A man walks along the inside of a circle of chess tables, glancing at each for two or three seconds before marking his move. On the outer rim, dozens of amateurs sit pondering their replies until he completes the circuit. The year is 1909, the man is José Raúl Capablanca of Cuba, and the result is a whitewash: 28 wins in as many games. The exhibition was part of a tour in which Capablanca won 168 games in a row.
How did he play so well, so quickly? And how far ahead could he calculate under such constraints? “I see only one move ahead”, Capablanca is said to have answered, “but it is always the correct one”.
He thus put in a nutshell what a century of psychological research has subsequently established: much of the chess master’s advantage over the novice derives from the first few seconds of thought. This rapid, knowledge-guided perception, sometimes called apperception, can be seen in experts in other fields as well. Just as a master can recall all the moves in a game he has played, so can an accomplished musician often reconstruct the score to a sonata heard just once. And just as the chess master often finds the best move in a flash, an expert physician can sometimes make an accurate diagnosis within moments of laying eye on a patient.
Because skill at chess can be easily measured and subjected to laboratory experiments, the game has become an important test bed for theories in cognitive science.
Researches have found evidence that chess grandmasters rely on a vast store of knowledge of game position. Some scientists have theorized that grandmasters organized the information in chunks, which can be quickly retrieved from long-term memory and manipulated in working memory.
To accumulate this body of structured knowledge, grandmasters typically engage in years of effortful study, continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond their competence. The top performers in music, mathematics and sports appear to gain their expertise in the same way. Experts can do wonders by packing hierarchies of information in to chunks. (Philip E. Ross, Scientific American, August, 2006)
Chunks could be understood as meaningful patterns of information.