Science of Chess: Seeing moves with momentum over the board

Comments on https://lichess.org/@/ndpatzer/blog/science-of-chess-seeing-moves-with-momentum-over-the-board/Dxw72cRP

dAMN HOW U WROTE SOO MUCH

@NDpatzer

I like the striking introduction which introduced the concept of delayed visual info.

And the cool papers and easy to understand explanations.

Nicely done!

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

@NDpatzer

I like the striking introduction which introduced the concept of delayed visual info.

And the cool papers and easy to understand explanations.

Nicely done!

Thanks for reading!

@imaginedragon001 said ^

dAMN HOW U WROTE SOO MUCH

Thanks for reading! It's always just one word after another... :)

oh nice

great blog man@NDpatzer said ^

dAMN HOW U WROTE SOO MUCH

Thanks for reading! It's always just one word after another... :)

@NDpatzer said ^

Comments on https://lichess.org/@/ndpatzer/blog/science-of-chess-seeing-moves-with-momentum-over-the-board/Dxw72cRP

Chess and astronomy have two common similarities: math and science. From what I have read, you're saying that understanding key positions and finding possible sequences during a game is a fundamental part of chess itself. My question is: if prediction is key here, does it involve the person having to predict a sequence that makes him/her think outside the box? And does it involve trying to understand the playing style, strength, and unveiling the calculations of your opponent? If so, then how does one do it, especially in a lower ELO level for some, and could applying the rules of math be needed in a game? For example, 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 (Queen's Gambit Declined) 3. Nf6. Does this mean that White must predict his/her opponent's next three moves? The problem with novice but calculative players is that they only think of one line. If their opponent plays something completely different and/or familiar, they lose it all. For intermediate players, it isn't quite as problematic, but when calculating two or three possible lines that their opponent may play, they sometimes forget to plan how they can continue to his/her advantage. Even if they have a plan, it's usually mentally rushed and might fall apart later on. For advanced players, predicting an opponent's move will be quite easier. Different moves, different plans. But just like the novice and intermediate ones, some (or even most of them) get caught off guard by an unusual move that they didn't think of. Will this research help improve and maybe even solve this problem? That is all, thank you.

The blog is good overall. Thank you for providing this kind of information; it will really help some.

@francisludwigii said ^

Comments on https://lichess.org/@/ndpatzer/blog/science-of-chess-seeing-moves-with-momentum-over-the-board/Dxw72cRP

Chess and astronomy have two common similarities: math and science. From what I have read, you're saying that understanding key positions and finding possible sequences during a game is a fundamental part of chess itself. My question is: if prediction is key here, does it involve the person having to predict a sequence that makes him/her think outside the box?

An important point the authors are trying to make is that this isn't something players do intentionally. Instead, it's an automatic part of how they see the board. This is different than calculating candidate moves where you may be explicitly considering different lines, evaluating them, then choosing your favorite. This process is more like advancing the position just a little further based on what you expect to be the most likely outcome.

I think that means that this isn't a study that tells you something practical to do to improve your play. Instead, it reveals a feature of how experts see the board that may contribute to phenomena like the Einstellung effect, where familiar-looking positions can lead skilled players to blunder because a familiar plan doesn't work in positions that differ just a little from what they know.

Hope that's helpful and thanks for reading!