Science of Chess - Spatial Cognition and Calculation

@defense57 said in #9:
> DeGroot only allowed his subjects to examine the board for 1 second or less. Thus, the findings only have relevance to bullet chess.

In many visual recognition tasks we present stimuli for durations that are even shorter (in my lab we frequently use 500ms or 250ms durations, for example) but those experiments can still reveal mechanisms that contribute to how recognition is carried out under less restricted conditions. My feeling is that DeGroot's studies have a broader scope for similar reasons - sure, studying a position for more time makes it possible for other processes to contribute, but using brief stimulus presentations or other constraints on task parameters helps us isolate and characterize specific properties of perception and cognition that matter for more ecologically valid settings.

@NDpatzer said in #1:
> Comments on lichess.org/@/ndpatzer/blog/science-of-chess-spatial-cognition-and-calculation/04J8gbBA
I think you need to contact @luukdegrote as he just published a blog about a research which he is starting up for a thesis: lichess.org/@/LuukDeGrote/blog/switching-between-tasks/xa5qupd6

I am no specialist but it looks very connected to the description you gave about the Gerstmann's Syndrome. He is going to test adult chessplayers abilities to make some very simple quick calculations based on left/ right/ top/ bottom.

I warmly recommend everybody to participate. It is a fun test. The author is a friend of me as we play in the same Dutch team.

@NDpatzer said in #11:
> In many visual recognition tasks we present stimuli for durations that are even shorter (in my lab we frequently use 500ms or 250ms durations, for example) but those experiments can still reveal mechanisms that contribute to how recognition is carried out under less restricted conditions. My feeling is that DeGroot's studies have a broader scope for similar reasons - sure, studying a position for more time makes it possible for other processes to contribute, but using brief stimulus presentations or other constraints on task parameters helps us isolate and characterize specific properties of perception and cognition that matter for more ecologically valid settings.

I assume about 250 ms or a little more is the reaction time alone. The Human Benchmark site states the average (median) reaction time is 273 milliseconds, according to data collected. I mention reaction time because making a move would take about that time or even 300 to 1000 ms allowing for recognition of move, signal to brain, fastest cognitive response and signals back to hand and finger for the double-click and screen traverse required for bullet moves (perhaps excluding premoves).

For anything trickier (move decision time use) there must be some brain processing time. Of what order is this time in elite bullet players, I wonder? In your terminology (I hope) there is transmission time (up the optic nerve through the brain and back down through the arms PLUS perception, recognition, processing and executive decision times additively.

@mvhk said in #12:
> I warmly recommend everybody to participate. It is a fun test. The author is a friend of me as we play in the same Dutch team.
The test link doesn't work

@Ifmpty said in #13:
> I assume about 250 ms or a little more is the reaction time alone. The Human Benchmark site states the average (median) reaction time is 273 milliseconds, according to data collected. I mention reaction time because making a move would take about that time or even 300 to 1000 ms allowing for recognition of move, signal to brain, fastest cognitive response and signals back to hand and finger for the double-click and screen traverse required for bullet moves (perhaps excluding premoves).
>
> For anything trickier (move decision time use) there must be some brain processing time. Of what order is this time in elite bullet players, I wonder? In your terminology (I hope) there is transmission time (up the optic nerve through the brain and back down through the arms PLUS perception, recognition, processing and executive decision times additively.

Just a quick clarification: In the studies my lab runs, that 250ms I'm referring to is the presentation time for an image and doesn't include any response time, etc. from the participant. For example, I might show a participant a picture for 250ms, quickly replace that picture with a noise image to "mask" it, then ask them to provide a response to that image. We measure the time it takes a participant to actually push a button separately.

@mvhk said in #12:
> I think you need to contact @luukdegrote as he just published a blog about a research which he is starting up for a thesis: lichess.org/@/LuukDeGrote/blog/switching-between-tasks/xa5qupd6
>
> I am no specialist but it looks very connected to the description you gave about the Gerstmann's Syndrome. He is going to test adult chessplayers abilities to make some very simple quick calculations based on left/ right/ top/ bottom.
>
> I warmly recommend everybody to participate. It is a fun test. The author is a friend of me as we play in the same Dutch team.

I will definitely go check this out - thank you for sharing!

@wannabe2700 said in #14:
> The test link doesn't work
The site was down for a few hours but is now back online.

Thanks for the excellently thought provoking blog!
I listen to, and sing along to music while playing chess no problems, but I cannot type a simple sentence during a game, or type if music is playing....which is odd as chess is much more of a complex task!
I'm an adult learner who treats Chess as a visual game & have never looked at the notations as they completely throw me off my already awful game

As a cuber when I first saw the thumbnail the black stickers on the cube concerned me. Do they really use black now to replace yellow now that it seems more convenient???

As a general comment, I find that my mind is "short-handing" things to keep the number of things I have to think about down to a manageable level. Following this, there is a failure to update what I "know" following the opponent's move. That is to say, the opponent's move introduces a new element (perhaps overloading a defending piece) but my mind does not update the situation for that segment of the board. My mind has already filed that segment as "adequately defended" and does not register the augmented threat.

I've noticed opponents not updating for a threat in another way too. A rook file (a or h file) may become open unusually early in a game. This happens in some openings, of course. Then they make a bad blunder (lose their queen for example) where it is clear they were assuming by habit that the file is still closed (because it usually is early in the opening). It's a glaring error because they unavoidably participated in opening the file.

I guess a lot of this comes under what they call "tunnel vision". Low rated players can't walk and chew gum at the same time. We are usually so focused on our plan we forget to consider the opponent's last move and how it updated the board and threats.

I can only think that low rated players need to practice slow and play slow before they go for faster games. Targeting motifs does help. I was missing backwards captures so I developed a protocol to consciously check for backwards captures. Now I notice my eyes flicking around checking for backwards captures just before I make any bold move. I used to miss pawn forks a lot so I developed a protocol to consciously look for pawn forks and pawn fork patterns; for me and against me. Again, it led to improvement. I was failing to trap enemy heavy pieces so I did lots of trapping pieces puzzles. This targeting of motifs and tactics in training does help. It's just that there are about 25 tactics and (guessing) over a dozen motifs, over a dozen common mating patterns and so on. There is so much to learn, then it all has to be synthesized together.

But even doing the above just makes me a plodding journeyman beginner slowly reducing blunders. There is no flair, no vision of the board, no deep calculative ability for combinations. That is all a brick wall for the average person and most adult improvers. The prodigies start seeing deep into the game at about ages 8 to 10. Some can even play simuls against a dozen or more adult masters and win at that age. It would be interesting to know how their brains work and visualize so well. Prodigies are born and then made. The genetics are the first key. Then an upbringing of early introduction to the game with full assistance, teaching and encouragement is usually necessary. Youthful neural plasticity clearly plays a role.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Reshevsky#/media/File:Samuel_Reshevsky_versus_the_World.JPG