So are you explaining to us what that is? I just recently came across that concept in my web searches (of semantic scholar kind, so abstracts and citations and reference article "semantic" pathways).
So, that one need a native-foreign word for a concept, is kind of promising of something hard to describe in native language words. I look forward getting through this blog, as usual, possible over a month time scale. Thanks for continuing in the theme of science of chess.
What I gathered so far was about friction between creativity and procedural knowledge inertia. (it seemed to work before; it should work with even more hard work for ever). But about what object, chess play itself, or theories of learning about chess (and then chess as a player, or as an observer of all of chess games so far, and population of chess players).
So, that one need a native-foreign word for a concept, is kind of promising of something hard to describe in native language words. I look forward getting through this blog, as usual, possible over a month time scale. Thanks for continuing in the theme of science of chess.
What I gathered so far was about friction between creativity and procedural knowledge inertia. (it seemed to work before; it should work with even more hard work for ever). But about what object, chess play itself, or theories of learning about chess (and then chess as a player, or as an observer of all of chess games so far, and population of chess players).
> their main question was this: How often do players find an optimal solution to a puzzle that has a longer, likely more obvious solution "in the way" of the optimal path? Does being more of an expert make it harder to find the best answer?
> optimal solution
> best answer
Just to be nitpicking, but also against that being tunnel vision in itself, and not adapted to the experience level subjectivity variable, or what is optimal.
W, D, L is the core notion of ordering of chess outcomes. Administrative tournament rules have added quite a few compromissions to that, and there is the 50-move rule. But that is in no way, a gradient ordering, it is a boundary on depth of solution. not that there is a degree of optimality in having a shorter one.
Now, the human error argument, let's dissect that. It might argue that a longer solution, is having more fog area under the curve along depth of solution. Well, if going full ambient space of human context, one would include their familiarity with chess world. It might be argued that a more intuitive solution for them would be better controlled for errors than a hard calculation to find a shorter one just for sake of it being shorter, but being more intricate, and probably in absence of experience to make it a known pattern, an increased working memory cognitive load, likely to be more error prone, in spite of the shorter solution eldorado.
So, as often there is some rigging even in science wheel, and I do enjoy poking holes into that, it seems. Or I have myself bumped into that being a subjective dissonance in my own experience over the board.
being able to find a forced mate in deeper solution might actually be the easier solution, than wanting to be as non-spatial and as combinatorially clever as a non-spatial chess engine, to which any move is just a priori as distinct as another, modulo a human developped leaf static evaluation. it strengths being finding nooks and crannies of perfect partial tree chess.
ok. that was impulsive. but I already had that thought, when going through the papers abstracts (maybe i did read deeper in some pdf with open access to them). How does one define a human better solution in chess.. (always the hidden assumptions, that make for furthering scientific questions).
I have a at least 2 such shorter ending mate, that for me would have been either harder work, or loss by time mamagment pressure (that added tournament administrative rulle, now almost definition of chess).
now hooked having to read more of the blog. thanks for the expression space, and the stimulation.
I think in the papers I flew by over (maybe it was not only about chess but about the concept itself), there was something else considered as "better".
> optimal solution
> best answer
Just to be nitpicking, but also against that being tunnel vision in itself, and not adapted to the experience level subjectivity variable, or what is optimal.
W, D, L is the core notion of ordering of chess outcomes. Administrative tournament rules have added quite a few compromissions to that, and there is the 50-move rule. But that is in no way, a gradient ordering, it is a boundary on depth of solution. not that there is a degree of optimality in having a shorter one.
Now, the human error argument, let's dissect that. It might argue that a longer solution, is having more fog area under the curve along depth of solution. Well, if going full ambient space of human context, one would include their familiarity with chess world. It might be argued that a more intuitive solution for them would be better controlled for errors than a hard calculation to find a shorter one just for sake of it being shorter, but being more intricate, and probably in absence of experience to make it a known pattern, an increased working memory cognitive load, likely to be more error prone, in spite of the shorter solution eldorado.
So, as often there is some rigging even in science wheel, and I do enjoy poking holes into that, it seems. Or I have myself bumped into that being a subjective dissonance in my own experience over the board.
being able to find a forced mate in deeper solution might actually be the easier solution, than wanting to be as non-spatial and as combinatorially clever as a non-spatial chess engine, to which any move is just a priori as distinct as another, modulo a human developped leaf static evaluation. it strengths being finding nooks and crannies of perfect partial tree chess.
ok. that was impulsive. but I already had that thought, when going through the papers abstracts (maybe i did read deeper in some pdf with open access to them). How does one define a human better solution in chess.. (always the hidden assumptions, that make for furthering scientific questions).
I have a at least 2 such shorter ending mate, that for me would have been either harder work, or loss by time mamagment pressure (that added tournament administrative rulle, now almost definition of chess).
now hooked having to read more of the blog. thanks for the expression space, and the stimulation.
I think in the papers I flew by over (maybe it was not only about chess but about the concept itself), there was something else considered as "better".
I really like your image citations.
There's one thing I don't understand in your article : first in your own examples you show that a pattern alone is not enough to solve a chess position - that's certainly true, but I don't see any 'Einstellung' effect here : it's just that these positions are not meant to be solved by pattern recognition only (they also require some calculation). If there's any chess expertise at play here, it's that you can't rely on a single pattern to pick a move in this situation !
As for the scientific article, I get their first example, but note that this is pure arbitrary problem-solving rather than solving of a chess situation, because in a real chess situation, finding a mate in 5 instead of a mate in 2 is a satisfactory outcome (and not finding the shorter mate may show lack of expertise rather than the opposite).
So all in all, my understanding is that - yes, we will use processes which we have found to work in the past and it may indeed make it more difficult to discover new ideas, but it doesn't mean we can't be aware that different tasks require different kind of solutions, especially in chess.
PS : bullet chess is no chess anyway ;-)
As for the scientific article, I get their first example, but note that this is pure arbitrary problem-solving rather than solving of a chess situation, because in a real chess situation, finding a mate in 5 instead of a mate in 2 is a satisfactory outcome (and not finding the shorter mate may show lack of expertise rather than the opposite).
So all in all, my understanding is that - yes, we will use processes which we have found to work in the past and it may indeed make it more difficult to discover new ideas, but it doesn't mean we can't be aware that different tasks require different kind of solutions, especially in chess.
PS : bullet chess is no chess anyway ;-)
hallo NDpatzer
cooles Abfahrt-Foto mit Knick in der Mitte. :)
lese hier bei Dir zum ersten Mal über diesen „Einstellung effect“. zweifle auch vom Fleck weg ob es eine Entwicklung eines solchen mechanisierten Geisteszustandes geben kann. frage mich stattdessen ob nicht eher ein instinktives Bauchgefühl oder interdisziplinäre Antizipation oder die Summe aller bisherigen Erfahrungen und Fehler eines Individuums eine prompte (richtige) Lösung aufzeigen könnte?
nicht alles verstanden, aber gern gelesen. Danke auch fürs Eyetracking.
und bei deinem ersten lila Brett hatte ich innerhalb ein paar Sekunden den Riecher für h7 und hätte den Zug beim Bullet sicher auch gespielt (beim Ultrabullet hätte ich ihn ziemlich sicher übersehen).
bei den anderen beiden lila Brettern widerstrebt mir der Zug fast sofort. das liegt aber, meiner Ansicht nach, eher an der Stellung, nicht an der Einstellung. ;)
Gruß
Alcedo
cooles Abfahrt-Foto mit Knick in der Mitte. :)
lese hier bei Dir zum ersten Mal über diesen „Einstellung effect“. zweifle auch vom Fleck weg ob es eine Entwicklung eines solchen mechanisierten Geisteszustandes geben kann. frage mich stattdessen ob nicht eher ein instinktives Bauchgefühl oder interdisziplinäre Antizipation oder die Summe aller bisherigen Erfahrungen und Fehler eines Individuums eine prompte (richtige) Lösung aufzeigen könnte?
nicht alles verstanden, aber gern gelesen. Danke auch fürs Eyetracking.
und bei deinem ersten lila Brett hatte ich innerhalb ein paar Sekunden den Riecher für h7 und hätte den Zug beim Bullet sicher auch gespielt (beim Ultrabullet hätte ich ihn ziemlich sicher übersehen).
bei den anderen beiden lila Brettern widerstrebt mir der Zug fast sofort. das liegt aber, meiner Ansicht nach, eher an der Stellung, nicht an der Einstellung. ;)
Gruß
Alcedo
I think this effect is interesting
@hicetnunc said in #5:
> There's one thing I don't understand in your article : first in your own examples you show that a pattern alone is not enough to solve a chess position - that's certainly true, but I don't see any 'Einstellung' effect here : it's just that these positions are not meant to be solved by pattern recognition only (they also require some calculation). If there's any chess expertise at play here, it's that you can't rely on a single pattern to pick a move in this situation !
The Einstellung effect is straightforwardly visible in the author's chess games (you may not consider bullet chess, but that's a different discussion). That effect refers to the negative consequences of expertise, or in this case, having seen the greek gift pattern. If NDPatzer had never seen the greek gift pattern, he would not have sacked his bishop in the two losing games he cited. At least for those particular moves, his experience with that pattern hurt his problem solving: the Einstellung effect.
> There's one thing I don't understand in your article : first in your own examples you show that a pattern alone is not enough to solve a chess position - that's certainly true, but I don't see any 'Einstellung' effect here : it's just that these positions are not meant to be solved by pattern recognition only (they also require some calculation). If there's any chess expertise at play here, it's that you can't rely on a single pattern to pick a move in this situation !
The Einstellung effect is straightforwardly visible in the author's chess games (you may not consider bullet chess, but that's a different discussion). That effect refers to the negative consequences of expertise, or in this case, having seen the greek gift pattern. If NDPatzer had never seen the greek gift pattern, he would not have sacked his bishop in the two losing games he cited. At least for those particular moves, his experience with that pattern hurt his problem solving: the Einstellung effect.
Where I notice this kind of effect is doing puzzles under time pressure, like puzzle storm. If I solve 4 puzzles in a row, and the answer is always a checkmate, I'll waste time on the 5th problem looking for a mate, even though the the answer is obviously to win the opponent's queen. If the answers to two puzzles in a row are knight forks, I'll waste time on the 3rd puzzle examining any possible knight fork, instead of examining checks first.
Solving chess is like a search algorithm, and I find my "algorithm" gets easily distorted by recent experience.
Solving chess is like a search algorithm, and I find my "algorithm" gets easily distorted by recent experience.
@Graque said in #8:
> The Einstellung effect is straightforwardly visible in the author's chess games (you may not consider bullet chess, but that's a different discussion). That effect refers to the negative consequences of expertise, or in this case, having seen the greek gift pattern. If NDPatzer had never seen the greek gift pattern, he would not have sacked his bishop in the two losing games he cited. At least for those particular moves, his experience with that pattern hurt his problem solving: the Einstellung effect.
You beat me to it! Pretty much exactly what I was trying to get across in the article.
> The Einstellung effect is straightforwardly visible in the author's chess games (you may not consider bullet chess, but that's a different discussion). That effect refers to the negative consequences of expertise, or in this case, having seen the greek gift pattern. If NDPatzer had never seen the greek gift pattern, he would not have sacked his bishop in the two losing games he cited. At least for those particular moves, his experience with that pattern hurt his problem solving: the Einstellung effect.
You beat me to it! Pretty much exactly what I was trying to get across in the article.