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.
In the paper
“The WGP latencies are longer than those found by Chase and Simon (1973a).”
§ 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.
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.
- 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 weaker players use a strategy less expensive in memory requirements: they cut the position in small chunks, generally by columns and rows, and copy these chunks.”
§ 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.
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, the time to move the mouse once a piece is selected is independent of players' skill (r = .05for game positions and r = .01for random positions).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Results and Discussion
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.
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
“They try to memorize the position as if it were a game position.”
§ 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: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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
“However, the interaction is not statistically significant”
§ 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.
In the paper
“As in Chase and Simon (1973a), the WGP and BGP distributions are quite different.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -------------------------------Insert Figure 2 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.
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
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 contrast, correlations for between-glance conditions in game and random positions are insignificant (-.26 and -.02).”
§ 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: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 recall task, few pieces are placed individually (on average 0.9 for random positions and 1.5 for game positions).”
§ 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.
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
“That is, sequences with four relations are 13 times as likely to be within-glance rather than between-glance as sequences with no relations.”
§ 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.
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 game positions, there are 19.5 cases of DPCS relations for within-glance sequences for every between-glance sequence, while the ratio is only 1.5 for no relations.”
§ 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.
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
“First, the distributions of latencies between successive pieces are different for within-and between-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.
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 1 and 4 show, for both game and random positions in the copy task, that the numbers of within-glance sequences increase rapidly relative to the numbers of between-glance sequences as the numbers of relations between the successive pieces increase.”
§ 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.
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 same pattern exhibits itself in the recall task, where the corresponding figures are 18.6 and 1.3 for pairs with latencies of less than 2 s and more than 2 s, respectively.)”
§ 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.
In the paper
“Second, the latency distributions, corrected for the time required to move the mouse, are close to those of Chase and Simon (1973a), despite the differences in the experimental apparatus and in Masters' strategies.”
§ 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.
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
“Moreover, age and skill (measured by ELO points) were orthogonal in our sample (r = .09,ns.).”
§ 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.
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
“Experts and Class A players also produce relatively large chunks in our experiment.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“We started by noting a difference between the strategic behavior of our Masters and Chase and Simon's Master: the former tended to spend more time than the latter in studying the position before reconstructing parts of it.”
§ 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.
- 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 a few cases, the entire recall consisted of a single chunk.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Our data differ strikingly from Chase and Simon's in the sizes of chunks at all skill levels.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -------------------------------Insert Figure 6 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.
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.
- 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 the random positions, we find again an inverted U-curve, both with the copy and the recall tasks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > ---------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Figure 7 about here ----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 levels of recall for both game and random positions, and for all levels of skill, are similar to those that have been observed in the previous studies of these phenomena.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Maximum chunk size was substantially larger in the current experiment than in the experiments of Chase and Simon.”
§ 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.
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
“First, latencies are shorter when the number of relations within a chunk is larger.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“However, contrary to what was found inChase and Simon (1973a), there was some tendency for the recall of random chess positions to vary with skill in our experiment, although the effect is not statistically significant [F(2,23) = 2.27, MS e = 34.10,ns].”
§ 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 > -----------------------------------------------------------
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.
- 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 agreement with other studies, stronger players were clearly superior with game positions.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“In all other respects, our distributions of chess relations are much the same as those found by Chase and Simon.”
§ 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.
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.
- 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
“Most of them seem to be built up either from dynamic chess relations (in particular, pieces close to or attacking a king) or geometric patterns (pieces and pawns forming a square or located on the same diagonal).”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Specifically, more than three quarters of the within-glance latencies (corrected for the time needed to move the mouse) are below 2 s.”
§ 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.
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
“and that chunks have psychological reality.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
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.
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 large average differences observed add considerable credence to the reality of chunks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Chunk structures have been identified experimentally in other paradigms as well.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Other Experimental Evidence for the Chunking Hypothesis
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.
In the paper
“The estimate that 50,000 chunks must be stored in LTM to reach expertise is an extrapolation from the simulations performed by MAPP, the program described by Simon and Gilmartin (1973).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Number of Chunks Needed to Reach Expertise
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: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“De Groot and Gobet (in press) found that Masters often give high-level descriptions of a position, such as type of opening or main strategical plans, but almost never mention clusters of pieces sharing relations of defense, attack, and proximity.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Other Experimental Evidence for the Chunking Hypothesis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites De Groot and Gobet
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
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
“Chi observed that this finding supports Chase and Simon's (1973a) estimate that it takes at least two seconds to retrieve a new chunk and less than two seconds for within-chunk retrieval.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Other Experimental Evidence for the Chunking Hypothesis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chi (1978)
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.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Retrospective verbal protocols do not seem to reveal much about chunking.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Other Experimental Evidence for the Chunking Hypothesis
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.
In the paper
“Second, in the recall task, Chi found that subjects took longer, on average, to place pieces crossing a chunk boundary (about 3 s) than to place pieces within a chunk (around 1.5 s).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Other Experimental Evidence for the Chunking Hypothesis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chi (1978)
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
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 claim (a) that few moves are evoked by pawn structures, is refuted by the significance that chess players attach to pawns.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Recognition-Association Assumption
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.
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
“Comparisons between latencies and frequencies of various chess relations indicate that, in both tasks, different processes are used to place successive pieces within a chunk than to place the first piece in a new chunk.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Abstract
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.
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 summary, these experiments support the psychological reality of chunks as defined either by numbers of (chess-)meaningful relations or latency in placement.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“Moreover, as the experimental part of this paper shows, Chase and Simon probably underestimated chunk size, especially for masters.”
§ 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.
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.
- 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
“Gruber and Ziegler (1990) found that chess players, ranging from average club players to Grandmasters, used knowledge units when sorting a position similar to the chunks identified by Chase and Simon (1973a,b).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Other Experimental Evidence for the Chunking Hypothesis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gruber and Ziegler (1990)
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.
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
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, because pattern recognition is applied recursively during look-ahead, a memory test only on the initial problem position does not really address the recognition-association theory.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“The clusters identified with this technique constituted stable and easily interpretable partitions similar to those identified by latencies (e.g.castled positions, chains of pawns, common back-rank piece positions).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Other Experimental Evidence for the Chunking Hypothesis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gold and Opwis (1992)
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.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“They found that, in comparison with unmodified game positions, the manipulations degraded recall performance.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Number of Chunks Needed to Reach Expertise
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 Saariluoma (1994) source
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.
- 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 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.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > ------------------------------Insert Figure 1 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.
- Rests on an assumption: 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.
In the paper
“The template idea is compatible with the findings of De Groot (1946/1978), who emphasized that his Grandmaster and Master were able to integrate rapidly the different parts of the positions (Chase & Simon's chunks) into a whole, something weaker players could not do.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites De Groot (1946/1978)
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.
- 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
“Hence, the confounding caused by presenting the game positions before the random positions was of minor importance for the purposes of the experiment.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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
“In addition, chunks that recur often in masters' practice and study evolve into more complex data structures, called templates.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“In particular, information about piece location or about chunks can be (recursively) encoded into template slots.”
§ 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.
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
“Copying a random position is more like a problem solving task than a memory task.”
§ 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: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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
“We have mentioned earlier empirical evidence that strong players are able to access rapidly descriptions of the position that are larger than 4 or 5 pieces.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“The basic mechanism allowing this rapid LTM storage is the same as the one proposed by Chase and Ericsson (1982) to account for expert digit memory.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > The Emphasis on STM Storage
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chase and Ericsson (1982) source
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.
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 close agreement adds considerable credibility to the 2-s boundary as a basis for defining chunks in replacement experiments.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -------------------------------Insert Figure 2 about here --------------------------------
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.
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
“None of the results we report in this paper are changed if we use the correction based on Fitts' Law instead of the correction based on the time to move the mouse once a piece has been selected.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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
“One might say that Masters over-estimate their memory capacity for (randomly placed) chess material through failure to recognize their memory's limits in the absence of meaningful chunks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Total study time.
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.
In the paper
“The new apparatus removes the possible artifact in Chase and Simon's experiments, that chunks may have been limited by the hand's capacity to grasp pieces.”
§ 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.
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.
- 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
“We will show that the change in apparatus provides converging evidence supporting the standard method of identifying chunks.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Overview of the Experiment
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“In summary, the statistics of frequency of chess relations between successive pieces within the same chunk, as compared with successively placed pieces in different chunks, provide strong support for the chunking hypothesis.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -----------------------------Insert Figure 5 about here -----------------------------
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.
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 size of the largest chunks for Masters and Experts also supports the hypothesis that they frequently retrieve templates (large chunks with slots) that characterize the position as a whole.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -------------------------------Insert Figure 6 about here -------------------------------
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.
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
“Subjects' comments on their strategies are corroborated by a quantitative analysis of the reconstructions.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Despite this difference in strategy, we were able to replicate the main results of Chase and Simon's paper.”
§ 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.
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
In the paper
“In the Chase and Simon experiment, the largest chunk recalled by the Master was 7 pieces.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -------------------------------Insert Figure 6 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.
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
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 confounding of condition (game-random) with order of presentation did not have any discernible effects on recall levels when the findings of this study are compared with previous studies.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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
“Both sets of correlations suggest strongly that the short and long latencies in the recall task have the same meanings, respectively, as the within-and between-glance placements in the copy task.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“The hypothesis was strongly supported by their data.”
§ 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.
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.
- 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
“There is good consistency between the two studies in the patterns of chess relations between pairs of successively placed pieces within and between chunks as defined.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“For the number of chunks, Chase and Simon (1973a) found that their Master recalled more chunks in the recall task than the other players.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -------------------------------Insert Figure 6 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.
plaincorrelationalSingle 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
“In summary, the current experiments fit better than the original Chase and Simon experiments did the hypothesis that size and not number of chunks accounts for the superiority of players of higher skill in recalling game positions (cf.Figures 6 and 7).”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -------------------------------Insert Figure 6 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.
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.
- 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 provides strong convergent evidence that chunks have psychological reality as structures in LTM.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > -----------------------------
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.
In the paper
“This result is consistent with the numerous findings, reported by Wixted and Rohrer, of clustering of semantically related items in recall from semantic memory, where clusters were also defined by inter-item latencies, and where the within-cluster times do not increase, or increase only slightly, over successive clusters.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wixted and Rohrer
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
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 this limit is absent, large chunks may be recalled that represent core information of familiar or typical positions.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Except for experiments on semantic clustering by Tulving (1962) and others, all of the experiments cited by Wixted and Rohrer involve retrieving already familiar items (chunks) from memory; hence the correct interpretation of their finding is that when successive whole chunks are retrieved, the latencies between chunks will grow with time.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > General Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tulving (1962) source
- Not matchedcites Wixted and Rohrer
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.
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 results of a new experiment, together with evidence already in the literature, clearly establish that an augmented chunking theory-the template theory described heremeets all these criticisms.”
§ Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis > Conclusion
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.
- Rests on an assumption: Substantial evidence exists that templates are used in expert memory for other tasks.
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 indicate that the glue between successive pieces is weak for pieces belonging to 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 > -----------------------------------------------------------
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.
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
“Expert memory, in turn includes slowly acquired structures in long-term memory (retrieval structures, templates) that augment short-term memory with slots (variable places) that can be filled rapidly with information about the current position.”
§ 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
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.
In the paper
“Finally, because our subjects were somewhat slower than Chase and Simon's even after the correction for mouse movements, it cannot be argued that the 2 s boundary favored the former in comparison with the latter.”
§ 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.
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.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This provides additional reason for thinking that the definition of chunks employed by Chase and Simon and used here is not arbitrary but reflects subjects' perceptions of the board.”
§ 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: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This difference in chunk size may have been produced by the difference in experimental procedure (grasping pieces by hand in the earlier study) that split large chunks into small ones.”
§ 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.
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.
- Not matched
- 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
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
