I would like to know what on earth is happening in many minds of chess players not yet GM. for a change.
As too often theories of learning have amounted to some sort of imitation learning, and for adults, well, should I continue?
Still interested in that corner of the puzzle as you propose though. I just find catering to the impatient market to get more views is getting old. no offense. But I guess necessary evil, to knock some sense around... still here is my dissonant voice.
PS: 100% (i know how to count, to some extent) with your methodical plan of making us catch up on the science. kudos for that. Above was my tired (of the offer in chess blog or other highly visible things) knee jerk reaction, while hoping for a scientific point of view. 100% on the science dissemination project.
As too often theories of learning have amounted to some sort of imitation learning, and for adults, well, should I continue?
Still interested in that corner of the puzzle as you propose though. I just find catering to the impatient market to get more views is getting old. no offense. But I guess necessary evil, to knock some sense around... still here is my dissonant voice.
PS: 100% (i know how to count, to some extent) with your methodical plan of making us catch up on the science. kudos for that. Above was my tired (of the offer in chess blog or other highly visible things) knee jerk reaction, while hoping for a scientific point of view. 100% on the science dissemination project.
Any suggestions on neurology/mind sciences journals, web sites, discussion groups, or academic departments interested in mind-oriented research on chess?
@BarakSaltz said in #3:
> Any suggestions on neurology/mind sciences journals, web sites, discussion groups, or academic departments interested in mind-oriented research on chess?
I can give you a few researchers to check out who have done some interesting work that I'm catching up on myself: Fernand Gobet (mentioned in this article) has a number of published papers that I've been enjoying, and Christopher Chabris also has a bunch of neat papers.
I also think that the chessable blog is a good place to start looking for current discussion about cognition and chess: www.chessable.com/blog/. Hope this helps - I'm also planning to keep including recaps of published studies about chess and cognition in these posts, so keep an eye out for future posts which may point you in interesting directions.
> Any suggestions on neurology/mind sciences journals, web sites, discussion groups, or academic departments interested in mind-oriented research on chess?
I can give you a few researchers to check out who have done some interesting work that I'm catching up on myself: Fernand Gobet (mentioned in this article) has a number of published papers that I've been enjoying, and Christopher Chabris also has a bunch of neat papers.
I also think that the chessable blog is a good place to start looking for current discussion about cognition and chess: www.chessable.com/blog/. Hope this helps - I'm also planning to keep including recaps of published studies about chess and cognition in these posts, so keep an eye out for future posts which may point you in interesting directions.
Great article - thank you very much and keep them coming!
@schruv said in #5:
> Great article - thank you very much and keep them coming!
Thank you for reading!
> Great article - thank you very much and keep them coming!
Thank you for reading!
This is my self-assessment (not "intuition") of what I was trying to do to figure the puzzle out. As an adult improver and self-trainer I am not good at chess and I must attempt to apply, very pedantically, a set rules protocol to attempt to solve positions and puzzles. In other words, I must rehearse linguistically (internal monologue) what I have learned to date.
1. I have learned that puzzles have conventions. That is, I have the move with the chess colour at the bottom of the screen (black to move in this case), that I start equal or worse and that there is a solution as determined by the Stockfish Engine algorithm: namely that the move is not a blunder and leaves me enough ahead to probably be technically winning, as per again the Stockfish algorithm. That's usually like -2.5 or better, as black. (Okay, I don't have to think this all in overt internal monologue but I assume it.
2. I count material. This gives me an idea of the turnaround I need like, "Oh I need a checkmate or I need a queen, rook or minor piece win."
3. I follow the recommended protocol of "Check, Capture, Threat". I say this to myself, aloud in my head, as it were. I look for checks and then checkmates. Then if I come up empty I look for free captures or captures that lead to combinations (that I can actually see). I can see two moves deep usually but rarely deeper unless it is an obvious, easy forcing combination with no branching side lines or variations. Sometimes I fail to see 2 move combinations. In fast games I can fail to see one-movers.
4. I look for prompts for combinations by trying to remember tactics and motifs. Is there a pin or forcing move? A loose piece I can exploit? But I cannot explicitly remember all 25 (approx.) tactics plus the multiple motifs, so I do the best I can.
5. Then I try seeing combinations and as often as not get highly frustrated because I can see nothing. (Emotional lability.)
6. I do think other things like "Black is restricted, he has less space. He needs some exchanges perhaps to free up perhaps." That kind of thing.
I failed this test. I could not see the answer in a reasonable time. I really feel that the non-standard display, piece symbols and colours (compared to the Lichess standard display) confused me. The puzzle seemed a lot clearer on Lichess but by then I knew the first move of the solution from other checks. It's a pity I didn't test myself on Lichess immediately after failing at those colours. I have vision problems, specifically red-green colour blindness and loss of macula vision in my left eye which used to be my dominant eye. I am left handed and left dominant in most ways. I seem to strongly need the display I am most used to and that I can see best. Others may be more flexible or more accustomed to multiple display types.
This raises issues visually, cognitively and emotionally. People are highly idiosyncratic, somatically and then specifically neurologically and psychologically. It will be important somehow to test fully shared characteristics with as few idiosyncrasies as possible and then to cross test. So, vision checks for all test subjects. Then standard cognitive tests, then cohort by age by chess experiennce etc. Huge study! Good luck!
To sum up, to date, as an old adult with some vision problems I feel I am still developing no real "instinct" for the right move or the overall game at all. My thinking is totally ponderous and seemingly all verbal internal monologue. I am a very language oriented person. Not a maths oriented person, though math is technically a language too and I am okay at basic math. Correct moves almost never "just jump out at me" except for the simplest one move stuff and even then it can take a little time. Lots of trouble seeing obvious stuff unless I have classical time limits to think in and I mean like 90+30.
1. I have learned that puzzles have conventions. That is, I have the move with the chess colour at the bottom of the screen (black to move in this case), that I start equal or worse and that there is a solution as determined by the Stockfish Engine algorithm: namely that the move is not a blunder and leaves me enough ahead to probably be technically winning, as per again the Stockfish algorithm. That's usually like -2.5 or better, as black. (Okay, I don't have to think this all in overt internal monologue but I assume it.
2. I count material. This gives me an idea of the turnaround I need like, "Oh I need a checkmate or I need a queen, rook or minor piece win."
3. I follow the recommended protocol of "Check, Capture, Threat". I say this to myself, aloud in my head, as it were. I look for checks and then checkmates. Then if I come up empty I look for free captures or captures that lead to combinations (that I can actually see). I can see two moves deep usually but rarely deeper unless it is an obvious, easy forcing combination with no branching side lines or variations. Sometimes I fail to see 2 move combinations. In fast games I can fail to see one-movers.
4. I look for prompts for combinations by trying to remember tactics and motifs. Is there a pin or forcing move? A loose piece I can exploit? But I cannot explicitly remember all 25 (approx.) tactics plus the multiple motifs, so I do the best I can.
5. Then I try seeing combinations and as often as not get highly frustrated because I can see nothing. (Emotional lability.)
6. I do think other things like "Black is restricted, he has less space. He needs some exchanges perhaps to free up perhaps." That kind of thing.
I failed this test. I could not see the answer in a reasonable time. I really feel that the non-standard display, piece symbols and colours (compared to the Lichess standard display) confused me. The puzzle seemed a lot clearer on Lichess but by then I knew the first move of the solution from other checks. It's a pity I didn't test myself on Lichess immediately after failing at those colours. I have vision problems, specifically red-green colour blindness and loss of macula vision in my left eye which used to be my dominant eye. I am left handed and left dominant in most ways. I seem to strongly need the display I am most used to and that I can see best. Others may be more flexible or more accustomed to multiple display types.
This raises issues visually, cognitively and emotionally. People are highly idiosyncratic, somatically and then specifically neurologically and psychologically. It will be important somehow to test fully shared characteristics with as few idiosyncrasies as possible and then to cross test. So, vision checks for all test subjects. Then standard cognitive tests, then cohort by age by chess experiennce etc. Huge study! Good luck!
To sum up, to date, as an old adult with some vision problems I feel I am still developing no real "instinct" for the right move or the overall game at all. My thinking is totally ponderous and seemingly all verbal internal monologue. I am a very language oriented person. Not a maths oriented person, though math is technically a language too and I am okay at basic math. Correct moves almost never "just jump out at me" except for the simplest one move stuff and even then it can take a little time. Lots of trouble seeing obvious stuff unless I have classical time limits to think in and I mean like 90+30.
nice public image . I almost could make sense of the names and what might a gyrus be hinting at as namology by its repetition in alternance with the sulci (plural). good choice. I might not have looked at the right hand side (pretty sure that is right not left), it looked more crowded with text, in many text parsing orientations.
Seriously, thank you for you sharing those ideas.
Seriously, thank you for you sharing those ideas.
DeGroot only allowed his subjects to examine the board for 1 second or less. Thus, the findings only have relevance to bullet chess.
"Seeing the right move instantly" or "feeling the right move" has relevance to chess at all time controls.