Just a thought...

Does "memorizing" include "understanding" as well, or is it just knowing the moves?

trw wrote on 06/22/08 at 02:38:39:

That makes sense. I very rarely spend several hours studying a single game, but maybe I would remember them better if I did... Do you feel it is worth the time investment? Actually I do remember games I have "studied" for several hours, namely those I have played myself! But after a month or so I start forgetting even those.

GabrielGale wrote on 06/22/08 at 01:39:36:

If memory serves me well   this was a game played by Dvoretsky himself in the Closed Sicilian main line. Which games apperar logical may actually differ a bit from person to person, i.e. it will be easier to remember games with position types or strategies you already have some experience with, since long-term memory works by associating with something you already know.

The ultimate examples of games that make sense to you are of course your own games, since half the moves came directly from your own chess understanding. I wonder if solitaire chess/"test your chess" is also a good method to remember games, since it simulates tournament play.

kylemeister wrote on 06/22/08 at 03:39:39:


Kylemeister, I made so many syntax errors in that post that I thought you might have caught on.  Perhaps if I had said I have a photogenic memory?  Oh well.

Still, I appreciate your reading my notes carefully.

Memory and chess combines two areas of study that have fascinated me since adolescence.  (No, they aren't the only areas of study that has fascinated me since adolescence, as my wife can attest.)

I agree with most of what has been written here in a general sense, and specifically the memory cathedral is indeed an excellent tool.

trw said he is a visual learner and then stated that he couldn't memorize games just by looking at them.  He has to play through the moves.  To me, this is more of a tactile and geometric learner rather than one with a photographic sort of memory.  (The term "identic" is often used instead of photographic.)

Feynman wrote about experiments he made with his friends about memory in his red book, "What do you Care What People Think?"  He discovered that people really do learn and memorize and THINK in different ways.

This isn't a surprise to me anymore, but when he wrote that, it was probably groundbreaking.  I've mentioned Eric Kandel's black book (with a picture of his face on it), In Search of Memory in other threads.

He won the Nobel prize for his work on short-term and long-term memory. He wanted to know why he remembered individual events such as leaving Austria as a young boy so clearly and yet had difficulty remembering other things that were routine. (For example, what did you have for dinner three weeks ago on Tuesday?)

His answer was to study the physical nature of memory.  Once we realise that memory is a physical activity, we can work our memory "muscles" to do amazing things.  London Taxi cab drivers are famous for developing their memories.

The techniques for memorizing are important because memory alone is useless without a way to bring it to the surface.  That's why the Memory Cathedral is such an excellent idea.  

Now, does memorizing a certain number of complete games make you a better player?  Or maybe just a certain number of positions?  One IM suggested memorizing not 100 games, but 1000 positions.  I really don't have the answer.  If I did, I'd write a nice book with friendly words like "Don't Panic" on the back of it and make lots of money.  Preferrably Euros rather than US Dollars, but I wouldn't be too picky.

Dvoretsky did mention that his memory was not that special.  Remember, he was comparing himself to other chess professionals.  I know that I don't forget games that I've played, even in simuls.  I may have trouble placing a face with a name, but once someone tells me what they played I can remember where they sat and the rest of the game.

Is that a visual sort of memory?  A tactile one?  I don't really know.  I do know that my aural memory is not as good as my visual one, but I learn best by doing.  (Don't most people?  Apparently not.  At least according to that black book by Kandel.)

This question and trw's post brings to mind something I just read whilst browsing in a bookshop two days ago. I was reading Dvoretsky's book on Opening Preparation and in the chapter on opening repertoire, he recommended a game as a sort of model game to play through, study and memorise. I think this is in a sense an extension of the concept of tabiyas. Dvoretsky recommends finding such similar games to memorise but only games where both sides are playing "logical" good chess. So it is not necessarily the most brilliant chess game or the game with most brilliant combination or tactic.

On reflection, this may work in the sense similar to the european medieval practice of memory cathedrals. In days when writing was scarce, memory and oral tradition were stronger. Certain persons developed practices of memorising tons of stuff. One way of doing this (and in an organised manner) was to imagine a cathedral (we are speaking after all of the medieval europe where the church and christianity was very influential!). When you need to store somethin in your memory, you must imagine your cathedral, enter it (give it different rooms), imagine a new object (in a sense similar to mnemonics), give it a connection to the memory, memorise, then exit. The memory should stay. cf an old book by Fraces Yates if anyone is fascinated.

Back to chess. I think Dvoretsky's idea is similar. If we remember certain model games, we can dredge it up when in competition, and use it guide us on playing the logical good chess. (Caveat: I am not saying the creative, intuitive and brilliant has no place in chess thinking. To paraphrase, Chess is 99% hard work and 1% inspiration!)

Apologies in advance for the long post.

PS. I need to work on my memory 'cos I have forgotten what game it was that Dvoretsky's had in mind. Perhaps someone with the book can post the game details.

Okay, serious answers please. Whoever I read recommended a goal of memorizing 100 master games total. What i'm talking about is memorizing all the moves of the game as well as critical variations and at least understanding the important, but non-critical variations. Obviously also really understanding the themes of the game, the opening ideas, endgame ideas or theoretical positions, etc.

The more that I think about it, the more I like this idea. I've finally gotten to around 2000 and I'm need a break from my standard training.

trw wrote on 06/21/08 at 19:11:50:

Wow. I think this must be a huge advantage for anyone studying to become a stronger player. And not only for games of course, but for opening and endgame theory as well. I can play over a game 3 times or more without remembering it for any length of time! In fact I would have trouble reproducing even Anderssens "Immortal" and "Evergreen" games or Morphy's "Opera game" from memory, though I have seen them countless times. 

Is there a secret method? Do you study in any particular way that (deliberately or coincidentally) makes the games stick in memory?