I recently starting reading this book about the Psychology of Chess:
It is also interesting for Go players to understand how we learn and analyze Go games, especially “chunk theory”, which has been developed to explain how Chess masters analyze chess positions. This can also be used to explain why tsumegos and replaying professional games are necessary to improve one’s skills in Go.
Has there been any similar research done in a European language about the psychology of Go players?
Is it necessary though?
Well it saves a lot of time. Gobet writes that chess masters see the board differently from amateurs because amateurs only see the individual pieces while chess masters see patterns. Thus the masters are able to process the board and positions much fasters than the amateurs despite the fact that both use their short-term memory but amateurs do not have patterns in their long time memory so they clog up the short-time memory with the individual pieces while masters recognizes patterns that are set in their long-time memory and thus are able to perceive more of the board (i.e., an amateur perceives seven individual pieces on the board while the master perceives seven patterns on the board). The whole point of doing tsumegos and replaying professional games are to learn patterns so they are part of the long-term memory so one can process the board more comprehensively and quicker.
Good point, though I would argue that doing Tsumegos and replaying games of Professionals are among many different practices that help us learn such patterns.
nonsense
only complete beginners and ancient simple programs don’t see patterns.
so when simple program runs millions of simulations with random candidate moves, it still loses to amateur who do not reads.
pro just have bigger collection of patterns than amateurs. And amateurs often have collection of incorrect patterns.
We can play instantly. We are often too lazy to read.
I tried to shortly summarize how Gobet describes chunking theory to explain how chess players perceive the board. Of course, my summary was not perfect but the point is that masters perceive positions or patterns rather than pieces and that they have learnt a large amount of patterns and positions and as you say more than lower level players. In any case my thought was that chunking theory could also be used to explain the purpose of doing go problems and replaying games.
I saw in OGS chat a new book in french on go and psychology. I hope to find and read it asap.
Do you have the title?
Not exactly but should be easy to find. Search go et psychologie I guess
It’s “Le jeu de go, une voie royale vers l’inconscient: Psychanalyse des pierres bavardes” by Arthur Mary.
I don’t know if the book is interesting or not, I’m just copying what was written on the French chat.
Thanks so this book
Amazon.fr
Is it only about Freudian psychoanalysis and Go or does it also treat like real psychology based on empirical research?
The author is this player
He is a psychoanalyst, and he said in the chat that several psychoanalysts, including him, had the idea of proposing his patients to play go. Apart from that I don’t know anything about the book.
Hello there!
I can introduce the book with a few words.
It’s mainly a Freudian/Lacanian approach of the game. Based on my empirical and clinical practice with patients in a psychiartry ward as a clinical psychologist. I often propose my patients to play go, in indivual settings, or in a “go game therapeutic workshop” that I describe in the book.
As a researcher in clinical psychopathology (PhD), I discuss also some other approaches (with fMRI, quantitative studies, etc.).
I am also considering an English translation of the book. Maybe.
Thanks! So the focus is the therapeutic value of Go rather than a psychological explanation of how expert Go players think while playing, how they acquire skills in Go, and to what degree the skills are transferable to other domains?
Sounds like your are looking for something like
I have read that book and enjoyed it, but I was looking for empirical research like that which have been done about chess.
Yes, therapeutic value, among beginners, mainly.
And some psychological (psychaonalytical and phenomenological hypothesis about some psychic resonance between the game and some players I worked with)
It is not a skill-centered approach anyway. But some particular resonances are discussed between what happens upon the goban and what happens in their existence
It was not really what I was looking for but it sounds interesting so I will probably read your book
Didn’t read this thread but only skimmed it superficially …
This book by Robert Jasiek might be interesting:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/Psychology.html
It is about psychology in Go, ofc.
Disclaimer: I haven’t read it … but read a few of his other books and liked them (esp. “First Fundamentals”).
