some differences in sizes and numbers of chunks that are more compatible with the revised template theory than with the chunking theory in its original form.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Results and Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973a and b)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With random positions, Masters tend to study the stimulus in longer glances than those of weaker players, but to return less often to look at the stimulus position.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Total study time.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note also that the mean of the median largest chunks for random positions is constant across skill levels (6.3 pieces [sd = 2.1] in the copy task and 4.6 pieces [sd = 1.7] in the recall task, for all subjects pooled) and is well over what would be predicted by a theory postulating the visual encoding of individual pieces in STM.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -------------------------------Insert Figure 6 about here -------------------------------
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For game positions, the size of chunks varies with skill levels [F(2,23) = 11.81,p<.001], but size does not differ significantly between the copy and recall tasks [F(1,23) = 1.56, ns.]The interaction term is not statistically significant.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -------------------------------Insert Figure 6 about here -------------------------------
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main effects of skill [F(2,23) = 4.84, MS e = 1.50, p <.05] and type of presentation [F(1,23) = 240.1,MS e = 1.68, p <.001] are significant, while the interaction is only marginally significant [F(2,23) = 3.23, MS e = 1.68, p <.06].”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > ---------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Figure 7 about here ----------------------------------------------------------------------
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the Masters, the mean of the median largest chunks is 16.8 for the recall task, and 14 for the copying task.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -------------------------------Insert Figure 6 about here -------------------------------
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The percentage of placements classified consistently by the two methods is 72% for the task of copying game positions, 64% for copying random positions, 74% for recalling game positions, and 70% for recalling random positions.All four tables have chi-squares with probabilities below .0001.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > ------------------------------Insert Figure 4 about here ------------------------------Relations by time interval.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Below 1.8 s, placements having 3 or 4 relations dominate over placements with 0 or 1 relation.Above 2.2 s, the pattern is shifted.In the interval 1.8-2.2s, which includes the value of 2 s we have selected as a cut-off, the numbers with few and many relations are almost equal.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > ------------------------------Insert Figure 4 about here ------------------------------Relations by time interval.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 1, columns 2-3 and 5-6 show, averaged over all subjects (there was little difference in latency statistics between skill levels), the median latencies between the placement of two successive pieces for each combination of relations, for the Copy task in Random and Game positions, within and between glances.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Comparison between Copy and Recall Tasks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The within-chunk latencies do show a modest increase of about 50% over 30 pieces, but the between-chunk latencies increase by a factor of 2 over the same interval.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -----------------------------Insert Figure 5 about here -----------------------------
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Age also did not correlate significantly with recall of game positions (r = .06) or of random positions (r = -.36 ), though the observed correlation was stronger for the latter.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Role of age.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Figure 3, which plots latency as a function of the number of relations in the recall task, for both short and long latencies combined (skill levels and types of positions are pooled), shows a clear negative correlation between number of relations and latencies, giving results similar to Figure 5 of Chase and Simon (1973a).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -----------------------------
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From the Figure , we see that, for within-chunk conditions, the placements having few relations are below chance, while the placements having several relations are well above chance.Between-chunk placements, with a flatter trend, are overall much closer to chance.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > --------------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here ---------------------------------------Predicting latency from types of relations.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The strict systematic strategy was used by only one Master, on his second random board; but Experts and Class A players used this strategy in copying 38% of the random boards.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Total study time.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The strategy was used by 22% of Experts and 33% of Class A players on the first board, 56% of Experts and 42% of Class A players on the second.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Total study time.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The correlations with number of relations for the within-chunk conditions are: copy game, withinglance: .81;copy random, within-glance: .68;recall game, short latencies: .86;recall random, short latencies: .79.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > --------------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here ---------------------------------------Predicting latency from types of relations.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Leaving aside the data for recall of random positions, which were not computed by Chase and Simon, and the a priori probabilities, the correlation between the remaining items in our Table 2 and the corresponding items in Chase and Simon's (1973a) Table 7 is .78,accounting for 61% of the variance in the correlation coefficients.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > --------------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here ---------------------------------------Predicting latency from types of relations.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon's (1973a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, in 27 cases in game positions, two opposing pieces of the same kind attacked each other (and had no other relation), giving a probability of .001for the AS relation; and in 8,978 cases a pair of pieces had none of the five chess relations, giving a probability of .335for the null relation.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > --------------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here ---------------------------------------Predicting latency from types of relations.
plainn = 8,978- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In agreement with the theory, the within-chunk deviations from a priori probabilities are highly correlated with the number of relations, while this correlation is weaker for the between-chunk deviations.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > --------------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here ---------------------------------------Predicting latency from types of relations.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The correlations with the between-chunk conditions are: copy game, between-glance: .61;copy random, betweenglance: .56;recall game, long latencies: .69;recall random, long latencies: .31.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > --------------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here ---------------------------------------Predicting latency from types of relations.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find the same pattern in our data: all four correlations of latencies with numbers of relations are negative, although some are not statistically significant.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -----------------------------
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, all but one of the latencies of the within-glance condition of the copying task are below 2 s, the exception being the case where there is only a relation of attack with game positions (this case occurs only in 0.5 % of the observations).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -----------------------------
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We have computed the comparable data for our experiments, but as the two sets of data are very similar, we will summarize the comparison with Chase and Simon instead of reproducing our table in full.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > --------------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here ---------------------------------------Predicting latency from types of relations.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We obtained the following correlations with age: (a) for game positions: interpiece latency (.22), time to move the mouse (.10);(b) for random positions: interpiece latency (.26); time to move the mouse (.01).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Role of age.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjects produce fewer chunks in the recall task than in the copy task, which simply reflects the fact that multiple chunks do not have to be held in STM in the copy task.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > ---------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Figure 7 about here ----------------------------------------------------------------------
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the withinglance copy placements in game positions, Spearman's rho correlation is -.77, and in the random positions the correlation is -.84.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -----------------------------
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The shortest times are obtained with the PCS and DPCS relations, which mainly appear with pawn formations.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -----------------------------
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although we did find, as Chase and Simon did, some differences in the number of chunks between skill levels, the ordering of numbers by skill was wholly different in the two studies.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The number of chunks replaced is inversely related to skill level for the copy task, while it shows an inverted U-curve for the recall task, with Class A players recalling the least chunks.Note that the difference between Masters and Class A players is small in the recall task: less than one chunk.”
§ of relations 0.2-0.6 0.6-1.01.0-1.41.4-1.81.8-2.22.2-2.6 2.6-3.0 3.0-3.43.4-3.83.8-4.24.2-4.6 > -----------------------------------------------------------
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, there was little difference among skill levels in the nature of the chunks: all show the same pattern of relations, which led us to pool the skill levels in the presentation of results.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, the relations of Same Type, Color and Proximity play a major role in predicting the latency when successive placements belong to the same chunk, but not when they belong to two different chunks.”
§ of relations 0.2-0.6 0.6-1.01.0-1.41.4-1.81.8-2.22.2-2.6 2.6-3.0 3.0-3.43.4-3.83.8-4.24.2-4.6 > -----------------------------------------------------------
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Besides, Masters show an interesting pattern: in contrast with the other players, their BGPs are much slower with random positions than with game positions.This difference accounts for almost the whole of the (marginal) interaction effect of Type of position x Skill : Experts and Class A players keep almost the same rhythm for the BGPs in both game and random positions.”
§ of relations 0.2-0.6 0.6-1.01.0-1.41.4-1.81.8-2.22.2-2.6 2.6-3.0 3.0-3.43.4-3.83.8-4.24.2-4.6 > -----------------------------------------------------------
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There was some indication that they were slightly superior also with random positions, a result that did not appear in Chase and Simon's data.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The importance of relations for sequence of placements is closely related to the frequency of their occurrence, although proximity has a larger role than its frequency would predict.”
§ of relations 0.2-0.6 0.6-1.01.0-1.41.4-1.81.8-2.22.2-2.6 2.6-3.0 3.0-3.43.4-3.83.8-4.24.2-4.6 > -----------------------------------------------------------
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, numbers of chess relations in within-glance placements in the copy task and in placements within 2 s in the recall task were strongly correlated, as were numbers of relations in between-glance placements in the copy task and placements over 2 s in the recall task.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“important difference between WGP and BGP: WGP latencies are much shorter than BGP.ANOVA indicates this main effect of Mode of placement [F(1, 22) = 90.74,MS e = 10.3, p<.001].”
§ of relations 0.2-0.6 0.6-1.01.0-1.41.4-1.81.8-2.22.2-2.6 2.6-3.0 3.0-3.43.4-3.83.8-4.24.2-4.6 > -----------------------------------------------------------
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, Masters recalled nearly three times as many pieces as Class players in game positions, but only 1 1/2 times as many in random positions.”
§ of relations 0.2-0.6 0.6-1.01.0-1.41.4-1.81.8-2.22.2-2.6 2.6-3.0 3.0-3.43.4-3.83.8-4.24.2-4.6 > -----------------------------------------------------------
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the 2-s boundary is only an approximation, it seems to be a reasonable approximation, for in our replication of the copy task, 79.5 % of the latencies for placements within a glance (as against only 1.11% of the latencies for placements between glances) were less than 2 s.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, the size of chunks increased with skill, accounting for skilled players' superiority in the recall task.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean number of references to the stimulus decreases with chess skill, and game positions require fewer references (2.5, 4.9, 7.2) than random positions (6.8, 10.8, 12.0).”
§ of relations 0.2-0.6 0.6-1.01.0-1.41.4-1.81.8-2.22.2-2.6 2.6-3.0 3.0-3.43.4-3.83.8-4.24.2-4.6 > -----------------------------------------------------------
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This does not imply that there will be any systematic increase over the period of recall in within-chunk latencies for successive chunks, nor do our data show substantial differences of this kind.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, strong players tend make faster between-glance placements in game positions than amateurs, but not within-glance placements.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our data showed that, when we plot the latencies of pieces that have 2 or more chess relations with their predecessors, we find a small trend in size over time; when we plot the latencies of pieces that have 0-1 chess relations with their predecessors, we find a strong positive trend, with the latter slope more than twice the former.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With game positions, the percentages of pieces correctly recalled are 92.0,57.1 and 32.2 for Masters, Experts and Class players, respectively.The corresponding percentages for random positions are 19.0,13.8 and 12.4.”
§ of relations 0.2-0.6 0.6-1.01.0-1.41.4-1.81.8-2.22.2-2.6 2.6-3.0 3.0-3.43.4-3.83.8-4.24.2-4.6 > -----------------------------------------------------------
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No main effect of Skill [F(2, 22) = 0.32, MS e = 13.5] or of Type of position [F(1, 22) = 1.63,MS e = 2.15] are found.A marginal interaction is signaled for Skill x Type of position [F(2, 22) =3.17, MS e = 2.15, p=.062].There are no other two-way or three-way interactions”
§ of relations 0.2-0.6 0.6-1.01.0-1.41.4-1.81.8-2.22.2-2.6 2.6-3.0 3.0-3.43.4-3.83.8-4.24.2-4.6 > -----------------------------------------------------------
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Masters created larger clusters at all levels of partitioning than did class B players.In addition, the chunks they detected at the basic level corresponded to the chunks identified by Chase and Simon (1973a).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Other Experimental Evidence for the Chunking Hypothesis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Freyhoff, Gruber and Ziegler (1992)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although even small chunks can suggest good moves in tactical situations, and chunks or small constellations of them allow recognition of positions of particular types.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Recognition-Association Assumption
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Chase and Simon carried out little more than an exploratory experiment.They studied only a single Master, a single Expert and a single Class A player.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the number of units decreased and their size increased with expertise, stronger players using overlapping sorting criteria that grouped chunks together.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Other Experimental Evidence for the Chunking Hypothesis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pattern recognition then facilitates the generation of moves and plans during search and allows a rapid and precise evaluation of positions met during search.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Recognition-Association Assumption
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A computer program, MAPP (Simon and Gilmartin, 1973), simulated several experimental findings, including the percentage of pieces recalled by a class A player, 1 the types of pieces replaced and the chess relations between successive pieces in the reconstruction.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Simon and Gilmartin, 1973 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pawn structures provide information about the squares on which pieces should be placed (e.g. a Knight in front of an isolated pawn) and also about typical pawn moves for given structures.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Recognition-Association Assumption
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In addition, as the subjects used actual chess boards and pieces, the maximum number of pieces they could grasp in one hand could have limited apparent chunk sizes.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Charness found better recall in the chunking condition than in the column condition, and poorest recall in the random condition.The same results were found when pieces were presented visually, one at a time (Charness, 1974).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Other Experimental Evidence for the Chunking Hypothesis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Charness, 1974
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Gruber (1991) also found that, when allowed to ask questions about an as yet unseen position, chess experts asked about the past and future path of the game, about plans and evaluations, while novices asked about the locations of single pieces”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Other Experimental Evidence for the Chunking Hypothesis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gruber (1991)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Holding (1985,1992) has challenged this assumption on the grounds that (a) most chess patterns consist of pawns, 2 and pawn structures do not generate many moves; (b) that most chess patterns found by Chase and Simon (1973a,b) are too small to provide useful information; and (c) that pattern recognition is not sufficient to explain chess skill, because it applies only to the initial moves from the”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Recognition-Association Assumption
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Holding (1985,1992)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973a,b)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In particular, 74.6% of the pieces within partitions shared three or more relations, as compared with 67.6% in Chase and Simon's data for the recall task.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Other Experimental Evidence for the Chunking Hypothesis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Freyhoff, Gruber and Ziegler (1992)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“First, their size was, on average, 3.6 pieces for masters, and 2.7 pieces for class B players-reasonably close, given differences in the types of positions used, to Chase and Simon's 2.5 pieces for the Master and 2.1 pieces for the Class A player.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Other Experimental Evidence for the Chunking Hypothesis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Freyhoff, Gruber and Ziegler (1992)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Although Chase and Simon only mention chunks as eliciting (initial or subsequent) moves, chunks, especially the large chunks we call templates, can also provide information about the class to which the position belongs, about heuristics, plans, partial evaluation of the position and so on.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Recognition-Association Assumption
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Chase and Simon (1973b) proposed that Masters access information in long-term memory (LTM) rapidly by recognizing familiar constellations of pieces on the board, the patterns acting as cues that trigger access to the chunks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973b)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Because storing one chunk in STM gives access to a number of pieces, masters perform remarkably well in recall tasks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973b)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“On the contrary, Chase and Simon (1973b, pp. 268-272) stated explicitly that recognition of patterns is used not only to generate base moves but also subsequent moves triggered by patterns in the”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Recognition-Association Assumption
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973b)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One central thesis of the chunking model is that chunks act as cues that, when recognized, evoke access to heuristic suggestions for good moves.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Recognition-Association Assumption
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Simon and Gilmartin estimated that expertise in chess would require between 10,000 and 100,000 chunks in memory (in the literature, this range is often reported simply as 50,000 chunks).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Simon and Gilmartin
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“the finding of Chase and Simon (1973a) that the differences in ability of chess players at different skill levels to copy and to recall positions are attributable to the experts' storage of thousands of chunks (patterned clusters of pieces) in long-term memory.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Moreover, the Master was rather inactive in chess at the time of the experiments and performed substantially less well than other Masters who have been tested in the same or similar tasks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to the theory, pairs of pieces that have numerous relations are more likely to be noticed together, hence chunked.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Finally, Chase and Simon's theory of memory implies that chunks, upon recognition, would suggest good moves to the masters.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Because these chunks are associated with possible moves, chess masters can generally choose good moves with only moderate look-ahead search.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973b)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Chase and Simon (1973b) proposed that, during the brief presentation of a chess position, players recognize already familiar chunks on the board and place pointers to these chunks in a short-term memory of limited size.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973b)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Gobet and Simon (in press-a) propose a modified model that is in accord with other recent models of expert memory (e.g., Richman, Staszewski & Simon, 1995), and accounts for the rapid encoding shown by chess masters.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gobet and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Richman, Staszewski & Simon, 1995 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Replications are rare in chess psychology research (Charness, 1988;Gobet, 1993), and the data supporting the 2-s boundary for delimiting chunks have never been replicated experimentally.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Overview of the Experiment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Charness, 1988
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Gobet, 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, subjects in the original study replaced pieces by picking up several of them simultaneously.Hand capacity will limit the number of pieces that can be grasped, hence the estimated size of chunks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note also that, because of the design of the program, it was difficult to access the stimulus position and come back to the reconstruction board in less than one second, which may have provided one motive for fewer and longer references to the stimulus.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -------------------------------Insert Figure 2 about here --------------------------------
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, templates contain pointers to symbols representing plans, moves, strategical and tactical concepts, as well as other templates.These pointers are also acquired at normal learning rates (i.e., 5 to 10 seconds per chunk).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The template hypothesis and the evidence supporting it predict that strong players should replace positions in chunks (templates) larger than the ones identified by Chase and Simon (1973a).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The modified theory asserts that-as in the chunking theory-chunks are accessed through a discrimination net.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Several authors (Freyhoff, Gruber & Ziegler, 1992;Gold & Opwis, 1992;Holding, 1985;Reitman, 1976) have seen difficulties in Chase and Simon's method for defining chunks, among the most important of them: (a) difficulty in identifying chunks by reaction times, (b) impossibility of capturing overlapping or nested chunks, (c) difficulty in assigning pieces erroneously replaced and (d) the assumption”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Freyhoff, Gruber & Ziegler, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gold & Opwis, 1992
- Not matchedcites Holding, 1985
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This could account for the observed larger average size of the early than of the late chunks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This difference in behavior may be related to the differences in the ways in which stimuli were presented and responses made in the two sets of experiments.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Results and Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Still, there is warrant for testing further the validity of Chase and Simon's method for identifying chunks: infelicities in the original study; criticisms of the technique used; evidence that Masters perceive a position at a higher level than 4-5 piece chunks; a different prediction of the template theory about the size of chunks; the small number of subjects.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Overview of the Experiment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, if the close relation between the number of relations joining a pair of pieces and the likelihood of the pair being perceived in rapid succession were confirmed, then numbers of relations, on the one hand, and latencies, on the other, provide converging evidence about the numbers, sizes and character of the chunks that experts perceive.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Overview of the Experiment
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two positions (the model and the position being reconstructed) were slightly shifted and of a different size, in order to avoid subjects' using iconic memory to superimpose one on the other.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Materials and Procedure
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Chase and Simon found that pairs of pieces within chunks identified by the copy and recall methods showed the same pattern of relations, but a different pattern from that shown by pairs of pieces belonging to different chunks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Overview of the Experiment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To remove learning effects, the first position is omitted from the following analysis.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Results and Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“These objections raise serious difficulties if the goal is to cut a chess position into precise chunks but are not fundamental for analyses that relate chunks to the distributions of relations between pieces, as is the case for Chase and Simon's (1973a) study and the present one.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notice that, although slots in templates can be filled rapidly, hence serve essentially as augments to STM in the domain of expertise, the templates themselves are built up slowly, at normal LTM learning rates.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This is of course at variance with their findings (which, we have noted, were based on the performance of only a single Master).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results undermine the hypothesis that a pattern of pieces can be recognized independently of its position on the chessboard and add support to the estimate of 50,000 chunks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Number of Chunks Needed to Reach Expertise
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Moreover, as we have seen above, various alternative techniques (partitioning, sorting) provide converging evidence that supports the original results of Chase and Simon.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Not yet classified.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We decided to pool the results from the two experiments, as there was no difference between the two experimental groups nor any interaction of experimental group with the variables discussed below.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our new experimental procedure eliminates these two potential problems.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As in the case of the copy task, we judged the confounding due to the non-random order of presentation to be acceptable, because we were not primarily interested in comparing the levels of reconstruction of the game and random conditions.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Materials and Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to the chunking model, pieces are encoded in a STM of limited size during the recall task and no new information is then added to LTM.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In their data, 80% of the WGP latencies were less than 2 s, with a median around 1 s and a mode around 0.5 s (estimated from their graph).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > ------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here ------------------------------
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Templates, besides containing information about a pattern of pieces, as chunks do, possess slots (variables that can be instantiated) in which some new information can be stored in a matter of seconds.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Most of the criticisms we have reviewed were either due to misinterpretation of the chunking theory or pointed toward the necessity for postulating some kind of rapid encoding into LTM, a requirement that is now met in the template theory (Gobet & Simon, in press-a).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Overview of the Experiment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gobet & Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Holding (1985Holding ( , 1992) ) argued that this number is much too large, and that as few as 2,500 chunks may account for the results obtained in recall experiments, by assuming that the chunks encode relations between pieces but not the location of these pieces.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Number of Chunks Needed to Reach Expertise
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Holding (1985, 1992)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Table 6 of Chase and Simon (1973a) gives the probabilities of the presence of different combinations of relations in the various experimental conditions.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > --------------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here ---------------------------------------Predicting latency from types of relations.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In spite of the difference in apparatus, the statistics derived from the current experiments agree closely with those reported by Chase and Simon (1973a).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -----------------------------Insert Figure 5 about here -----------------------------
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Not yet classified.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Chase and Simon had found that small average latencies in the copy task correlate with a large number of relations between successive pieces, while large average latencies correlate with few relations.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -----------------------------
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In the recall task, 5 Chase and Simon (1973a) did find a difference in chunk size between their subjects, their Master obtaining, for the first chunk replaced with middle game positions, a mean of 3.8 pieces, while the Class A player had a mean of 2.6 pieces and the beginner a mean of 2.4 pieces.The median largest chunk per position was 5 pieces for the Master with game positions.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Size of the Largest Chunk and Number of Chunks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The chunking hypothesis predicts that there would be many more relations of attack, defense, proximity, shared color and shared type of piece between successive pieces within the same chunk than between successive pieces on opposite sides of a chunk boundary.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Comparison between Copy and Recall Tasks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, if the same processes determine the latencies in both the copy and recall tasks, then there should be a high correlation between the relations in the two tasks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Comparison between Copy and Recall Tasks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The chunking theory predicts that the inter-piece latencies will stay more or less constant when pairs of pieces belong to a chunk, but that the inter-piece latencies between chunks may increase as a function of the number of pieces previously placed.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -----------------------------
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If chunk boundaries are indicated by latencies > 2 s, then the relations between successive pieces should be different with short than with long latencies between them.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Comparison between Copy and Recall Tasks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The template theory predicts that experts develop larger chunks with practice than are predicted by the original chunking theory.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Size of the Largest Chunk and Number of Chunks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Thus, the two methods of defining chunks produce quite similar segmentations of the output, and the findings reported in Chase and Simon's paper and in this paper would hold about equally well if we defined a chunk as a set of consecutively placed pieces each of which has 2 or more chess relations with the piece previously placed.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -----------------------------
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The slowdown between chunks would follow if the players first replace salient chunks, then have to search a little longer to find the less salient, and therefore less easily recognized chunks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -----------------------------
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This was one of the most troublesome of their findings, for the original model postulated that the difference in recall between players of different skills was to be explained by chunk size differences not by differences in the chunk capacity of short-term memory.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -------------------------------Insert Figure 6 about here -------------------------------
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Finally, in two analyses extending Chase and Simon's, we showed that there was a considerable agreement in predicting whether a piece belongs to a chunk using either the number of relations or the latencies, and that the between-chunk latencies lengthen significantly over time, but the withinchunk latencies only slightly.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -----------------------------Insert Figure 5 about here -----------------------------
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All of these correlations show that within-chunk patterns of relations, whether in the copy or recall task, are quite different from between-chunk patterns, the latter resembling more closely the relations between pairs of pieces selected randomly.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > --------------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here ---------------------------------------Predicting latency from types of relations.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We do not show the statistics for the recall task, as the separation of within-chunk from between-chunk placements in that task on the basis of latency would confound independent with dependent variables.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Comparison between Copy and Recall Tasks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, the relations for within-glance placements in the copying experiments should correlate with those for rapid placements (≤ 2 s) in the recall experiments and the relations for between-glance placements in the former should correlate with those for slow placements (> 2 s), in the latter.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Comparison between Copy and Recall Tasks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As none of the correlations were significant at p = .10,we may conclude that age did not much affect time to move the mouse or compromise our estimate of chunk cut-offs.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Role of age.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The former follows from the fact that chunks are postulated to be stored in LTM, and speed of recovery of their successive elements should be independent of the time when they are copied or replaced.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -----------------------------
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the number of chunks in the recall task differ little between the strongest skill level and the weakest, this supports the hypothesis that strong players use templates, supplemented by smaller chunks, to encode information rapidly.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While this is somewhat possible for the positions of the copy task, the positions we have used in the recall task do not, as far we can judge, belong to typical openings situations (see Appendix A), and it is unlikely that the typicality of positions has inflated our estimate of the size of chunks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such a time-sharing strategy should however level the inter-piece latencies and destroy chunks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Another possible factor in the differences in chunk size at Master level between the Chase and Simon experiments and ours is that their Master was somewhat out of practice (a score of only 71.5% for recall of middle game positions, as compared with 92% for our Masters), and, being in his mid-forties, may have been slower in replacing pieces, causing some chunks to be divided in scoring them.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In both cases, the player has spent enough time studying this position or type of position to have acquired large, well differentiated templates for it.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase & Simon, 1973a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The correct claim, and the one actually made by Chase and Simon and in this paper, is that skill in playing chess depends both on (a) recognizing familiar chunks in chess positions while playing games, and (b) exploring possible moves and evaluating their consequences.”
§ of relations 0.2-0.6 0.6-1.01.0-1.41.4-1.81.8-2.22.2-2.6 2.6-3.0 3.0-3.43.4-3.83.8-4.24.2-4.6 > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(It cannot be assumed that Masters have superior motor skills in placing pieces, for experience with the use of computer and mouse was evenly distributed among the subjects in our experiments-skill level accounts for less than 0.3 % of the variance when used to predict the time to move the mouse.)”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Summarized in one sentence, the message of this paper is that chunks are larger than estimated by Chase and Simon, but that, as they showed, the pattern of relations between two pieces placed successively are radically different when the pieces do or do not belong to the same chunk.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our explanation is that the large chunks are built around templates that encode information, acquired by strong players over years of practice, about typical and familiar positions, and that provide rapidly fillable slots for additional chunks of information about the current position.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When a physical chessboard and pieces are used, the maximum chunk size is limited by the number of pieces the hand can grasp; with our present apparatus, it is not limited in this way.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The superiority of strong players for game positions is then due not to the number of chunks (Masters replaced only one chunk more than Class A players, in the recall task), but to the presence of a few large chunks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These results, based on a larger sample (26 subjects) than that of the earlier experiment, support the major findings of Chase and Simon (1973a) and corroborate their hypothesis that the same information processing mechanisms, operating on chunks stored in long-term memory, determine the time intervals in both the copy and recall tasks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chase and Simon (1973a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectn = 26- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is unclear why this should be the case more with Masters than with Class A players.The latters' larger chunks (at most 6-7 pieces) are not unusually large and can easily be explained, for example, by a few common patterns, like castling positions.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, as the largest chunks of highly skilled players are much more complex than those of weaker players, important qualitative differences may be present in these large templates.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the copy task, one chunk is encoded per glance at the stimulus position.
“on the assumption that one chunk is encoded per glance.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Each chunk is recalled in a single burst of activity during board reconstruction.
“the assumption that each chunk is recalled in a single burst of activity during board reconstruction.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The time required to pick up a chess piece by hand or from the side of the board is less than the time required to move the mouse to a destination square.
“This difference can be explained by the time needed to move the mouse, which is greater than the time needed to pick up a piece from one's hand or from the side of the board.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Substantial evidence exists that templates are used in expert memory for other tasks.
“There is considerable evidence for the use of such templates in expert memory performances of other tasks.”
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentF(2, 23) = 11.81reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2,23) = 11.81,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 23) = 1.56reported n.s. · recomputed p = .224
“F(1,23) = 1.56, ns.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > --------------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here ---------------------------------------Predicting latency from types of relations.
“(e) all the correlations between "within chunk" variables ( 2)-(4) and other variables ( 5)-( 10) are small to moderate (.15 < r <.54).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“4. ≤ 2 seconds (games) . . .1.000 0.205 0.411 0.102 0.413 0.170 0.166”
Citations
Cites
Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices*
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2 · Cited by 5,248
The Psychology of Learning and Motivation
(2021) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(21)x0002-3 · Cited by 5,082
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2 · Cited by 4,479 · cited 10×
“Chase and Simon (1973b) proposed that, during the brief presentation of a chess position, players recognize already familiar chunks on the board and place pointers to these chunks in a short-term memory of limited size.”
InfluentialSelf-citationThe Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction
Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (2018) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9780203736166 · Cited by 4,103
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.211 · Cited by 3,498
Solso, R. L., & Chase, W. G. (1974) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1421395 · Cited by 2,134
de Groot, A. D. (1978) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783110800647 · Cited by 1,888
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973) · Visual Information Processing · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-170150-5.50011-1 · Cited by 1,419
Self-citation(1973) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2013-0-10487-4 · Cited by 1,197
The psychology of human-computer interaction
Huesmann, L. R., Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1984) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1422176 · Cited by 1,177
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Charness N., 1974, Memory for chess positions: The effects of Interference and Input modality
- Chi M. T. H., 1978, Children's thinking: What develops?
- Gobet F., 1993, Les mémoires d'un Joueur d'échecs
- Gold A., 1992, Sprache & Cognition, 11, 1
- Gruber H., 1991, Qualitative Aspekte yon Expertise im Schach
- Gruber H., 1990, Psychologishe Beiträge, 32, 163
- Patel V. L., 1991, Studies of expertise: Prospects and limits
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity
Cowan, N. (2001) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x01003922 · Cited by 6,779
“Gobet and Simon (1996; 1998) found that expert chess players differ from other chess players not in the number of chunks but in the size of these chunks.”
BackgroundBaron, R. A., & Ensley, M. D. (2006) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0538 · Cited by 1,331
Chunking mechanisms in human learning
GOBET, F., LANE, P., CROKER, S., CHENG, P., JONES, G., OLIVER, I., & PINE, J. (2001) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01662-4 · Cited by 1,157
Self-citationTemplates in chess memory: a mechanism for recalling several boards
Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1996) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1996.0011 · Cited by 622
Self-citationBenchmarks for models of short-term and working memory.
Oberauer, K., Lewandowsky, S., Awh, E., Brown, G. D. A., Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., Donkin, C., Farrell, S., Hitch, G. J., Hurlstone, M. J., et al. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000153 · Cited by 477
Oleson, A. K., & Hora, M. T. (2013) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-013-9678-9 · Cited by 458
“18 results in the “chunking” of specific instances into larger units, the reduction of multiple exposures to a mentor’s teaching into an ambiguous recollection of that mentor’s teaching is not unexpected (Gobet & Simon, 1998; Miller, 1956).”
BackgroundHINDS, P. J., Patterson, M., & Pfeffer, J. (2001) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1232 · Cited by 379
“These studies along with others (i.e. Ceci, & Liker, 1986; Gobet & Simon, 1998; Johnson, 1988; Lamberti & Newsome, 1989; Chase & Simon, 1973; McKeithen, Reitman, Rueter, & Hirtle, 1981) suggest that experts encode and process information in a more conceptually abstract way than do those with less…”
BackgroundCognitive Load and Classroom Teaching: The Double-Edged Sword of Automaticity
Feldon, D. F. (2007) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520701416173 · Cited by 334
The perceptual aspect of skilled performance in chess: Evidence from eye movements
Charness, N. H., Reingold, E. M., Pomplun, M., & Stampe, D. M. (2001) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03206384 · Cited by 273
“…configurations was initially estimated to be 50,000–100,000 chunks (Simon & Gilmartin, 1973), although small perceptual chunks are most likely supplemented by larger structures termed templates (Gobet & Simon, 1996b, 1998), and the current estimate is around 300,000 chunks (Gobet & Simon, 2000).”
Five Seconds or Sixty? Presentation Time in Expert Memory
Gobet, F. R., & Simon, H. A. (2000) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2404_4 · Cited by 295
Self-citationExpert memory: a comparison of four theories
Gobet, F. R. (1998) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00020-1 · Cited by 266
“The basic analyses leading to chunk identification by Chase and Simon (1973a) have been recently replicated by Gobet and Simon (1998), who also provide new analyses supporting the chunking hypothesis.”
MethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationKim, N. S., & Ahn, W. (2002) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.131.4.451 · Cited by 271
“Previous work showing the effects of top– down expectations in experts (e.g., Chapman & Chapman, 1967, 1969; Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981; Gaultney, Bjorklund, & Schneider, 1992; Gobet & Simon, 1998; Simon & Chase, 1973) did not investigate those effects to the same degree of specificity as has been carried out here.”
BackgroundInflexibility of experts—Reality or myth? Quantifying the Einstellung effect in chess masters
Bilalić, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. R. (2007) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.02.001 · Cited by 248
“On the other hand, Template Theory (Gobet & Simon, 1998a) explains this occurrence by the type of pattern recognition it proposes, which is highly sensitive to small details in the context.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationWymbs, N. F., Bassett, D. S., Mucha, P. J., Porter, M. A., & Grafton, S. T. (2012) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.03.038 · Cited by 236
A visual short-term memory advantage for objects of expertise.
Curby, K. M., Glazek, K. J., & Gauthier, L. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.35.1.94 · Cited by 205
“Chess experts store large chunks of information about the spatial configuration of items in long-term memory and recall them through a simple cue stored in VSTM. Similarly, it is possible that car experts’ VSTM advantage may depend on stimulus-specific representations in LTM (Gobet & Simon, 1998).”
BackgroundUser community vs. producer innovation development efficiency: A first empirical study
Hienerth, C., von Hippel, E., & Jensen, M. B. (2013) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.010 · Cited by 214
“However, their better problemsolving performance is also quite narrow: when the rules of the game are changed, their performance is no better than that of those with lesser expertise (Chase and Simon 1993, Gobet and Simon, 1998).”
BackgroundCognitive load in simultaneous interpreting
Seeber, K. (2011) · Interpreting International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting · doi:10.1075/intp.13.2.02see · Cited by 209
“Drawing mainly on that theory, Gobet and Simon (1998) introduce their template theory, attributing expert performance to a large database of chunks indexed by a discrimination net , a large semantic memory with schemas and productions, and associations between the former and the latter.”
Chunking models of expertise: implications for education
Gobet, F. R. (2005) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1110 · Cited by 192
Self-citationRecent advances in expertise research: a commentary on the contributions to the special issue
Ericsson, K. A. (2005) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1111 · Cited by 200
“In support of this claim Chase and Simon (1973a, 1973b) found that the memory advantage of expert players was virtually eliminated when they presented scrambled arrangements of chess pieces (see Gobet & Simon, 1998).”
BackgroundRecall of random and distorted chess positions: Implications for the theory of expertise
Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1996) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03200937 · Cited by 176
“Using the same computer apparatus and correcting latencies in the same way for mouse time, we have replicated elsewhere (Gobet & Simon, 1994) the main results of Chase and Simon's (1973b) copy and recall tasks, including the distributions of within-and between-chunk interpiece latencies and the…”
MethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationMechanisms and neural basis of object and pattern recognition: A study with chess experts.
Bilalić, M., Langner, R., Erb, M., & Grodd, W. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/a0020756 · Cited by 187
Chunks in expert memory: Evidence for the magical number four … or is it two?
Gobet, F. R., & Clarkson, G. (2004) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658210344000530 · Cited by 184
“2001). Several techniques, reviewed in Gobet and Simon (1998) , have brought”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationThe Implications of Research on Expertise for Curriculum and Pedagogy
Feldon, D. F. (2006) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9009-0 · Cited by 161
Habits as action sequences: hierarchical action control and changes in outcome value
Dezfouli, A., Lingawi, N. W., & Balleine, B. W. (2014) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0482 · Cited by 139
Complex Motor Learning and Police Training: Applied, Cognitive, and Clinical Perspectives
Nota, P. M. D., & Huhta, J. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01797 · Cited by 177
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M., Aguado‐Orea, J., & Gobet, F. R. (2007) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1080/15326900701221454 · Cited by 145
Self-citationDoes chess need intelligence? — A study with young chess players
Bilalić, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. R. (2006) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.005 · Cited by 145
“The average rated player, all adults and children included, has a rating of 1500 with a standard deviation of 200.”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationGuida, A., Gobet, F. R., Tardieu, H., & Nicolas, S. (2012) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2012.01.010 · Cited by 147
“…both WM and LTM in the case of experts (for examples in air piloting, Sohn & Doane, 2003; in chess, Gobet & Clarkson, 2004; Gobet & Jackson, 2002; Gobet & Simon, 1996a, 1998; Saariluoma & Kalakoski, 1997; in the game of Go, Masunaga & Horn, 2000; in gymnastic floor routines, Tenenbaum, Tehan,…”
BackgroundSelf-citationLost in Translation: An Enculturation Effect in Music Memory Performance
Demorest, S. M., Morrison, S. J., Jungbluth, D., et al. (2008) · Music Perception An Interdisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1525/mp.2008.25.3.213 · Cited by 126
Attentional Processes in Skill Learning and Expert Performance
Abernethy, B., Maxwell, J. P., Masters, R. S. W., van der Kamp, J., & Jackson, R. C. (2007) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118270011.ch11 · Cited by 139
Surviving task interruptions: Investigating the implications of long-term working memory theory
Oulasvirta, A., & Saariluoma, P. O. (2006) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.04.006 · Cited by 123
Defining intelligence: Bridging the gap between human and artificial perspectives
Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2024) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2024.101832 · Cited by 174
“…in other areas, in the absence of any obvious benefits to other cognitive domains, have been documented, including memory span for chess positions (Gobet & Simon, 1998; Smith et al., 2021), spatial mapping ability among London taxi drivers (Woollett et al., 2009), and calculation prodigies…”
Cognition: The Thinking Animal
Willingham, D. T. (2000) · Cited by 117
Capability creation: Heuristics as microfoundations
Bingham, C. B., Howell, T., & Ott, T. (2019) · Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal · doi:10.1002/sej.1312 · Cited by 104
Visuospatial abilities of chess players
Waters, A. J., Gobet, F. R., & Leyden, G. (2002) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1348/000712602761381402 · Cited by 110
“To go on to the next trial, the participant pressed an OK button in the top left corner of the computer screen (see Gobet & Simon, 1998b, for a detailed description of the software used).”
MethodSelf-citationA generalized fraction: An entity smaller than one on the mental number line.
Kallai, A. Y., & Tzelgov, J. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/a0016892 · Cited by 103
Compositional Inductive Biases in Function Learning
Schulz, E., Tenenbaum, J. B., Duvenaud, D., Speekenbrink, M., & Gershman, S. J. (2016) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.11.002 · Cited by 94
van Nooijen, C. C. A., de Koning, B. B., Bramer, W. M., Isahakyan, A., Asoodar, M., Kok, E. M., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & PAAS, F. G. W. C. (2024) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-024-09848-3 · Cited by 174
“Chunking, also referred to as unitisation or pattern detection/recognition in visual domains, grants experts the ability to recognise patterns in tasks due to repeated exposure to similar tasks in the past (Gobet & Simon, 1998; Goldstone, 1998; van Meeuwen et al., 2014).”
Gobet, F. R., & Charness, N. H. (2006) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816796.030 · Cited by 97
“Gobet & Simon, 1998, and Gobet & Clarkson, 2004.) They proposed that skill did not”
BackgroundResultSelf-citationExpertise modulates the neural basis of context dependent recognition of objects and their relations
Bilalić, M., Turella, L., Campitelli, G., Erb, M., & Grodd, W. (2011) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.21396 · Cited by 89
“These processes, however, also include not only knowledge about common placement of objects in environment, but also about common relations that these objects form [Gobet et al., 2001; Gobet and Simon, 1998; McGregor and Howes, 2002].”
BackgroundSome shortcomings of long‐term working memory
Gobet, F. R. (2000) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1348/000712600161989 · Cited by 93
“…of expertise, one devoted to the digit-span task (EPAM IV; Richman, Staszewski, & Simon, 1995) and the other to chess expertise (template theory ; Gobet & Simon, 1996b, 1998, in press), in order to highlight the similarities and the diåerences in the way these theories use the concept of…”
Self-citationSituating space: using a discipline-focused lens to examine spatial thinking skills
Atit, K., Uttal, D. H., & Stieff, M. (2020) · Cognitive Research Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-020-00210-z · Cited by 112
“…use their prior knowledge of the game to divide and encode the spatial layout of the board as meaningful chunks of information, and then integrate those chunks into an existing mental model of the board from which they generate plausible future moves (Chase & Simon, 1973; Gobet & Simon, 1998).”
BackgroundSpecialization Effect and Its Influence on Memory and Problem Solving in Expert Chess Players
Bilalić, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2009) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01030.x · Cited by 80
“The two random positions were generated so that any kind of piece could appear on any square, with no restriction on the distribution of pieces (Gobet & Waters, 2003; Vicente & Wang, 1998).”
BackgroundSelf-citationReduced caudate volume and enhanced striatal-DMN integration in chess experts
Duan, X., He, S., Liao, W., Liang, D., Qiu, L., Wei, L., Li, Y., Liu, C.-Y., Gong, Q., & Chen, H. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.047 · Cited by 83
“…functions including memory, planning , problem solving and cognitive skill learning (Atherton et al., 2003; Charness, 1992; de Groot, 1965; Ferrari et al., 2008; Gobet and Charness, 2006; Gobet and Simon, 1998; Grabner et al., 2007; Maguire et al., 2006; van der Maas and Wagenmakers, 2005).”
BackgroundMethodMemory for the Functional Characteristics of Climbing Walls: Perceiving Affordances
Boschker, M. S. J., Bakker, F. C., & Michaels, C. F. (2002) · Journal of Motor Behavior · doi:10.1080/00222890209601928 · Cited by 93
“much on short-term memory encoding as on recognition of complex patterns (see Gobet & Simon, 1998; de Groot et al., 1996). Second, de Groot et al. (1996) showed that chess masters described positions at higher levels of abstraction than the patterns proposed in Chase and Simon’s original account.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialElectrifying diagrams for learning: principles for complex representational systems
Cheng, P. (2002) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/s0364-0213(02)00086-1 · Cited by 101
Consciousness, context, and know-how
Wallis, C. (2007) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-006-9103-3 · Cited by 74
“Computer scientists like Herbert Simon more often model the human ability to play chess than the capacity to have beliefs about chess or to represent current states of play (de Groot & Gobet, 1996; Gobet & Simon, 1996, 1998; Waters, Gobet, & Leyden, 2002).”
Training Executive Functions to Improve Academic Achievement: Tackling Avenues to Far Transfer
Gunzenhauser, C., & Nückles, M. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624008 · Cited by 91
Expertise in Complex Decision Making: The Role of Search in Chess 70 Years After de Groot
Connors, M. H., Burns, B. D., & Campitelli, G. (2011) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01196.x · Cited by 70
Identification of effective visual problem solving strategies in a complex visual domain
van Meeuwen, L. W., Jarodzka, H., Brand‐Gruwel, S., Kirschner, P. A., de Bock, J. J. P. R., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2014) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.004 · Cited by 79
“For example, EMMEs could be based on prototypical situations for which it is known that visual problem solving pro fi ts from the use of a perceptual chunking strategy (e.g., Gobet & Simon, 1998).”
BackgroundInfluentialElectrifying diagrams for learning: principles for complex representational systems
Cheng, P. (2002) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2606_1 · Cited by 69
García, J. P. F., Villafaina, S., Collado‐Mateo, D., Marcos, R. D. L. V., Olivares, P. R., & Clemente‐Suárez, V. J. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00409 · Cited by 68
The Role of Constraints in Expert Memory.
Gobet, F. R., & Waters, A. J. (2003) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.6.1082 · Cited by 67
“TT ( Gobet & Simon, 1996c, 1998; 2000 ) was developed to eliminate these two weaknesses while keeping the strength of the original chunking theory.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationExpertise increases planning depth in human gameplay
van Opheusden, B., Kuperwajs, I., Galbiati, G., Bnaya, Z., Li, Y., & Ma, W. J. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06124-2 · Cited by 74
Perception in chess: Evidence from eye movements
Reingold, E. M., & Charness, N. H. (2005) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198566816.003.0014 · Cited by 70
“In addition, small perceptual chunks are most likely supplemented by larger structures termed templates (Gobet and Simon 1996b; Gobet and Simon 1998).”
BackgroundEnculturation Effects in Music Cognition
Morrison, S. J., Demorest, S. M., & Stambaugh, L. A. (2008) · Journal of Research in Music Education · doi:10.1177/0022429408322854 · Cited by 62
Evaluating Computational Creativity
Lamb, C., Brown, D. G., & Clarke, C. L. A. (2018) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3167476 · Cited by 63
“This should not be surprising; it is well known in cognitive science that experts perceive the subject of their expertise differently from novices, “chunking” and analyzing patterns that are invisible to a novice (Gobet and Simon 1998).”
BackgroundIt Takes Two–Skilled Recognition of Objects Engages Lateral Areas in Both Hemispheres
Bilalić, M., Kiesel, A., Pohl, C., Erb, M., & Grodd, W. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016202 · Cited by 60
“These sophisticated knowledge structures not only involve information about types and location of chess objects [28,50–51], but also about the relations between these objects through objects’ function [55].”
BackgroundDrawing experts have better visual memory while drawing
Perdreau, F., & Patrick Cavanagh, B. (2015) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/15.5.5 · Cited by 55
“An alternative hypothesis is that more skilled participants call on a specialized form of visual memory while creating the drawing (e.g., Gobet & Simon, 1998; Perdreau & Cavanagh, 2013).”
BackgroundEricsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (2000) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1348/000712600161998 · Cited by 58
“…(2000) reports on his continued eåorts to compare computational models of expert’s superior memory of chess positions within the template theory (TT) framework (Gobet, 1997, 1998; Gobet & Simon, 1996, 1998), to Ericsson and Kintsch’s (1995) theoretical framework for long-term working memory (LTWM).”
BackgroundSocial Knowledge Facilitates Chunking in Infancy
Stahl, A. E., & Feigenson, L. (2014) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.12217 · Cited by 49
“In one well-known example, expert chess players correctly remembered the locations of more pieces on a chessboard than did novice players, but only when the pieces were arranged as in an actual chess game (as opposed to in random configurations; Chase & Simon, 1973; Gobet & Simon, 1998).”
BackgroundAdaptation of Sources of Inspiration in Knitwear Design
Eckert, C. M., & Stacey, M. (2003) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1504_5 · Cited by 51
“…learning (see Goldstone, 1998) and expertise in, for instance, radiology (for instance Myles-Worsley, Johnson, & Simons, 1988), chess (for instance Gobet & Simon, 1998), and electronics (Egan & Schwartz, 1979), as well as mental imagery, indicates that visuospatial representations are highly…”
BackgroundFreudenthal, D. T., Pine, J. M., Jones, G., & Gobet, F. R. (2015) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.027 · Cited by 50
“According to theories based on chunking (Chase & Simon, 1973; Gobet & Simon, 1998; Gobet et al., 2001), frequently encountered stimuli are grouped into larger structures that can be retrieved as one unit.”
MethodSelf-citationTang, X., Pang, J., Nie, Q., Conci, M., Luo, J., & Luo, J. (2015) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhv113 · Cited by 49
“…1978) based on studies of problem solving and theorized by Chase and Simon (1973), has been established as one of the key mechanisms of human information processing in perception, learning, and cognition (McLean and Gregg 1967; Reitman and Rueter 1980; Klahr et al. 1983; Gobet and Simon 1998).”
BackgroundXu, X., & Padilla, A. M. (2013) · Foreign Language Annals · doi:10.1111/flan.12039 · Cited by 47
Functional neural anatomy of talent
Kalbfleisch, M. L. (2004) · The Anatomical Record Part B The New Anatomist · doi:10.1002/ar.b.20010 · Cited by 47
Designing in the context of fashion – designing the fashion context
Eckert, C. M., & Stacey, M. (2001) · Cited by 44
Functional organization of intrinsic connectivity networks in Chinese-chess experts
Duan, X., Long, Z., Chen, H., Liang, D., Qiu, L., Huang, X., Liu, T. C., & Gong, Q. (2014) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2014.02.033 · Cited by 45
“In chess experts, chunks (i.e. the units of perception in chess patterns) are stored in long-term memory in an accessible form, which give access to information with respect to what move to play and what plan to follow (Chase and Simon, 1973; Ericsson and Kintsch, 1995; Gobet and Simon, 1998).”
A Hypothesis about the Biological Basis of Expert Intuition
Chassy, P., & Gobet, F. R. (2011) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0023958 · Cited by 48
“The binding of items with other items and the increasing number (and complexity) of procedures and potential solutions in memory are at the core of expertise acquisition (e.g., for chess, Chase & Simon, 1973; Gobet & Simon, 1998; music, Glassman, 1999; computer programming, Vessy, 1987).”
BackgroundSelf-citationMcAllister, C. P., Ellen, B. P., Perrewé, P. L., Ferris, G. R., & Hirsch, D. J. (2014) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2014.09.008 · Cited by 44
“To recognize patterns in the environment, individuals need to rely on their past experiences, gained learning, and tacit knowledge in order to form cognitive frameworks (Gobet & Simon, 1998; Sternberg, 2004).”
BackgroundExpertise effects in memory recall: Comment on Vicente and Wang (1998).
Simon, H. A., & Gobet, F. R. (2000) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.107.3.593 · Cited by 45
Self-citationListen to the Map User: Cognition, Memory, and Expertise
Ooms, K., Maeyer, P. D., & Fack, V. (2013) · The Cartographic Journal · doi:10.1179/1743277413y.0000000068 · Cited by 41
“Effective grouping of information can thus increase the amount of information stored in the WM (Miller, 1956; Gobet and Simon, 1998).”
BackgroundMethodElectroencephalographic response of chess players in decision-making processes under time pressure
Villafaina, S., Collado‐Mateo, D., Cano-Plasencia, R., Gusi, N., & García, J. P. F. (2018) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.10.017 · Cited by 41
Reviewing Experts’ Restraint from Extremes and Its Impact on Service Providers
Nguyen, P., Wang, X., Li, X., & Cotte, J. (2020) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucaa037 · Cited by 38
Bonny, J. W., Castaneda, L. M., & Swanson, T. (2016) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858190 · Cited by 44
Enhancing transfer by learning generalized domain knowledge structures
Kalyuga, S. (2013) · European Journal of Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/s10212-013-0176-3 · Cited by 44
“However, more recent studies have indicated that experts use not only concrete chunks but also more general patterns, such as “ templates ” (Gobet and Simon 1998) or generalized chunks (Walczak and Fishwick 1997) representing typical classes of chess positions with substantial variations in…”
BackgroundThe Development of Adaptive Expertise in Biomedical Engineering Ethics
Rayne, K., Martin, T., Brophy, S. P., et al. (2006) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00887.x · Cited by 39
“Gobet and Simon [6, 7] have suggested that intermediates become experts by expanding memory chunks into memory templates.”
BackgroundTo the Trained Eye: Perceptual Expertise Alters Visual Processing
Curby, K. M., & Gauthier, L. (2009) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01058.x · Cited by 38
“These chunks can be used as a processing unit, and—importantly— can be retrieved by a single act of recognition (Gobet & Simon, 1998).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBart Rypma, A. (2005) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.07.062 · Cited by 42
“These organization processes are conceptually similar to those referred to as “chunking” or “intelligent grouping” by researchers like Miller (1956), Gobet and Simon (1998) and Baddeley (1986).”
InfluentialPerceptual learning and reasons‐responsiveness
Jenkin, Z. (2022) · Noûs · doi:10.1111/nous.12425 · Cited by 38
Is the Relationship between Pattern Recall and Decision-Making Influenced by Anticipatory Recall?
Gorman, A. D., Abernethy, B., & Farrow, D. (2013) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.777083 · Cited by 39
“The memory structures are proposed to contain links and pointers that supply information on potential strategies and tactical manoeuvres thereby providing an explanation for the anticipatory recall exhibited by experts in pattern perception tasks (Gobet, 1998; Gobet & Simon, 1996, 1998).”
BackgroundKalra, P. B., Hubbard, E. M., & Matthews, P. G. (2020) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101896 · Cited by 37
Revealing the impact of expertise on human planning with a two-player board gamePreprint
van Opheusden, B., Galbiati, G., Kuperwajs, I., Bnaya, Z., li, Y., & Ma, W. J. (2021) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/rhq5j · Cited by 38
“This literature has explained the superior performance of experts as better pattern recognition[6, 7, 8] and/or deeper search[3, 9, 10, 11, 12].”
BackgroundImproving learning from animated soccer scenes: Evidence for the expertise reversal effect
Khacharem, A., Zoudji, B., Spanjers, I. A. E., & Kalyuga, S. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.021 · Cited by 36
Understanding Our Understanding of Strategic Scenarios: What Role Do Chunks Play?
Linhares, A. D. C., & Brum, P. (2007) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1080/03640210701703725 · Cited by 33
“…(a number of subsequent simulations reproduce the data with remarkable accuracy; see, for instance, Chase & Simon, 1973a, 1973b; de Groot, 1965; de Groot & Gobet, 1996; Gobet & Simon, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c; Gobet & Simon, 1998a, 1998b; Gobet & Simon, 2000; Lories, 1984, 1987; Simon & Chase, 1973).”
The legend of the magical number seven
Cowan, N., Morey, C. C., & Chen, Z. (2007) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198568773.003.0005 · Cited by 36
Chassy, P., & Gobet, F. R. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026692 · Cited by 32
“…task (where the target position was presented for only 5 s) and in a copy task (where the position remained in view of the players), Chase and Simon found that a master used larger groupings than weaker players, a result that has been replicated several times [11,12] and is thus beyond doubt.”
BackgroundSelf-citationDecision Support for Air Warfare: Detection of Deceptive Threats
Smith, C. A. P., Johnston, J. H., & Paris, C. R. (2004) · Group Decision and Negotiation · doi:10.1023/b:grup.0000021842.15906.94 · Cited by 32
The repeated reproduction of Bartlett's Remembering.
Johnston, E. B. (2001) · History of Psychology · doi:10.1037/1093-4510.4.4.341 · Cited by 31
Recent advances in expertise research
Rikers, R. M. J. P., & PAAS, F. G. W. C. (2005) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1108 · Cited by 31
Entrepreneurial Scripts and Entrepreneurial Expertise: The Information Processing Perspective
Mitchell, R. K., Mitchell, B., & Mitchell, J. (2009) · International studies in entrepreneurship · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0443-0_6 · Cited by 40
An Active Symbols Theory of Chess Intuition
Linhares, A. D. C. (2005) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-005-5045-7 · Cited by 30
Preißner, S., Raasch, C., & Schweisfurth, T. (2024) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/jpim.12709 · Cited by 28
Gobet, F. R., & Jackson, S. (2002) · Cognitive Systems Research · doi:10.1016/s1389-0417(01)00042-0 · Cited by 29
“The template theory (Gobet & Simon, 1996), which is in part implemented in CHREST (Chunk Hierarchy and REtrieval STructures, Gobet & Simon, 1998, 2000), was proposed to account for these data, while keeping the strengths of the original chunking theory.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationChunking improves symbolic sequence processing and relies on working memory gating mechanismsPreprint
Solopchuk, O., Alamia, A., Olivier, E., & Zénon, A. (2016) · Learning & Memory · doi:10.1101/lm.041277.115 · Cited by 27
“Since then, this process has been studied extensively, in particular in the context of sequence learning (Terrace 1991; Verwey 1996; Gobet and Simon 1998; Gobet et al. 2001; Sakai et al. 2003; Miyapuram et al. 2006; Bor and Seth 2012; Mathy and Feldman 2012; Wymbs et al. 2012).”
BackgroundThe role of attack and defense semantics in skilled players’ memory for chess positions
McGregor, S., & Howes, A. (2002) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03196427 · Cited by 29
“Several previous studies have investigated the performance of master-level participants (Chase & Simon, 1973a, 1973b; de Groot, 1965; Gobet & Simon, 1996a, 1996d, 1998, 2000), as opposed to the lower level of playing expertise possessed by our high-skill participants.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialRetrieval structures and schemata: A brief reply to Ericsson and Kintsch
Gobet, F. R. (2000) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1348/000712600162005 · Cited by 27
Self-citationThe influence of prior knowledge on the formation of detailed and durable memories
Bellana, B., Mansour, R., Ladyka‐Wojcik, N., Grady, C. L., & Moscovitch, M. (2021) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2021.104264 · Cited by 30
Nonverbal Working Memory for Novel Images in Rhesus Monkeys
Brady, R. J., & Hampton, R. R. (2018) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.025 · Cited by 26
“In humans, the prefrontal cortex ismore active when subjects remember familiar images compared to novel images [10], working memory capacity is greater for familiar stimuli that exist as long-term representations [16, 34, 35], and familiar representations consume fewer working memory resources than unfamiliar represen…”
BackgroundGaschler, R., Progscha, J., B, K. S. A., Ram, N., & Merim Bilalić, A. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00923 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- ORCID
- Gobet, Fernand
- Venue
- Memory
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1998-05
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 225-255
- ISSN
- 0965-8211 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0686
- OpenAlex
- W2097284564
- Semantic Scholar
- d11f079a1d6d3147abbb7868955a6231f4a5ba5b
- Cited by
- 320
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 11.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- bura.brunel.ac.uk
- Locations
- Memory (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- chess expertise, long-term memory, chunk size, skill level differences
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Computers, Humans, Male, Memory, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Psychological Tests
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
