Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old August 13th 04, 12:32 PM
levellerman
 
Posts: n/a
Default what kind of thinking makes a good player

Science secret of grand masters revealed

The Nature Magazine article deals with the way in which chess experts
gain the edge over opponents by falsifying their own ideas, while
chess novices' optimism usually leads to a crushing defeat.


Cognitive scientist and chess player Michelle Cowley
In deciding which move to make, chess players mentally run through
possible continuations of the game. Michelle Cowley, a cognitive
scientist and keen chess player from Trinity College Dublin in
Ireland, decided to study how different chess players decide whether
their move strategies will be winners or losers.

Along with her colleague Ruth Byrne, she recruited 20 chess players,
ranging from regular tournament players to a grandmaster. She
presented each participant with six different chessboard positions
from halfway through a game, where Black and White had equal chances
of winning, and there was no immediately obvious next move.

Each player had to speak their thoughts aloud as they decided what
move to make. Cowley scored the quality of the move sequences by
comparing them with Fritz 8. She found that novices were more likely
to convince themselves that bad moves would work out in their favour,
because they focused more on the countermoves that would benefit their
strategy while ignoring those that led to the downfall of their
cherished hypotheses.

Conversely, masters tended to correctly predict when the eventual
outcome of a move would weaken their position. "Grand masters think
about what their opponents will do much more," says Byrne. "They tend
to falsify their own hypotheses."
  #3   Report Post  
Old August 14th 04, 03:22 AM
Mark S. Hathaway
 
Posts: n/a
Default what kind of thinking makes a good player

levellerman wrote:
Science secret of grand masters revealed

The Nature Magazine article deals with the way in which chess experts
gain the edge over opponents by falsifying their own ideas, while
chess novices' optimism usually leads to a crushing defeat.


One study showed that GMs analyzed less than IMs, but
that IMs analyzed a good bit more than typical amateurs.
The shocker is that GMs and amateurs analyzed about the
same amount of moves (plys).

The difference was that the GMs first initial candidate(s)
were significantly better than either an amateurs or the IMs.

How is it that their candidates (their intuitive moves) are
so much better?

Does that have anything to do with being less over-optimistic
than the amateurs?

Something seems superficial about the Nature Magazine article.
It seems to me they're comparing class players against mere
masters. I don't know of too many masters and above who are
over-optimistic.

In deciding which move to make, chess players mentally run through
possible continuations of the game. Michelle Cowley, a cognitive
scientist and keen chess player from Trinity College Dublin in
Ireland, decided to study how different chess players decide whether
their move strategies will be winners or losers.

....
She found that novices were more likely
to convince themselves that bad moves would work out in their favour,
because they focused more on the countermoves that would benefit their
strategy while ignoring those that led to the downfall of their
cherished hypotheses.

Conversely, masters tended to correctly predict when the eventual
outcome of a move would weaken their position. "Grand masters think
about what their opponents will do much more," says Byrne. "They tend
to falsify their own hypotheses."


Only that last statement is interesting when related to the study
to which I've referred. It says the GM has an intuitive idea and
move and then uses analysis, not to prove it's correct, but to
discover whether it's flawed -- attempting to falsify their own
hypothesis.
  #4   Report Post  
Old August 14th 04, 01:40 PM
Ray Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Also called "wish chess" by some. I think some people never overcome this;
I
know when teaching, one hears far too often, "But if he would have done

this, I
would have won," as if that meant anything. The point is, he didn't, and

often
no strong player would.


Same thing happens when people defame others on the internet and act like
they can't be sued for it even when the law is well-established that they
can.

The false bravado is strikingly similar, in fact.



  #5   Report Post  
Old August 14th 04, 03:32 PM
Doctor SBD
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Same thing happens when people defame others on the internet and act like
they can't be sued for it even when the law is well-established that they
can.

The false bravado is strikingly similar, in fact.


I agree with you Ray, especially since I see you as an expert in the false
bravado category ("Ain't gonna play Sun City", "GM in the openings," "I bet
you 5 mill I will be 2600 in 5 years," etc.).

Of course to "de" fame someone, don't they need to have a measure of real (not
imagined) fame, don't they?

Plus, it seems that anyone can sue anyone for anything in this country, even if
it is totally frivolous. I think the key is suing and actually winning....

SBD


  #6   Report Post  
Old August 14th 04, 05:06 PM
Bob Newell
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Of course to "de" fame someone, don't they need to have a measure of real (not
imagined) fame, don't they?


While I have neither comment on, nor interest in, the personal dispute
in this thread, the above comment reminds me of something very generally
apt that I found in an old checker book (not an exact quote): "Many
amateur players are afraid of losing a reputation that they don't even
have."
  #7   Report Post  
Old August 14th 04, 05:53 PM
Doctor SBD
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pretty cool quote, Mr. Newell. I will have to remember that one.

SBD
  #9   Report Post  
Old August 21st 04, 03:09 AM
W T Harvey
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In his book 'Child of Change', Garry Kasparov cites a study done by
the Soviets to determine what skills and strengths chess masters have.
Here is a link to the list: http://wtharvey.com/skills.html
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Please check my analysis. Dr. David Kirkby rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 7 April 15th 04 12:56 PM
RGCA: Akopian - Kramnik analysis Andrew Templeton rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 5 January 17th 04 03:15 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 December 31st 03 01:42 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 December 15th 03 09:45 AM
Rules Question: What to do about Digital Clocks set without Time Delay? Isidor Gunsberg rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 0 August 7th 03 11:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017