Photographic mind,

Photographic mind,

Please do not read this for it will change your game forever, turn back now and I will think no less of you.

Verry well if you must read on. I must inquire about the possibility that most chess master have a photographic mind, thus making it easy to memorize all the openings and variations? Imagine the overwhelming odds that would be stacked against a player without such ability. I stagger at the immenseness of it and am now in fear of all chess masters. Imagine for a moment that he or she could remember your facial patterns, such as the fact that your mouth drops ever so slightly when you are going to gambit or that your left eye twitches when you are considering a draw. I bet you will never look at a player across the board again the same way and for this I apologize.  

I had something like that happen to me once, there was a guy across from me, and he kept looking at me in a strange way, like he was reading my mind. I had sweat rolling down my face and down y neck. His stare grew more intense but it turned out that I had not hit my timer and he could not speak English.  

I've been told I have a photographic memory and I'm not a chess master.

You don't need a photographic memory to remember openings.  You could simply study them.  Also, what use is a photographic memory when you are sitting there right in front of the board?  If would be helpful if you knocked the board off of the table and the pieces went flying all over.

You can check out studies by Adrian de Groot that show that positional recall was equal with a random position on the board. Board positions from actual play were recalled much better by the Master level chess players. This is due to their experience. Were it just a natural ability such as a true photographic memory, then the random and real-game positions would be remembered the same.

Hey Pharaoh...I've got to agree with Majere 1313 here.  Bobby Fischer is one notable player among many greats who was renowned for NOT memorizing lines.  What he and other masters are, or in his case were, able to do is play tactically sharp and calculate as many lines and variations as they can envision accurately, from the opening phase to the middle-game phase and some even to the endgame phase.  GM Lev Alburt recommends 4 essentials to every game of chess...pawn structure, power, space & tempo.  The idea is to keep in mind all 4 of these phases on EVERY move without losing sight of what your opponent is plotting against you! 

I have had friends who went to play national level chess in India and I used to be amazed by their chess memory and speed on board ... but they did not have the photographic memory when it came to other aspects, for example studies. However, with better ability to play chess comes the strong analytical skill or vice-versa which gave them an edge on other fronts too. So, the real question would be to probably ask if photographic memory is the only thing required for chess mastery - the answer would be no. With less analytical ability, the number of positions and moves to remember (calculated mathematically) would be just too many to remember in a life-time let alone play at a grandmaster level. However, a very good memory coupled with a damn good analytical ability can be a killer.

Where did you read that Fischer was renowned for not memorizing lines? He

had an excellent memory and the remarkable thing would be if he forgot anything like a game he played or analysis he had read. In this sense, he did indeed memorize lines. Or were you talking about a different kind of thing?

Fischer did, in fact, have photographic memory - which is understandble with his what - 180+ IQ?

I once read an article that described how he was able to totally recall a casual game he had played ten years previous and describe exactly each position on the board.

I like to think of it like this - everyone has what I call "mental file cabinets." These go for any topic, such as video games, skiing, and chess. The more files are in your cabinet, the more information you have to draw from. Your IQ determines the length of your file cabinet (refer to the Levitt Equation, E = 10Y + 1000) and the rate of how fast you can put files in it. You still may have an extensive cabinet with an IQ of 125, it will just take longer to fill it up with files.

Also, as far as Levitt's Equation goes, E is for Potential Elo and the constant Y is IQ. Therefore, if your IQ is 125, your Potential Elo is 2250. Note that since Y maintains a constant value, you could never take someone's Elo and determine their IQ. Bear in mind there are a few minor holes in Levitt's Equation, and the result will always be approximate. I highly doubt Kasparov has an IQ of over 180.

It would probably be better to rewrite the equation as E < 10Y + 1000.

Off topic, but: I have no confidence that we know Fischer's IQ. An IQ comes

from a test (there are a few) administered by a psychologist under fairly

rigorous conditions. I've taken one, and I've taken a few more tests that

"produced" an IQ as well, some taken in school and administered by the teacher.

I did 20-30 points better in-school. I've never seen evidence that the tests

Fischer took in school supposedly took were one of the rigorous ones, just that he

took a test in school for his IQ.  No doubt he was a

genius, even if in a narrow band of abilities (his verbal skills never impressed

me much to be honest), but the legend of his IQ remains. I'd like to get the

true story of his testing some day.

Anecdotes about Bobby Fischer's amazing memory are pretty common. I heard a story about a man who played Fischer in a simul and ran into him in an airport many years later. He approached Fischer saying, "I'm sure you don't remember me... " and Fischer looked at him a moment and said, "No, no I remember you... you're that fellow that played 13. Ng4 in a King's Indian.... "

 I agree completely with you about the enhanced recall of chess Grandmasters due to constant training and simulation of the synapses in the brain responsible for that kind of analytical reasoning. But, it should be mentioned that autistic savants have produced amazing feats of the mind without training in their respected fields. Although this phenomenon is not fully understood yet, it is nonetheless attributed to differences in development and function of the brain, in some cases resulting in photographic memory. For those interested in the subject, I would point you towards Kim Peek, the inspiration for the movie "Rain Man". He is a savant who was born with a damaged corpus callosum, the part of the brain resposible for connecting the two hemispheres. Among other things, Peek is reknowned for his ability to recall over 12,000 books from memory and retain about 99% of the information he takes in.

 What you are refering to- is called a tell.  Used by poker players to signal give-aways, either when bluffing or has a downright great hand.  Everyone has them. Reading them usually comes from experience. I love to see raised eyebrows as to say, gotchya! Then I look for the best possible defence (if any). Or a worried look, that may be he sees a I have a killer move!!  In online chess, how much time he uses may signify he is worried that he is in a bad position.  Never assume anything, even bad players can get lucky.

That's exactly what I was gonna say too but forgot to.  The world of poker is a much more applicable forum for a "tell".

Kasparov in fact has an IQ of 135.  The major German magazine Der Spiegel had Kasparov tested at its own expense.  This is not a "low" IQ at all; indeed it is in the top 1% of the population.  Further, I believe that this level of general intelligence (roughly:  symbolic reasoning fluency and capacity), which is what IQ measures, is more than sufficient to enable performance at the very highest levels of chess (and not just in Kasparov's case).  At lower levels of chess, IQ is more likely to be the limiting factor. 

My "Sufficient Intelligence" Hypothesis:

Below grandmaster level and/or an IQ of 130, chess play is more likely to be limited by general intelligence (as measured by IQ) than by other talents, and ranking may well follow the Levitt formula.  Above that level, IQ becomes less important than other talents and the experience and education of the chess player.

Support for the Hypothesis:

What is known about the predictive validity of IQ in a number of other domains suggests that IQ is very effective at predicting success at the lower and intermediate levels of an occupational or educational domain, where it often is the single best predictor of success or performance.  At higher ("master") levels of performance in professional and technical fields, as well as in graduate education, IQ still matters, but not as much.  Other talents, as well as learned expertise and accumulated knowledge,  become more powerful predictors at the top levels of achievement.

I believe that chess follows this pattern, and indeed, may be the single best example of it.  Thus Kasparov ascended to the highest level of chess with general intelligence that, while very superior, is not exceedingly rare: (a big-city high school should be able to fill a small classroom with students having IQs of 135 or more).  By contrast, Kasparov's world-class chess performance is exceedingly rare -- less than 1 in 1 million. 

Early in Kasparov's chess playing history, his high IQ (general intelligence) enabled him to quickly learn the game and accumulate expertise in depth.  As his experience increased, Kasparov probably used more specialized cognitive talents such as situational memory, in addition to an increasingly large fund of retained expertise, to continue his development as a chess master.

My Hypothesis, Restated:

1.  Very superior general intelligence is necessary, but not sufficient, to ascend to the highest levels of chess mastery.

2.  The highest levels of chess mastery require high intelligence, exceptional specialized cognitive talents, most probably including situational memory, and an extremely large fund of chess expertise and knowledge, acquired over a period of time through intense study and practice.

Gonnosuke -

Thanks for your comment. 

Yes, I'm convinced that superior memory for positions and sequences -- chess replay memory -- could be instrumental for players at the extreme levels of chess.  At this level, reasoning power and retained knowledge of chess rules, offensive and defensive plays, etc. are a given (and these are related to IQ).    Profound situational memory capacity, however, of the kind Vasiukov described in Fischer, is a more specialized talent.  It is also much more rare, or at least, it hasn't been aprehended by cognitive scientist to the degree general intelligence has been.

Fischer had read several thousand chess books, and apparantly had a very good memory.

 There is an accounting for Fischer's skills: He had the genes for it. His bio-dad was brilliant as was his half-brother. All three of them also displayed mental illness. His half-brother was pushing a shopping cart around town while wearing oven mitts before he died.

As is counting matches(or was it toothpicks) and trying it in the casino to make millions.
But no, I think there is no use in remembering openings if you truly understand the game of chess. recognizing positions is important, but the similarities would be in the characteristics, not in the exact locations.
Photographic memories are not neccessary for becoming a world class player, according to me. It will not help very much either probably.
Good memories are always great for studying in the first place.

I have read that Tal also had a photographic memory. While having a great memory might not be necessary to play great chess I am sure it helps, as it would in most things.