Learning by Induction

Submitted by spassky on Tue, 06/09/2009 at 1:38am.

 

What is "Learning by Induction"?  Simply put, it is learning by watching.  You watch what others do, then you do that.  Below is a more formal explanation of inductive vs. deductive logic: 

In logic, we often refer to the two broad methods of reasoning as the deductive and inductive approaches.

Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach. We might begin with thinking up a theory about our topic of interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypotheses that we can test. We narrow down even further when we collect observations to address the hypotheses. This ultimately leads us to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data -- a confirmation (or not) of our original theories.

Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. Informally, we sometimes call this a "bottom up" approach. In inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories.  (Thanks to William M.K. Trochim for these definitions).

To translate this into an approach to learning a skill, deductive learning is someone TELLING you what to do, while inductive learning is someone SHOWING you what to do.  Remember the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words"?  That means, in a given amount of time, a person can be SHOWN a thousand times more information than they could be TOLD in the same amount of time.  I can access a picture or pattern much more quickly than the equivalent description of that picture or pattern in words.

Athletes often practice "visualization" before they undertake an action.  But in order to visualize something, you need to have a picture in your head to visualize.  How do you get those pictures in your head, by WATCHING.  Who do you watch? Professionals.  This is the key.  Pay attention here.  When you want to learn a skill:

WATCH PROFESSIONALS DO IT BEFORE YOU DO IT.  DO NOT DO IT YOURSELF FIRST.

Going out and doing a sport without having seen AND STUDIED professionals doing that sport is THE NUMBER ONE MISTAKE people make.  They force themselves to play, their brain says "what do we do now?", another part of the brain looks for examples (pictures) of what to do, and, finding none, says "just do anything".  So they try to generate behavior to accomplish something within the rules of the sport.  If they "keep score" and try to "win" and avoid "losing", the negative impact is multiplied tenfold.

Yet this is EXACTLY what most people do and what most ARE TOLD to do!  "Interested in tennis?  Grab a racquet, join a league, get out there and have fun!"  Then what happens?  They have no training, they try do what it takes to "win", and to do so, they manufacture awful strokes just TO BE ABLE to play (remember, they joined a league, so they have to keep score and win!), these awful strokes get ingrained by repitition, they produce terrible results, and they are very difficult to unlearn, so progress, despite lessons (mostly in the useless form of words), is slow or nonexistant.  Then they quit.

What they should do is this.  "Interested in tennis?  DO NOT PLAY TENNIS. Go watch professional tennis players play.  Study what they do. Look for common patterns, motions, movements.  Listen to commentary as you watch, then watch for what the commentators talked about.  Keep watching.  Pick a favorite player and try to watch them whenever you can.  While you are watching them, make believe you have a racquet in your hand and try to do what they do.  Do this for as long as you can before you go out and hit A SINGLE BALL. And when you do play, DO NOT KEEP SCORE and DO NOT TRY TO WIN."  Now when you finally pick up a racquet and go out to play, and your brain says "what do we do now?", your head will be filled with pictures of professionals perfectly doing what you are trying to do.  You will not know how to do it incorrectly, because you have never seen it done incorrectly.  You will try to do what they do, and you will almost immediately proceed to an advanced intermediate level.  You will be a beginner for a short period of time, if at all, and improvement will be a matter of adding to and refining what you are doing, not stripping down and unlearning bad patterns.  And since you are not keeping score, you focus purely on technique.  If you hit one into the net, just pull another ball out of your pocket and do it again.  No big deal, no drama, no guilt.  Just hit another.  When you feel you can hit all of your shots somewhat professionally, maybe you can actually play someone and keep score.  You will love the positive feedback of beating players who have been playing much longer than you have.  You will wonder how they could have played for so long and still "play like that".  Don't they know it's done "this way?"  What professional does it "that way?"  Don't they watch tennis on TV?   Who does that?  I just started and I know that's wrong.  All these thoughts will make you feel like a genius.

 

So how does all of this relate to chess?  Simply put, play over the games of professional players and see how they play before you play anybody.  Try to imitate them instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.  Play over the games of lots of different players and then decide which one or two you like.  The ones you like are the ones where you say after playing over one of their games, "I would love to play a game like that!"  Then just concentrate on those one or two players.  Study and play the openings they play.  Get books where they comment on their own games.  Maybe they will say what they were thinking during the game.  Try to play like them.  During your games, think "What would he do in this position?"  Personally, I like Morphy for his rapid development and attacks, Alekhine for his creativeness in all positions, and Spassky for his ability to play all types of positions and create attacks in calm positions.  Go find your favorites and LEARN BY INDUCTION!  For more information on gaining a winner's mindset in chess, go to www.brucetill.com .

» posted in For Beginners
 

Comments:

by spassky - 9 days ago
Gaithersburg, MD United States
Member Since: Oct 2007
Member Points: 258

To DonJose:

I guess they both did the same thing:

Morphy learned to play chess by watching his elders play during their free time.  His uncle, Ernest Morphy, reported that Paul had surprised him and Alonzo after their chess game, approaching his Uncle and announcing that he should have won.  He next set the pieces on the board at the point of his uncle's error, and played out the game exactly as it could have been if his uncle had not blundered, checkmating his father's position.  Until this point, no one had any idea that young Morphy had been educated in the strategies, let alone basic principals of chess.  Surprise of his knowledge, combined with excitement of the child's gift, permeated the New Orleans masses, and he soon was known as a chess prodigy.

http://www.chessville.com/vignettes/Morphy.htm

 

Thanks for reading my articles and adding a comment!

by donjose - 9 days ago
montevideo Uruguay
Member Since: Mar 2009
Member Points: 3

YOU CAN CHECK IT ON THE PPROLOGUE OF CAPABLANCA´S "FUNDAMENTALS OF CHESS" DONT KNOW THE EDITION SORRY BUT I DONT THINK THERE ARE MANY

by donjose - 9 days ago
montevideo Uruguay
Member Since: Mar 2009
Member Points: 3

IM SORRY BUT IVE HEARD THE SAME CHILD MORPHY KNIGHT TELLING BUT IT WAS ABPUT CAPABLANCA AND THERE ARE EVEN AT LEAST TWO VERSIONS, IN ONE THE KNIGHT MOVES INTO A "SAME COLOURED" SQUARE AND IN THE OTHER VERSION IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE ..." YOU WOULDNT LOOSE IF YOU HAVE MOVED YOUR KNIGHT INTO HERE...."

.... WE HUMANS .... ARE TERRIBLE....LET ME TELL YOU

 

GREAT ARTICLE BY THE WAY, UNLEARNING WRONG PATTERNS IS HARD

by zankfrappa - 48 days ago
Virginia United States
Member Since: Nov 2008
Member Points: 2486

     Very interesting article, however, I can't decide whether it is better for me to study the games of chess greats or to study games of players 50-100 points higher than
my rating.
     After all, I can understand a Kasparov-Karpov game about as much as I can grasp
Einstein's theories on physics or a tough calculus problem, I am not really studying
it as much as I am amazed by the game, just like when I watched Larry Bird make
a crazy off-balance shot with three defenders draped on him.
     So could I study the games 50-100 points higher than me until they seem "normal" to me, then raise the level of games I study by 50-100 more and so on?
     Then again, Jeremy Silman himself said exactly what you did, he studied
thousands of hours of high-level games.  His perseverance was amazing, however, and even he admits he was so frustrated with the system he almost
quit.
      Of course, tonight I will be studying the games of Rybka, looking for that
"induction breakthrough" that will take my game to the next level.

by spassky - 3 months ago
Gaithersburg, MD United States
Member Since: Oct 2007
Member Points: 258

To Aleksi N:

You said "If I simply watch a sequence of moves, I am not really processing or learning anything."  But you are!  If you knew nothing about chess and I told you to watch two people play fast games for one hour, then I came back and asked you what you had learned, you would at least be able to say "White goes first and moves a little piece to the middle of the board, then Black does the same (usually), and they alternate moving various pieces around the board until someone gives up or someone says 'mate'".  This is exactly how American champion Paul Morphy (1836-1884) learned to play, by watching his father play other men.  One time he laughed at one of the men's moves and his father asked him what he was laughing at, and he said the man made an illegal move with his knight and that they don't move that way.  His father was surprised and didn't realize Paul had even been paying attention.  So by simply playing over games of good players, you are learning.  You will get a feel for what to do and what not to do, even if you do not know you are learning.  Trust me!

by aleksi_n - 3 months ago
Finland
Member Since: Aug 2009
Member Points: 1

Dear spassky (& other members reading this comment),

Thanks for the article. I just started off with learning chess (and registered to chess.com :) - so forgive me for asking a very simple beginner's question: how do you "play over" these games in practice? If I simply watch the sequence of moves, I'm not really processing or learning anything. And if I try to think what would be my next move, I'm kind of clueless, having played some 20 games in my life and lost 15. ;)

Should I maybe play let's say 100 games first before starting to "play over" anything? But, that would be in contradiction to the article above, suggesting I watched first and played second.

Thanks in advance for any replies!

by santosss - 4 months ago
Mother earth International
Member Since: Mar 2009
Member Points: 270

that's exactly right.. thanx for the advice mate ^ ^

by NJMcKnight - 4 months ago
Fort Myers, Florida United States
Member Since: Aug 2008
Member Points: 41

Exactly right! I'm advancing from a novice to an intermediate more quickly since I play with the "experts" two afternoons a week.  And when I'm not playing, I pull up a chair to the tables and intently watch what the advanced players are doing.  I understand what's going on with each opponent's moves and tactics so much better and have begun to incorporate some of them into my own games now. 

by wdygml - 4 months ago
Delhi India
Member Since: Oct 2007
Member Points: 605

thats absolutely the only way to do it... do...read this article

by bigfundu - 4 months ago
Chennai India
Member Since: Oct 2008
Member Points: 379

I vouch for it .. my chess.com rating has simply gone up not only because i learnt to play tactics a bit more decently, a lot of it has to do with watching and playing over grandmaster games published here.

 

Add your comment:

Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.