Question on Memorization

[Peter McKillop]

I have a question on memorizing entire games. Over the years, here and there, I've seen mention of this practice. For example, I once read that Lev Psakhis studied and memorized Fischer's entire oeuvre while on his way to the GM title. I recall a Canadian master saying, here at Chesstalk, that he often memorized games that interested him so that he could then study the notes and analyze in his head and not have to fiddle with a board. The book GM Ram recommends memorization of 59 games in full. So my question, for people who do this kind of thing: are there any memorization techniques you would recommend or is the memorization of full games just done by rote - a brute force exercise?

[Fred Harvey]

I suspect that if you have to ask this question you are doomed to the brute force exercise! Some people are just wired to remember games without trying.

[Aris Marghetis]

I have a question on memorizing entire games. Over the years, here and there, I've seen mention of this practice. For example, I once read that Lev Psakhis studied and memorized Fischer's entire oeuvre while on his way to the GM title. I recall a Canadian master saying, here at Chesstalk, that he often memorized games that interested him so that he could then study the notes and analyze in his head and not have to fiddle with a board. The book GM Ram recommends memorization of 59 games in full. So my question, for people who do this kind of thing: are there any memorization techniques you would recommend or is the memorization of full games just done by rote - a brute force exercise?

Hello Peter, thanks for the interesting post. I don't know the answer, but the GM Ram concept also caught my eye. Is that a book that you (or others) would recommend? I hadn't heard of it. Thanks.

[Peter McKillop]

Hello Peter, thanks for the interesting post. I don't know the answer, but the GM Ram concept also caught my eye. Is that a book that you (or others) would recommend? I hadn't heard of it. Thanks.

Hi Aris. I only recently obtained a used copy of GM Ram. I haven't delved into it in any depth yet. IM Rashid Ziyatdinov, the author, presents 136 endgame positions, 120 middlegame positions, and the 59 games I mentioned. All of the games are pre-1940 and 45 of them are pre-1900. With the exception of 5 of the endgame positions, none of these positions and games are analyzed. The author expects you to learn/know all of the positions inside out. However, you're allowed to use whatever resources you have - books, engines, etc. - to help. All of the middlegame positions come from the 59 games.

That's what I know about this book so far. Not in a position to make a recommendation yet but it looks interesting. Also sent you a pm.

[Amit R]

Hello Peter, thanks for the interesting post. I don't know the answer, but the GM Ram concept also caught my eye. Is that a book that you (or others) would recommend? I hadn't heard of it. Thanks.

The author has since become a GM, so he might be onto something there.

[Sid Belzberg]

I have a question on memorizing entire games. Over the years, here and there, I've seen mention of this practice. For example, I once read that Lev Psakhis studied and memorized Fischer's entire oeuvre while on his way to the GM title. I recall a Canadian master saying, here at Chesstalk, that he often memorized games that interested him so that he could then study the notes and analyze in his head and not have to fiddle with a board. The book GM Ram recommends memorization of 59 games in full. So my question, for people who do this kind of thing: are there any memorization techniques you would recommend or is the memorization of full games just done by rote - a brute force exercise?

HI Peter,
This is an excellent book and an interesting true story on how anyone can learn to memorize anything.

https://www.amazon.com/Moonwalking-E...s%2C201&sr=8-1




Not sure if it will help your chess but after reading it I was able to memorize entire Shakespearean Sonnets in a matter of minutes. The author met "memory Olympics" athletes who can memorize 400 digit numbers in a matter of less than two minutes and they shared their techniques with him. He was able to perform the same feats within months.

[Aris Marghetis]

Hi Aris. I only recently obtained a used copy of GM Ram. I haven't delved into it in any depth yet. IM Rashid Ziyatdinov, the author, presents 136 endgame positions, 120 middlegame positions, and the 59 games I mentioned. All of the games are pre-1940 and 45 of them are pre-1900. With the exception of 5 of the endgame positions, none of these positions and games are analyzed. The author expects you to learn/know all of the positions inside out. However, you're allowed to use whatever resources you have - books, engines, etc. - to help. All of the middlegame positions come from the 59 games.

That's what I know about this book so far. Not in a position to make a recommendation yet but it looks interesting. Also sent you a pm.

Thanks Peter. By the way, I didn't receive that PM, maybe email me at arismarghetis at rogers dot com
Offhand, I feel it would have been more appealing if those positions included some level of explanation.
Thanks though, much appreciated, I do like the fundamental pattern recognition concept of the book.

[Aris Marghetis]

HI Peter,
This is an excellent book and an interesting true story on how anyone can learn to memorize anything.

https://www.amazon.com/Moonwalking-E...s%2C201&sr=8-1




Not sure if it will help your chess but after reading it I was able to memorize entire Shakespearean Sonnets in a matter of minutes. The author met "memory Olympics" athletes who can memorize 400 digit numbers in a matter of less than two minutes and they shared their techniques with him. He was able to perform the same feats within months.

yes, thanks, I have heard many people recommend this book highly
(it is in one of my pile of unread books, somewhere downstairs, lol)

[Peter McKillop]

I suspect that if you have to ask this question you are doomed to the brute force exercise! Some people are just wired to remember games without trying.

Thanks, Fred. I fear you're right. :)

[Peter McKillop]

HI Peter,
This is an excellent book and an interesting true story on how anyone can learn to memorize anything.

https://www.amazon.com/Moonwalking-E...s%2C201&sr=8-1




Not sure if it will help your chess but after reading it I was able to memorize entire Shakespearean Sonnets in a matter of minutes. The author met "memory Olympics" athletes who can memorize 400 digit numbers in a matter of less than two minutes and they shared their techniques with him. He was able to perform the same feats within months.

Thank you, Sid. This could be what I've been looking for. I'm going to borrow/buy a copy this weekend.

[Peter McKillop]

Thanks Peter. By the way, I didn't receive that PM, maybe email me at arismarghetis at rogers dot com
Offhand, I feel it would have been more appealing if those positions included some level of explanation.
Thanks though, much appreciated, I do like the fundamental pattern recognition concept of the book.

Hi Aris. I emailed you.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Just remembering crude games will not give you anything useful unless you'll make it at the alphazero level.

Analyzing, making connections will be more useful (and meanwhile you might remember some episodes or whole games afterwords).

Going with simple examples - how to checkmate with the queen -- would you try to remember moves leading to a checkmate or a mating collaboration of the queen and king. Opening line are the another field -- yes GM recall all long variations; kids learn them too. What works for GM, not great for kids - any move away from the remember table puts them on their own. etc.

As I heard stories - Y.Balashov had amazing memory for chess games and their details. I don't know if it true - Bent Larsen did not recall his just played game.


Somehow this reminds me of the woodpecker method - solve same puzzles over and over again. Is it really good? I'm on the fence with this :)

[Pargat Perrer]

HI Peter,
This is an excellent book and an interesting true story on how anyone can learn to memorize anything.

https://www.amazon.com/Moonwalking-E...s%2C201&sr=8-1




Not sure if it will help your chess but after reading it I was able to memorize entire Shakespearean Sonnets in a matter of minutes. The author met "memory Olympics" athletes who can memorize 400 digit numbers in a matter of less than two minutes and they shared their techniques with him. He was able to perform the same feats within months.

I am working on raising the skill level in heads-up poker and other card games by tying them to memorization skills. For example, the game of heads-up Texas Hold 'Em doesn't lend itself well to TV coverage because the involvement of skill is rudimentary. If one player bluffs, it is more a matter of daring than of skill. If the bluff works, the player was perhaps more skilled at holding a poker face than at any other particular thing.

I could go on and on about that, but the main thing is that in heads-up Texas Hold 'Em, a new deck is used for each hand. But only 2 players are being dealt cards. Only a small part of the overall card deck is used. Two cards are dealt to each player, and 5 cards are dealt as community cards. That's 9, plus I think 4 "burn" cards that are passed by to prevent dealer cheating (?). That makes 13 cards total used for 1 hand.

If you used the entire deck for consecutive hands, 4 such hands could be played. But my idea is to not use the entire deck, but just enough for 3 hands, the reasoning being that the first hand does not involve memorization at all, whereas each subsequent hand does involve memorizing of what cards out of the overall deck have been seen by each player so far. So that first memorization-free hand should be alternated between the two players. Thus using a full 52-card deck for 3 hands would be ideal. The third hand from each deck would favor the player with the greater memorization skills, but not to a tremendous extent. Thus the overall effect would be to make skill more involved in results.

With regards to chess, I think the memorization of entire games, even thousands of them, would not have much influence in skill level. It would be nice to demonstrate in a pub setting, but almost worthless in a tournament setting. However, memorization of opening lines, specifically the best lines held by current theory, would have much more value for skill level.

[Aris Marghetis]

I am working on raising the skill level in heads-up poker and other card games by tying them to memorization skills. For example, the game of heads-up Texas Hold 'Em doesn't lend itself well to TV coverage because the involvement of skill is rudimentary. If one player bluffs, it is more a matter of daring than of skill. If the bluff works, the player was perhaps more skilled at holding a poker face than at any other particular thing.

I could go on and on about that, but the main thing is that in heads-up Texas Hold 'Em, a new deck is used for each hand. But only 2 players are being dealt cards. Only a small part of the overall card deck is used. Two cards are dealt to each player, and 5 cards are dealt as community cards. That's 9, plus I think 4 "burn" cards that are passed by to prevent dealer cheating (?). That makes 13 cards total used for 1 hand.

If you used the entire deck for consecutive hands, 4 such hands could be played. But my idea is to not use the entire deck, but just enough for 3 hands, the reasoning being that the first hand does not involve memorization at all, whereas each subsequent hand does involve memorizing of what cards out of the overall deck have been seen by each player so far. So that first memorization-free hand should be alternated between the two players. Thus using a full 52-card deck for 3 hands would be ideal. The third hand from each deck would favor the player with the greater memorization skills, but not to a tremendous extent. Thus the overall effect would be to make skill more involved in results.

With regards to chess, I think the memorization of entire games, even thousands of them, would not have much influence in skill level. It would be nice to demonstrate in a pub setting, but almost worthless in a tournament setting. However, memorization of opening lines, specifically the best lines held by current theory, would have much more value for skill level.

I think that the idea of not re-shuffling between hands would change poker significantly, and poker continues to be in a great sweet spot. By the way, I don't agree that bluffing depends mostly on holding a poker face. As of a certain level of poker skill, players think in terms of "ranges" of playable hands, and the success rate of bluffing depends somewhat on the plausibility of bluffs given player-expected ranges for that hand, for those participants, in their positions that hand, given earlier position plays, etc. And there's exploitative bluff play where one deliberately bluffs more or less.

[Pargat Perrer]

I think that the idea of not re-shuffling between hands would change poker significantly, and poker continues to be in a great sweet spot. By the way, I don't agree that bluffing depends mostly on holding a poker face. As of a certain level of poker skill, players think in terms of "ranges" of playable hands, and the success rate of bluffing depends somewhat on the plausibility of bluffs given player-expected ranges for that hand, for those participants, in their positions that hand, given earlier position plays, etc. And there's exploitative bluff play where one deliberately bluffs more or less.

Hi Aris, the idea of not re-shuffling between hand for 3 consecutive hands is designed to apply to heads-up poker only. Not multiplayer poker. And the result of that is that a tournament could be held consisting of heads-up elimination matches. Now, that was done in the past, you may recall the NBC National Heads Up Texas Hold 'Em tournaments that were held for about 5 years in a row and were all televised on NBC. I watched all of those, and I found that there was almost no difference in "strategy" being discussed in different matches of players. So my argument, and my reason for thinking of this no re-shuffling idea, is that when it's heads-up play, most of the really good strategy of poker disappears.

Now think if you were watching TV coverage of a heads-up match between say Negreanu and Hellmuth (I think those two just had some heads-up virtual match recently). If for 3 consecutive hands the deck was not being reshuffled, the first hand (of each 3 hands) would be just like normal, because the deck is freshly shuffled. With the 2nd and 3rd hands, the TV announcers could go into great detail about the cards that have been seen by each player so far, and how that changes the calculations of each player. Each player would, especially by the 3rd hand, have to do much more thinking about probabilities that would otherwise be the case. This would make the play much more interesting for the TV viewer.

Even the first hand of each 3 might be affected, because there might be an increased willingness by the players to go all the way to showdown so that they get to see each other's hand and factor those cards into the calculations of the next 2 hands.

I am not sure, are the things you say about bluffing mostly applicable to multiplayer events? My comment on bluffing was only applicable to heads-up play. Perhaps it was an oversimplification to some minor degree, but from the standpoint of a TV viewer, this would not be very apparent at all and not interesting enough to hold their interest to a large degree. The NBC after about 5 tries decided not to continue the heads-up event, and I think viewer interest was not very high. So just as we try and make a chess game more interesting strategically for the viewer, I want to do the same for heads-up poker, specifically Texas Hold 'Em.

The key to that is the memorization aspect, making it a bit relevant to this thread.