Construction of Knowledge Spaces for Problem Solving in Chess

  • Dietrich Albert
  • Martin Schrepp
  • Theo Held
Part of the Recent Research in Psychology book series (PSYCHOLOGY)


An extension of the theory of knowledge spaces introduced by Doignon and Falmagne (1985) is presented. This extension allows surmise relations and quasi-ordinal knowledge spaces to be constructed with the help of the formal principles ‘set inclusion’2 and ‘sequence inclusion’ from basic units of knowledge. The basic units for constructing the surmise relation in chess are the tactical elements of the game — the ‘motives’. In terms of problem solving, these motives can be regarded as subgoals in the process of problem solving. Two experimental investigations of chess knowledge test the empirical validity of the two principles and show that the theory of knowledge spaces is suitable for testing psychological models.


Response Pattern Knowledge State Solution Plan Mathematical Psychology Knowledge Space 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Airasian, P. W., & Bart, W. M. (1973). Ordering theory: A new and useful measurement model. Educational Technology, May, 56–60.Google Scholar
  2. Albert, D., & Held, T. (in press). Establishing knowledge spaces by systematical problem construction. To appear in: D. Albert (Ed.), Knowledge structures. Heidelberg, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Bart, W. M., & Krus, D. J. (1973). An ordering-theoretic method to determine hierarchies among items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Doignon, J.-P., & Falmagne, J.-Cl. (1985). Spaces for the assessment of knowledge. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 23, 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dowling, C. E. (1991). Constructing knowledge structures from the judgement of experts. Habilitationsschrift. Braunschweig: Technical University of Braunschweig.Google Scholar
  6. Dowling, C. E. (in press). Applying the basis of a knowledge space for controlling the questioning of an expert. Journal of Mathematical Psychology.Google Scholar
  7. Falmagne, J.-Cl., & Doignon, J.-P. (1988). A Markovian procedure for assessing the state of a system. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 32 (3), 232–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Groot, A. D. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague: Mouton & Co.Google Scholar
  9. Koppen, M., & Doignon, J.-P. (1990). How to build a knowledge space by querying an expert. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 34, 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Van Leeuwe, J. F. J. (1974). Item tree analysis. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 29, 475–484.Google Scholar
  11. Villano, M. (1991). Computerized knowledge assessment: Building the knowledge structure and calibrating the assessment routine. Doctoral dissertation. New York: New York University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dietrich Albert
    • 1
  • Martin Schrepp
    • 1
  • Theo Held
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations