We humans focus most of our attention to the centre of the visual field.
What is going on in the periphery of the visual field is automatically
sorted out by the brain (so it's not as simple that the vision is inferior
there). This sorting out of information, and reduction of the brain's
attention, increases the farther away you go from the centre.

Would chess be less affected by blunders if the chess board was smaller
in size? I am suggesting that we would play chess better if the board was
about 20-25 centimeter in size. Would it be possible to research whether
the blunders appear more often on the a,b,g,h-files? In that case it should
be due to diminished attention at the side of the board.

Reuben Fine believed that most blunders were edge moves. See for
instance his annotation of the games of the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match.

(note that I mean smaller in *size*, not fewer squares)

Mats

Mats Winther wrote:
Would chess be less affected by blunders if the chess board was
smaller in size? I am suggesting that we would play chess better if
the board was about 20-25 centimeter in size.

I find it can take a little while to acclimatize to tournament-sized
boards if I've previously been playing a lot on smaller boards. On
the other hand, I'd say that 20-25cm would be too small: unless the
pieces are also very small (which gets fiddly) they often seem very
cluttered.


Would it be possible to research whether the blunders appear more
often on the a,b,g,h-files?

In principle, yes: just analyze a large sample of games.


In that case it should be due to diminished attention at the side of
the board.

Not necessarily. The kings are often stationed on the g/h files so a
large number of blunders on those files could be because more moves
are played in that area of the board.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Technicolor Accelerated Boss (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a middle manager but it's
twice as fast and in realistic colour!

Mats Winther wrote:

We humans focus most of our attention to the centre of the visual field.
What is going on in the periphery of the visual field is automatically
sorted out by the brain (so it's not as simple that the vision is inferior
there). This sorting out of information, and reduction of the brain's
attention, increases the farther away you go from the centre.

To be more precise, we pay attention to the image and its details
(e.g. colors) in front of us, while the peripheral vision is sensitive
(more then the front vision) to the movement. It makes sense
from the point of view of survival. When we spot an attack from
behind then we react very fast, with a good reflex.

Would chess be less affected by blunders if the chess board was smaller
in size? I am suggesting that we would play chess better if the board was
about 20-25 centimeter in size. Would it be possible to research whether
the blunders appear more often on the a,b,g,h-files? In that case it should
be due to diminished attention at the side of the board.

25 cm is an exaggeration. Let's remember that Fischer had requested
that the expensive chessboard meant for the Spasski-Fischer match
in 1972 be replaced by a smaller one. But it's not the size of the
chessboard alone which is essential. Even more important is the
p[roportion of the size (thickness) od the pieces and of the squares.
I play dramatically better when pieces are fat and occupy a big part
of their squares. When pieces are skinny I leave pieces en prise!
(Very frustrating :-)

Reuben Fine believed that most blunders were edge moves.
See for instance his annotation of the games of the 1972
Fischer-Spassky match.

Indeed, Mednis commented about a losing move by Fischer,
in Mednis' "How to beat Bobby Fischer" that the given position
was not of Fischer's type but of the Tal's type. He wrote that
Tal himself in a similasr position found the winning move.
It was a move from one edge of the chessboards to another.

(note that I mean smaller in *size*, not fewer squares)

(Oh, really? :-)

Mats

Thank you, regards,

Wlod