Learning to Play Chess - Report Example

Learning to play Chess Introduction Cognitive learning theory suggests that, the different processes involved in the course of learning can be explained through the analysis of the mental processes first. This theory further suggests that effective cognitive processes contribute to easier learning. Furthermore, based on this theory, effective cognitive processes cause new information to be stored in the memory for a long period of time. Over the years, this theory has been used to explain mental processes that are affected by both extrinsic and intrinsic factors that determine the learning process of an individual (O’Donnell et al 2011). In reference to cognitive theory, this paper will examine how one can learn how to play chess. Foremost, this paper will describe the types of knowledge that one should acquire before they become experts in playing chess. Secondly, it will discuss what is required for one to acquire these types of knowledge particularly with regards to cognitive learning theory. Lastly, this paper will examine some of the strengths and limitations of using a cognitive approach in explaining how to play chess. Knowledge needed in Chess There are various kinds of knowledge that are required to become an expert at playing chess. Achieving expertise in chess has been described as a particularly difficult and complex process due to the demanding nature of the knowledge that the learner must acquire (Charness 1992). Propositional knowledge Propositional knowledge can essentially be described as the knowledge of facts or the knowledge that such and such is the case. Propositional knowledge is what Ryle (1949) refers to as “knowledge that”. Propositional knowledge is generated by two conditions; truth and belief (Feldman 2003). For knowledge to be propositional it must be based on irrefutable fact and independent of the learner’s beliefs about the proposition (truth). For instance, the rules of chess remain the rules of chess whether a learner believes that they are or not. Propositional knowledge must also be based on belief in the sense that for any learner to know something they must believe it is true and accept it. In this case, knowledge of the rules of chess indicates that the learner believes that they are the true rules of chess. In this circumstance, truth requires belief, but belief does not require truth (Feldman 2003). To become an expert in playing chess, a learner must acquire several propositions or propositional knowledge about chess. Becoming an expert is a process that begins with acquiring basic propositional knowledge about chess. The learner must be aware of the basic fundamental concepts and vocabulary of chess. This includes knowledge of the chess board’s general format as having sixty four pieces in two contrasting colours (such as black and white), the various chess pieces and by extension (as will be discussed in procedural knowledge) the rules of chess (Cleveland 1907, De Groot 2008). The learner must be able to identify a chess board by its chequered pattern and be able to identify each square or location on the chess board. This will be important for learning strategies since chess moves are often annotated alpha numerically, such as knight from b2 to c3 or queen from d1 to c4. Another form of propositional knowledge that the learner must acquire is how to identify the various chess pieces and their respective (or universal names). The learner should be able to identify each of the 16 chess pieces used in a typical game of chess. The learner should know how to differentiate between a pawn, a rook, a bishop, a knight, the queen or the king. This identification is primarily through the pieces’ different features in terms of relative size, shapes and contours. For instance, the pawn is the smallest piece with a bulbous head and there are 8 pawns. The rook’s top resembles that of a castle, the bishop is distinct by the semblance of a bishop’s mitre, the knight moulded or carved in the shape of a stallion’s head, the queen discernible by a coronet and the king with a crown. The learner must also know how each of these pieces moves. As the first stage of becoming an expert, they must memorise the names of the pieces and their movements on the chess board (Cleveland 1907, De Groot 2008). Other forms of propositional knowledge that are closely interrelated with procedural and metacognitive knowledge are based on the rules of chess. These include identifying when a piece has been legitimately captured or acknowledging when the game has ended in either defeat or victory through a checkmate (Moser 1991). Procedural Knowledge Procedural knowledge is arguably the most important form of knowledge required for a chess learner to become an expert in chess. Procedural knowledge essentially describes knowledge about how to do things, the know-how (Ryle 1949). It is knowledge underlying an action, including decision making, anticipation, reaction and responses (Haibach et al 2011). Procedural knowledge is kinaesthetic; it can be stored in the mind and body and become almost automated. In chess, procedural knowledge basically refers to knowledge of the rules of the game and how to play chess chiefly in terms of the movement and capture of pieces. It must be pointed out that propositional knowledge is an important pre-cursor and correlated to procedural knowledge as the learner can only make use of the rules of the game (know how) once they acquire facts about the game (know what) (Ryle 1949). The learner must first know the objective of the game, how to start the game, and how each piece on the chess board moves and ultimately how the game ends (either in defeat, victory or a draw). Chess is a complex game with complex rules and to become an expert the learner must be aware of how each piece moves and what the rules are for capturing the opponent’s pieces. They must know that, for example, a pawn can only move forward, if the pawn has not yet moved it can move forward two squares otherwise it can only move one square, that it can move diagonally to capture a piece in the adjacent square and that on reaching the other end of the chess board it can be promoted. Such knowledge impacts on decision making, such as influencing the learner not to move an important piece to where it may be captured by a pawn without any strategic gains (Haibach et al 2011). The learner must also be aware of certain specific rules of the game such as “castling”, what it entails and when it is legitimate or how to declare a check or ultimately end the game by identifying a “checkmate”. This is when the opponent’s king cannot possibly evade capture either by moving or sacrificing another piece. To become an expert in chess, the learner must internalize and accumulate as much procedural knowledge as possible. This is essential in developing strategies to win games against tougher opponents and includes, as demonstrated by Cleveland (1907), the ability to identify the strength of not just individual pieces but their strength in relation to one another and planning systematic development of his pieces throughout the game. Cleveland (1907) argues that a chess learner becomes an expert when they achieve “position sense” which is an accumulation of procedural knowledge which begins from the beginner level (propositional knowledge). Dispositional Knowledge Acquisition of dispositional knowledge is also vital for a beginner or learner in chess to become an expert. Ryle (1949) refers to a disposition as the inclination, due to a belief, to do or say various things. A disposition is thus a principle that brings about actual consideration. Dispositional knowledge (also described as dispositional knowledge-how) is a therefore a sort of standing knowledge which does not require the learner to be conscious of their belief in it (Moser). The will or belief to act in a certain way is what is required for dispositional knowledge. As Cleveland (1907) argues, chess masters’ achievements are largely attributable to their strategic traits such as semi automatically memorizing game patterns, developing “position sense”, thinking four or five moves ahead, evaluating which pieces to sacrifice and comprehending the implications or ramifications of second or third moves which is what separates them from beginners and intermediate level players (Moser 1991, O’Donnell et al 2011). Dingerman De Groot (2008) argues that to reach the highest or expert levels of chess, one must have a perceptible inborn disposition for becoming a “passionate thinker-player-fighter (De Groot 2008 p. 359).” For learners to become experts, they must hone their dispositional knowledge in terms of planning and strategy, knowing both what to do and what not to do. For example, a chess player must essentially know what not to do such as sacrificing the queen to defend a pawn which is eventually unlikely to be promoted or to deliver the checkmate or leaving the king exposed in the middle of the board when playing against an aggressive player when castling is an available option. On the other hand, players with a disposition towards memorizing moves and sequences and attacking in combinations with supporting pieces rather than individual pieces are more likely to master the game more rapidly, hone their instincts and become chess masters (Beilin and Pufall 1992). Metacognitive Knowledge Metacognition refers to a person’s knowledge about their own thinking, learning or any related cognitive processes. Metacognitive knowledge therefore includes one’s knowledge of themselves as learners, awareness of strategies for success and when and how to apply those strategies (O’Donnell et al 2011). In chess, metacognitive knowledge can be automatically and non-deliberately activated through recognition and response where the player detects a familiar situation and responds appropriately. Cleveland (1907) and De Groot (2008) compare this to the self actualisation stage where a chess player achieves the culmination of their entire chess development or the “position sense”. At this stage, owing to the player’s experience, they are able to eliminate errors common to beginners due to haste and impatience such as leaving pieces unprotected or allowing important pieces to be “pinned” or cornered (Haibach et al 2011). Acquisition of metacognitive knowledge has enabled them to expand their mental horizons and they are now in a position to disregard such non essentials and focus on a concerted strategy. Metacognitive knowledge combines elements of procedural, propositional as well as dispositional knowledge (Haibach et al 2011, Pasnau 2002). A chess player should be able to reflect on their development, identify their own strengths and weaknesses and in turn this knowledge enables them to quickly evaluate the difficulty of a game and cue the familiar successful responses in terms of strategies and moves (which out of experience have served them well before in similar situations) (Pasnau 2002). As Cleveland (1907) demonstrates, chess players acquire such knowledge mainly through memory. Cleveland states that the expert player is not required to analyse each situation as he comes to it, he grasps the situation as a whole, recognizes the salient features and only deals with them dropping out the details. A learner must therefore learn to identify the consequences of his chess moves not individually but as groups of pieces, reorient his principles towards the game based on this realisation and eventually learn to deal with concepts rather than particular terms. This would enable them anticipate situations and respond with speed and accuracy (Cleveland 1907). Cognitive Learning Theory and Acquisition of Knowledge Jean Piaget is one of the prominent figures behind cognitive psychology. In his cognitive development theory, Piaget (1952) suggests that learners should continuously reconstruct their personal understanding of phenomena through active reflection. He argues that the learning and cognitive development processes are similar to biological act which demands environmental adaptation (Piaget 1952). There are several cognitive learning processes that may be involved in the acquisition of knowledge in playing chess by the learner. Through the information processing model of cognitive learning theory, propositional knowledge could be acquired through perception as conceptualized by Gestalt psychologists (O’Donnell et al 2011). The chess learner would first have to see chess being played, note the various pieces being used, the appearance of the board, listen to the vocabulary in use and either be introduced to it or experiment as a means of learning the game. Through this process, they are encoding the information in their external environment. The chess learner could also read about the history or the rules of chess or be told about chess by an experienced chess player. It is through these cognitive processes that they process the information in their environment and internalize it to acquire the basic fundamental concepts of chess. Through perception, they would be able to identify the various chess pieces and their movements. Procedural knowledge in playing chess can also be acquired through the cognitive processes of perception and memory. The player would learn the rules of chess through observation and note how each piece moves, basic strategies and some of the advanced rules such as how to castle. For such knowledge to be useful the learner would have to store it in their memory and as they learn new rules and strategies they would try and incorporate it into their existing schemes (O’Donnell et al 2011). As the player learns of more and more new rules and strategies of playing chess, they accommodate them into their existing mental and intellectual schemes, modify their existing schemes or chess strategies or develop new schemes to make sense of the new information (Beilin and Pufall 1992). For example, a beginner in chess who learns that a pawn can be promoted or how to castle to shield the king and place the rook in an attacking position would most likely alter their strategy towards the game. In playing future chess games, they would have to retrieve such rules and strategies from memory through recall. Dispositional knowledge is obtained through the cognitive processes involved in obtaining both procedural and propositional knowledge. As the chess learner increasingly memorises the rules and strategies of the game and plays more and more games, they acquire dispositional knowledge which is a product of their cognitive processes such as personality, experiences and perceptions (O’Donnell et al 2011). For instance, the player may have left their king exposed in a previous game or had been used to playing with a strategy that ceded the centre of the board to their opponent. The success or failure of such strategies will colour the player’s beliefs about what to do- combining their procedural with dispositional knowledge (De Groot 2008). As cognitive learning theory argues, knowledge is constructed by the individual; hence the player will either be cautious or adventurous depending on their playing experiences. As the player moves towards becoming an expert in playing chess, the most important cognitive processes are those involved in acquiring metacognitive knowledge. As Beilin and Pufall (1992) demonstrate, chess experts rely on their metacognitive experiences to identify patterns of play and the required responses in an almost semi-automatic manner. As Piaget outlines in the formal operations stage, the individual develops abilities to reason at a higher level- hypothetical and abstract level. The expert chess player or learner is increasingly aware of their own development as chess players and in achieving Cleveland’s (1907) “position sense”, rely majorly on experience and strategy to shape their strategy and response to situations. Metacognitive knowledge is thus obtained through recourse to the memory and experience of the player. As the challenges become more advanced, the player often spends a lot of time cognitively contemplating their strategy (Beilin and Pufall 1992). Strengths and Limitations of cognitive theory One of the main strengths associated with the use of cognitive learning theory in learning how to play chess is that, this theory provides a practical and effective framework that can be used to guide learners how to effectively play chess. The procedures provided based on the cognitive theory are evidence-base thus this theory provides a valid and reliable instructional tool that can guide learners. This theory efficiently shows how cognitive processes contribute to easy learning (O’Donnell et al 2011). On the other hand, limitations associated with the use of cognitive learning theory in learning how to play chess is that, this theory fails to account for other factors that influence learning. Ydewalle & Lens (1981) argue that if cognitive processes are as powerful and effective as suggested in most cognitive learning theories, then why is it important to continue conducting studies on how other factors influence learning and human memory. Ydewalle & Lens (1981) further note that cognitive factors can fail to bring about the desired behavioural changes. For instance strongly entrenched habits that are resistant such as the lack of concentration, drugs and alcohol intake may be difficult to get rid of despite of strong intentions and willingness to do so. Although some of these habits may be under cognitive control some resistant habits may not be under cognitive control. These resistance habits can in turn inhibit the learning process (Ydewalle & Lens 1981). Conclusion As a far as learning is concerned, using the brain to think is paramount. This basic learning concept forms the basis of the cognitive learning theory. Over the years, this theory has been used to explain mental processes that are affected by both extrinsic and intrinsic factors that determine the learning process of an individual. Cognitive learning theory suggests that the different processes that are involved in the course of learning can be explained through the analysis of the mental processes first. This theory further suggests that effective cognitive processes contribute to easier learning. Furthermore, based on this theory, effective cognitive processes cause new information to be stored in the memory for a long period of time (O’Donnell al 2011). Using this theory to illustrate how one can learn how to play chess provides a practical and effective framework that can be used to guide learners on how they can effectively play chess. Nevertheless, the limitations associated with the use this theory in learning how to play chess is that, this theory fails to account for other factors that influence learning (Ydewalle & Lens, 1981). References Anderson, R.J., Hughes, J.A. & Sharrock, W.W. (1986). Philosophy and the Human Sciences. Worcester: Billing and Sons. Beilin, H. & Pufall, P. B. (1992). Piaget’s theory: Prospects and Probabilities. London: Routledge. Charness, N. (1992). The impact of chess research on cognitive science. Psychological Research 54 (1): 4-9. Cleveland, A. (1907). The psychology of chess and of learning to play it. American Journal of Psychology 18 (3): 269- 308. De Groot, A.D. (2008). Thought and Choice in Chess. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Feldman, R. (2003). Epistemology. Michigan: Prentice Hall. Haibach, P.S., Reid, G. & Collier, D.H. (2011). Motor Learning and Development. Champagne, Illinois: Human Kinetics. Moser, P.K (1991). Knowledge and Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Donnell, A., Reeve, J. & Smith, J. (2011). Educational Psychology: Reflection for Action. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. Pasnau, R. (2002). Mind and Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press. Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson. Ydewalle, G. & Lens, W. (1981). Cognition in human motivation and learning. New York: Routledge. Read More