Tetris

[Benjamano]

I haven't had time to follow this list for a while, so please excuse
me if this is a duplicate. Just thought you might be interested in
this. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2009-09/01/tetris-can-alter-the-structure-of-your-brain.aspx

"Playing Tetris increases the density of the cortex and improves the
efficiency of some parts of the brain, according to researchers
investigating video games and other complex spatial tasks."

[Benjamin]

I think the same findings just posted on science daily...http://
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090901082851.htm

Anyone know if "tetris-skill" transfers to other skills or domains?

And don't forget to play your Call of Duty, Halo, etc.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090329143326.htm

But don't let your kids play them

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090617171819.htm

On Sep 1, 10:03 am, Benjamano <google....@ben.coman.com.au> wrote:
> I haven't had time to follow this list for a while, so please excuse
> me if this is a duplicate.  Just thought you might be interested in

> this.  http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2009-09/01/tetris-can-alter-the-s...

[Gwern Branwen]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Benjamin<benja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think the same findings just posted on science daily...http://
> www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090901082851.htm
>
> Anyone know if "tetris-skill" transfers to other skills or domains?
>
> And don't forget to play your Call of Duty, Halo, etc.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090329143326.htm
>
> But don't let your kids play them
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090617171819.htm

We discussed earlier that spatial rotation training can apparently
transfer. But the tasks in the paper and the example programs weren't
Tetris-like.

--
gwern

[exigentsky]

If Tetris helps, what about far more complex (albeit very different)
games like chess? I'm an avid chess player so this isn't just a
coincidental example.

On Sep 1, 12:23 pm, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Gwern Branwen]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:34 PM, exigentsky<exige...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> If Tetris helps, what about far more complex (albeit very different)
> games like chess? I'm an avid chess player so this isn't just a
> coincidental example.

Well, there are enough studies showing kids benefit from chess
training that I'm inclined to think there's something there
(focus/attention maybe) - but given the famous chunking studies where
grandmasters are no better than amateurs at recalling random positions
of pieces, I'm inclined to say that there's no transfer to
visuo-spatial skills much less anything else. (I've heard that there
are studies showing transfer for Go, but I'm very skeptical. Academic
benefits like chess, sure, but transfer?)

--
gwern

[Pheonoxia]

So the big question--at least in my mind--is what real life
applications would this yield? Even though the cortex is where
language is processed and tetris thickens this part of the brain, I'm
skeptical tetris makes one a better orator.

[exigentsky]

Yes, that study showed GMs performing only slightly better for random
positions. On the other hand, many of the best GMs like Fischer
(tragic later life), Kasparov and Judit Polgar on the women's side had
a prodigious memory as well as phenomenal IQs. From what I remember,
Fischer and Kasparov were in the 180s and Polgar was in the 170s. Of
course, it's hard to assess the validity of these tests since they
were probably different (Kasparov even had a significantly lower score
on another IQ test, but there is variance too), for different ages and
with different standards, but the overall result is the same. The best
chess players in the world excelled. In fact, if they didn't, I'd be
more inclined to think the tools were faulty. Similarly, if a
remarkable person like Richard Feynman doesn't score as high as we'd
expect on the IQ spectrum, my feeling is not that this person is less
intelligent than we thought but that our tools do not accurately
represent his intelligence. After all, IQ tests are supposed to be
predictors of intelligence which is associated with accomplishment in
intellectual domains. If one has made tremendous progress in the
difficult field of quantum mechanics, he has established his
intelligence in a much more tangible way than a number on an IQ test.

As a chess player, I'm certainly biased, but I'd be surprised if chess
did not produce some quantifiable cognitive benefit. To play chess
well, one must have a good memory (and not just for openings or
endgames!), excellent pattern recognition, intense focus, strategic
thinking/concept, discipline (except for blitz) and the ability to
visualize/calculate deeply when necessary. From all of these (and this
is just an abbreviated list), I think pattern recognition is most
essential. A good chess player will know and be able to apply tens of
thousands of typical patterns along with their intricate features (for
example knowing the conditions of the Greek gift sacrifice). This type
of thinking is also what is stressed on IQ tests and most learning. It
may be that chess uses too many aspects of the brain to make a clear
improvement easily measurable. Tetris, video games and even DNB all
have a pretty narrow focus. It is like strenuous exercise of a
particular muscle. Chess is more like going swimming. :D I could
easily write a book about chess and its effects on cognition so I will
try not to sidetrack the thread any farther.

On Sep 1, 8:32 pm, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Pheonoxia]

Whoever said Gary Kasparov has an IQ around 180 deserves to be
lobotomized.

On Sep 5, 8:10 pm, blank <peisistrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "I object to being called a chess genius, because I consider myself to
> be an all around genius, who just happens to play chess, which is
> rather different. A piece of garbage like Kasparov might be called a
> chess genius, but he is like an idiot savant, outside of chess he
> knows nothing."
>
> - Bobby Fischer

[Pontus Granström]

He has a 135 IQ. Although I believe José Capablanca said that you do not need any intelligence
to become the world champion in chess.

[exigentsky]

You've certainly added a lot while also managing to facilitate open
discussion in a friendly atmosphere. Much appreciated!

My statement was not categorical and I made sure to explain why such
IQ comparisons are inevitably somewhat arbitrary. Moreover, I
mentioned that there are conflicting reports on Kasparov's IQ. I can't
reasonably be asked to further qualify an already weak statement given
that it wasn't even the focus of the discussion. Plus, according to
many sites specialized in IQ testing, my range may have been
pessimistic. For example, http://www.intelligencetest.com/report/information.htm
reports it as 190. I don't know what the truth is but Garry Kasparov
has certainly revealed his intellectual prowess in fairly concrete
ways. He is arguably the greatest chess player in the history of the
game.

BTW: I'm not sure what the Fischer quote is about but my English
teacher always told me to explain quotes. :D. It seems to me that
FIscher got himself and Kasparov mixed up. Kasparov is actually quite
active outside of chess. He's very involved in Russian politics:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x396zz_garry-kasparov-schools-bill-maher
In any case, it is well known that Fischer went loony after he stopped
playing chess.

[Gwern Branwen]

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:01 AM, exigentsky<alexr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You've certainly added a lot while also managing to facilitate open
> discussion in a friendly atmosphere. Much appreciated!
>
> My statement was not categorical and I made sure to explain why such
> IQ comparisons are inevitably somewhat arbitrary. Moreover, I
> mentioned that there are conflicting reports on Kasparov's IQ. I can't
> reasonably be asked to further qualify an already weak statement given
> that it wasn't even the focus of the discussion. Plus, according to
> many sites specialized in IQ testing, my range may have been
> pessimistic. For example, http://www.intelligencetest.com/report/information.htm
> reports it as 190. I don't know what the truth is but Garry Kasparov
> has certainly revealed his intellectual prowess in fairly concrete
> ways. He is arguably the greatest chess player in the history of the
> game.
>
> BTW: I'm not sure what the Fischer quote is about but my English
> teacher always told me to explain quotes. :D. It seems to me that
> FIscher got himself and Kasparov mixed up. Kasparov is actually quite
> active outside of chess. He's very involved in Russian politics:
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x396zz_garry-kasparov-schools-bill-maher
> In any case, it is well known that Fischer went loony after he stopped
> playing chess.

Huh. And here I was interpreting the Fischer quote as being quoted
sarcasticly, showing someone making ironic, absurd, grandiose claims
(Fischer an all-around genius? Kasparov a chess idiot savant?), with
the intent that readers recognize and accept the exact opposite claim
(that Kasparov is not an idiot savant, likely is into genius
territory, and has managed to have a successful life outside chess).
Maybe I'm overreading the original posts.

--
gwern

[pepe fever]

Exigentsky,

In defense of Fisher going loony. You have to keep in mind that human behavior is

so relative. Arguably, a lot of what we call 'non-loony' behavior is predicated on 

oversimplifying so many complexities in life. Exhibit A- belief in God (75% of the world).

Very many men who have developed profoundly insightful intellects that respect

nothing but truth and reason would seem totally loony to the average earthling.

My point is simple, going loony in certain contexts can be a testament to a

superior intellect.

[exigentsky]

I've read a lot of quotes from Capablanca but never that one (Google
search reveals nothing either.). Although, Capablanca is considered to
be the greatest natural player. Supposedly he didn't study chess but
strong moves just came to him quickly and effortlessly. In this
context, such a quote is understandable. If I could solve integrals
mentally and with no effort or serious prior training, I'd claim that
advanced calculus requires no intelligence too. My ability would seem
like a freakish quirk unrelated to other skills.

In truth, chess strength isn't the consequence of some highly
specialized mental variation. Even chess prodigies take about a decade
of intense study to get to the GM level. Of course, once they've put
in this much study, their intuition as well as memory for chess are
incredible and they can play reasonably well with only a few seconds.
This is impressive and seems like magic. However, it's a result of
study/practice, not raw specialized natural ability. This isn't to say
natural ability isn't a significant factor. It's simply that such
trainability is a generalized component of intelligence. Similarly, if
I spend a decade trying to teach a chimp calculus, I doubt I'd make
much progress. The chimp is not trainable enough to benefit from this
training. The same trainabiltiy that gives rise to a great chess
player could have been used to create expertise in other areas. In
fact, the skills required for chess, especially pattern recognition,
are important in any field. That's why I'm skeptical about
Capablanca's natural ability as well as the associated arguments. I'm
sure Capablanca needed to apply himself to chess to reach the height
of his ability. No one is born running.

BTW: I don't think the IQ Kasparov received on some TV show is
accurate either. Ideally, he should take numerous different culture-
fair IQ tests. However, IQ tests for Kasparov are irrelevant. An IQ
test is meant to predict your success and help you determine your
strengths and weaknesses so that they may receive appropriate
attention. An IQ test for Kasparov may have been useful before his
success and skills were clear. Now, it adds nothing since it can't
possibly be as accurate as what has been demonstrated in real world
situations. It seems a bit silly except perhaps to evaluate how well
IQ correlates with intelligence and its predictive value.

[exigentsky]

I don't know if chess players forgive him. I think they just respect
his chess without respecting him outside of it. Others pity him. There
have been documentaries that highlighted Fischer's turbulent family
life, later pressure (weight of a nation as a Cold War hero) and
unbalanced focus on chess. The message was that his insanity was a
function of circumstances but I think circumstances just aggravated
existing predispositions. Moreover, while he wasn't physically
violent, his hateful vitriolic did hurt a lot of people. Insanity is
his only excuse.

As for geniuses seeming loony sometimes, I agree. However, I think
Fischer didn't just seem loony; he really became very disturbed.

BTW: Pepe, your example isn't too radical these days. Atheism and
agnosticism are the most common positions among the highly educated.

On Sep 6, 1:25 pm, blank <peisistrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I only quoted Fischer because I thought it was humorous; there's
> no denying Fischer was an entertaining guy. True, he was mad, but I
> think most chess players forgive him, right or wrong. In the end it
> was only nonsensical ranting and raving, he never harmed anyone, nor
> do I think he ever wanted to. At least when he was young the
> outrageous/politically incorrect things he spewed were almost in jest:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdA7I9nPhSU&feature=related
>
> ... "I don't keep any close friends. I don't keep any secrets. I don't
> need friends. I just tell everybody everything, that's all."
>
> The remark about Kasparov is also ironic, since this is how Fischer
> describes his own life:
>
> "Lots of the time I'm traveling around. Europe, South America,
> Iceland. But when I'm home, I don't know, I don't do much. I get up at
> eleven o'clock maybe. I'll get dressed and all, look at some chess
> books, go downstairs and eat. I never cook my own meals. I don't
> believe in that stuff. I don't eat in luncheonettes or Automats
> either. I like a waiter to wait on me. Good restaurants. After I eat I
> usually call up some of my chess friends, go over and analyze a game
> or something. Maybe I'll go to a chess club. Then maybe I'll see a
> movie or something. There's really nothing for me to do. Maybe I'll
> study some chess book."