Learning a language like a game of chess

[ryanheise]

This morning, I had a thought that I would like to share about some useful parallels between chess and language learning.

A chess game consists of an opening game, which involves memorised openings that keep recurring, the middle game, which is unpredictable and requires creativity to execute but is built from recurring strategies, and the endgame, which is more straightforward again, although not as predictable as the opening game, and highly dependent on the middle game.

A conversation has an opening part, which involves memorised greetings, a middle part, which is unpredictable and requires creativity to execute but is built from recurring language units, and an end part, which is more straightforward again but dependent on what was just discussed in the middle part.

15 years ago, mentalist Derren Brown simultaneously played against 9 chess players, almost all grandmasters, and won 4 games, lost 3 and drew 2. He did it using a trick where he simply used their moves on each other through short term memory. Effectively he was playing the masters against each other and using himself as a conduit.

Polyglot Stuart Jay Raj uses a language learning technique where he learns and discovers natural sounding expressions and responses by involving two native speakers A and B separately, and copying expressions he heard from A and trying them out on B to elicit the natural response, and learning and copying that response and trying it out on A to elicit and learn the natural response.

When I used to play chess online as a complete beginner, I was able to be easily matched up with opponent after opponent, usually failing in the opening game. But I noticed their recurring opening moves, wrote them down, and tried them out soon after on the next opponent, and in this fashion, I expanded my knowledge of the opening game.

You could actually do the same with language learning using something like Chat Roulette or its equivalent in the language you're learning, where you are randomly matched with new people to have a chat with, and there is a fast learn->practice cycle between new chats. If you are a complete beginner, you could take note of their opening line, write it down, and then use it on the next person. Listen to their response, write it down, and use it on the next person. And in this fashion, expand your repertoire of responses.

In chess, certain opening moves can be chosen to lead you to the kind of middle game that you prefer to play. In something like Chat Roulette, you can also steer a conversation to a subject that you would like to practice more.

[mentecuerpo]

This morning, I had a thought that I would like to share about some useful parallels between chess and language learning.

A chess game consists of an opening game, which involves memorised openings that keep recurring, the middle game, which is unpredictable and requires creativity to execute but is built from recurring strategies, and the endgame, which is more straightforward again, although not as predictable as the opening game, and highly dependent on the middle game.

A conversation has an opening part, which involves memorised greetings, a middle part, which is unpredictable and requires creativity to execute but is built from recurring language units, and an end part, which is more straightforward again but dependent on what was just discussed in the middle part.

15 years ago, mentalist Derren Brown simultaneously played against 9 chess players, almost all grandmasters, and won 4 games, lost 3 and drew 2. He did it using a trick where he simply used their moves on each other through short term memory. Effectively he was playing the masters against each other and using himself as a conduit.

Polyglot Stuart Jay Raj uses a language learning technique where he learns and discovers natural sounding expressions and responses by involving two native speakers A and B separately, and copying expressions he heard from A and trying them out on B to elicit the natural response, and learning and copying that response and trying it out on A to elicit and learn the natural response.

When I used to play Chess online as a complete beginner, I was able to be easily matched up with opponent after opponent, usually failing in the opening game. But I noticed their recurring opening moves, wrote them down, and tried them out soon after on the next opponent, and in this fashion, I expanded my knowledge of the opening game.

You could actually do the same with language learning using something like Chat Roulette or its equivalent in the language you're learning, where you are randomly matched with new people to have a chat with, and there is a fast learn->practice cycle between new chats. If you are a complete beginner, you could take note of their opening line, write it down, and then use it on the next person. Listen to their response, write it down, and use it on the next person. And in this fashion, expand your repertoire of responses.

In Chess, certain opening moves can be chosen to lead you to the kind of middle game that you prefer to play. In something like Chat Roulette, you can also steer a conversation to a subject that you would like to practice more.

Bolded and Underline text above done by me.

I learned, el Mate Del Pastor which helped me at my initial stages of playing the game.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_del_pastor

As a teenager, I did not imagine how much I enjoy the Italian langauge and culture. I learned by pure coincidence something Italian that was related to Chess:

La Defensa Siciliana:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensa_siciliana

I agree with you, having some scripts memorized will help you in the real language game.
Also, the more you play the better you get and learn. The same with interacting with natives.

Side Note, off topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence

The Sicilian is the most popular and best-scoring response to White's first move 1.e4. 1.d4 is a statistically more successful opening for White due to the high success rate of the Sicilian defense against 1.e4.[1] New In Chess stated in its 2000 Yearbook that of the games in its database, White scored 56.1% in 296,200 games beginning 1.d4, but 54.1% in 349,855 games beginning 1.e4, mainly due to the Sicilian, which held White to a 52.3% score in 145,996 games.[2]

17% of all games between grandmasters, and 25% of the games in the Chess Informant database, begin with the Sicilian.[3] Almost one quarter of all games use the Sicilian Defence.[4]

Grandmaster John Nunn attributes the Sicilian Defence's popularity to its combative nature; in many lines Black is playing not just for equality, but for the advantage. The drawback is that White often obtains an early initiative, so Black has to take care not to fall victim to a quick attack."[5] Grandmaster Jonathan Rowson considered why the Sicilian is the most successful response to 1.e4, even though 1...c5 develops no pieces, and the pawn on c5 controls only d4 and b4. Rowson writes.

Edited for clarity.

[rdearman]

Moses McCormick said he used to do a similar thing on Chatrooms, where he would be having two private conversations with two natives where he would paste the respnse of one, into the other, but he used it to learn more and have a record of a real conversation between two natives.

[coldrainwater]

I am definitely little more than a patzer, but I make a good fan of the sport and love drawing comparisons where I shouldn't. Keep in mind that chess is often quite a bit more competitive than language learning (what so often fails in language learning with aggressive competitive challenges, succeeds in dramatic fashion with chess and it would be useful to consider the why's). A few generalizations off the top of my head:

• Playing game after game in chess without analysis is considered poor form when pitted against a careful analysis of the games you play with the aim to improve and learn from your mistakes. That is likely analogous to having tons of live conversation and speaking practice without the feedback and careful introspection needed to become aware of and correct your errors.
• A good chess mentor can mean a great deal. So can a good language tutor.
• Tactics tend to trump nearly everything else until you reach an elevated level, somewhere above the master level but before IM level, and what is more, they never lose importance. That may be loosely analogous to listening is everything.
• You will definitely stagnate if you are not willing to play against opponents slightly stronger than you. Analogy there is likely n+1 comprehension.
• Most serious chess players will end up explicitly or implicitly building a repertoire (opening, but definitely extends to middlegame too). I would equate that roughly to building initial vocabulary, understanding some basic structures and a base level of pronunciation.
• A typical and serious error for beginning chess players is to focus too much attention on the opening. If I relate the opening prep of chess to the beginner phase of language learning, the analogy would be that many language learners spend far too much time and effort on beginner materials without branching out to intermediate native content.
• ELO ratings could probably be cast against CEFR ratings, taking a few liberties of course.
• By far the hardest thing to do in chess is winning a won game. I would quote Luca here and say learning the language isn't the hardest part (learn one then another etc), but rather maintaining all of them.
• Endgame study (massively helpful in chess) is likely well compared to grammar study in language. Endgame study allows you to simplify the game sufficiently to calculate all the way to the end and it involves logical rules. What you learn there applies to all other stages of the game. Those of us that play chess often neglect endgame study and that is eerily similar to how we avoid grammar sometimes. It even elicits similar pedantic appeal (with the same tendency to result in boredom too).
• There is very much a human element to chess where many club players play for pure enjoyment rather than to improve their skills. When I meet in person, this is what I do. This is a big life enhancement. If I am lucky enough, I may end up one day like the many friends I made in my teenage years who were then in their 70's and 80's. Those times still rank within my top 10 life experiences. Clearly that is analogous to our pervading idea of having fun and finding what we do pleasant in language learning (and more directly to all the friends I have made here on the forum).
• Technology has transformed chess in much the same way it has enhanced language learning. Technology has a much tighter grip on chess than it does language learning however, but I don't think that makes it terribly more beneficial (but definitely necessary in chess).
• Someone said psychology is 40% of chess, maybe Kasparov. It is pretty important in language learning too and you need to be willing to look for an opportunity to take advantage of it.
• In chess it is important to be able to play on both sides of the board. That is analogous to how one language aspect can inform another and you can boost one to help the other.
• There are personalities in chess that should probably have analogues in the polyglot community. As an open question, who would you compare Karpov to? (he can beat you without you even knowing you have a bad position). Tal the magician would be good for tactics. Kasparov would be good as someone who could completely eliminate their weaknesses and literally come back the next year as a different player. I bet there are polyglots that can do the same. Korchnoi should be paired with the lady who learned Russian starting at an older age since he played at the grandmaster level well into his 70's and had far more longevity than most anyone else. Morphy would have a 19th-century analogue also.

Separate from these, a few comparisons currently escape my grasp. If you have some good ones, let me know. I will update later if anything jumps to mind.

What would you compare the grandmaster squeeze to?
How about luft?
The notion of tempi and related notion of gambits.
The notion of time, space and materiality in chess.
What about defensive masters (Petrosian for instance) vs. tactical players.
Open games (often king-pawn) versus closed games.
Indirectly vying for the centre vs more classical approach.
Maintaining tension as a critical skill at intermediate. Whoever can maintain tension the longest, often has the edge. Players lose by feeling uncomfortable with it and breaking it, to their detriment.

Though I haven't played chess in years and never seriously from a competition standpoint, I still have much at the tip of my tongue. Would that language study worked the same for me! I suspect a foray into linguistics would likely provide an appropriate backdrop and give me something more substantial to base my language statements on. Food for thought.

[ryanheise]

Rowson writes.

Edited for clarity.

Ah, that edit resolves a curiosity I had Previously, you had used a colon after "Rowson writes", and then your post ended right there leaving me in suspense!

Moses McCormick said he used to do a similar thing on Chatrooms, where he would be having two private conversations with two natives where he would paste the respnse of one, into the other, but he used it to learn more and have a record of a real conversation between two natives.

Recording a text conversation is certainly a lot easier. That's what I'd like to be able to do with 斉藤さん (Saitousan), which is the Japanese equivalent of Chat Roulette, but on my phone at least, the microphone stops working while you're trying to record it, so I would need to have a second phone or recording device as a third observer. My memory's not that great, so the ability to be able to record the new expressions is critical.

I am definitely little more than a patzer, but I make a good fan of the sport and love drawing comparisons where I shouldn't.

I'm all for "doing what we shouldn't". If we didn't let our inhibitions down and think "uncritically" every once in a while and allow ourselves to be creative, we would very rarely have any new ideas or thoughts (for later pruning).

Keep in mind that chess is often quite a bit more competitive than language learning (what so often fails in language learning with aggressive competitive challenges, succeeds in dramatic fashion with chess

While my chess analogy was probably more about the "game" aspect rather than "competition", I think it's pretty interesting to consider that too, and your list of comparisons was really interesting. I found it really thought provoking.

On the competition front, I think it's evident that some personality types enjoy competition, some enjoy cooperation, some enjoy both (games can involve both teamwork and competition).

Tomasz Szynalski (of antimoon) wrote in his account of learning that he was highly motivated get better at English because of his competitive spirit:

I would love to tell you that I started to learn English seriously because I wanted to improve myself, communicate with the world, or even get good grades and a well-paying job. In the beginning, my motivation was far more evil: it was my competitive spirit.

You can read his full story here.

He basically ended up driven to compete with his classmates and they were in a race to become the best English speaker and be better than each other. Whatever works! One of his "competitors" turned into his teammate along the way, as they shared and tried out new techniques and tools together (e.g. learning from cartoons, using Supermemo), and eventually created the antimoon website together.

It reminds me of high school where one of the best things that ever happened to my education was having a maths teacher who didn't really teach. He gave us our text books and told us to work through the exercises in class, and to try to get up to a certain exercise or milestone by the next class. What ended up happening is that without supervision, we ended up turning to each other, and where one student actually exceeded the milestone, other members of our group wanted to catch up to them and it effectively turned into a race to see which of us could get to the end of the book first. And because of this accidental friendly competition, I developed a really strong passion for mathematics. This is similar to what Tomasz wrote about in his story, where it may have initially been motivated by competition, but eventually replaced by the joy of experiencing improvement.