long article. I am at the folowing. and having a question about
> more of the visual contents of the images participants saw in the two conditions are matched.
This is about the 3 tasks. one being a move selection decision event upon a board challenge (a position) =G, the other 2 about something "random" or control intent. an empty board =B. and a random placement board = R
you are saying that G and R are matching images, in what sense (same material different placements, or what)?
I am pausing here. but I will come back. thanks for pursuing such series. I was actually, reading in non-chess broad cognitive neuro-sciences about abstracts through what I can find suing google and semantic scholars, to get some ideas of the field evolution. But you are bringing more chess specific fuel here. I will be able to tie more crumbs, through this more in depth look at such articles. I appreciate your seminar-like walkthrough presentations. (well, at least at my level of awareness of that field).
About the whole field. not just this article:
Can expert still be exposed to positions where we could see hesitation and some novelty problem solving? General question about pushing the type of questions toward learning cognitiion from that of expert already learned patterns. sub-optimal pattern maps of the full chess wilderness. There might still be things to learn at top expert levels.. They might have been found by mistakes through the more expert snapshot cognition experiemental designs. Idk how that would be detectable. This is not specifc to this blog article. But given the advances I see, I wonder when the learning aspect (which might give some dynamic clues also about the nature of patterns, not just on board definitions) would be part of the science targets. Or it that premature questionning. What kind of obstacles toward extending the research to pattern discovery, formatoin and generalization (and misgeneralization).
I always get excited when I see a new blog post in the series
Reading about something that I kinda sorta understand is always fun
Good blog
great, great topic, can't wait to delve into it.
@dboing said in #2:
>
> you are saying that G and R are matching images, in what sense (same material different placements, or what)?
Yes, the idea is that G and R images will be matched for what pieces are present (probably balanced across the whole stimulus set) but in the R condition the placement of the pieces is scrambled so that you won't end up with a typical position. A caveat is that this matches some aspects of visual structure (things like the color histogram and some shape features) but does still leave room for some purely visual differences.
@SupremeCrowOfJudgeme said in #4:
> I always get excited when I see a new blog post in the series
>
> Reading about something that I kinda sorta understand is always fun
>
> Good blog
Thank you for reading!
Do you see the "gestalt principle" like this anyone? I reload and stil there. If it was meant to be a link. it seems to be in between lines, and not user mouse event activable.
Edit: this is not a mistake. I saw another one about "global coherence". Curious about the markup technique, I thought Lichess had restricted Unicode to stick to the usual stream liner wall (like old electronic cannon TVs, bulb ones). How do you do it?
what are those units? oxygenation or blood flow units. I also wonder about time scale.
llike the definition of "best move jugment". the time scale of the behavior, and then the time scale of the snapshot. (well, I mean what we don't see, that you could tell us some ball park about, is the blood flow dynamics very time resolute? not urgent questions. They do not block further reading, just my usual curious.
about figure 1. 20% leftmost.
Funny my thought before reading, was that there were enough regularities so that the ambient noise, did not matter. It was more constructive, internally but ends up with the same conclusion. You went linguistically the other way. Focussing on the irregularities. But the whole statement is about both, as noise is dependent on the other thing to be something.. and words fail me again...
Otherwise, this is a very well written, almost if we were in the seminar presentation, or lecture that is acknowledging the learning thought process, that the lecturer is attentive to in the audience being new to the matter being delivered, but projecting own reasoning, and yet, some distance to it, as it is still an object we could further discuss, in our minds first of course, but then many small brains together. I try to do the latter, but the very well written eludes me.... For my things, I mean not this topic. I am learning here (and combining from other things I might have come across). This is not about me. just saying that it resonates with my needs at the crossing of science and chess, this is about the art of bringing science without mystification from the expertise land, as it invites people to go along with the high level reasoning.
