lichess.org
Donate

Right Brain for Chess?

<Comment deleted by user>

Good question, and thanks for the structure.

btw: all sorts of wirings out there. I think there exist a whole spectrum from true left handedness, to true right handedness, (omitted the environment factor, which may vary with generation and region on the globe).
I have never been contradicted in my upbringing, but I have heard that my mother had been probably. But even if not an active pressure made by parents in how they insist on presenting the spoon on the normal side, in spite of lack of preference manisfest then, or that scissors may have been for a long times made to cut better with a right hand.. things like that. My wiring has been clearly neither ambixestrous not true left handed or right footed.

The distinction that makes most sense in my life experience and subjective lateralized ease (and likely objective if I had been testing in collective sport contexts, with witnesses to the difference) is that my wiring lateralization is best explained by distinguishing fine motor skill tasks (well not talking about foot then, i did not explore that... to be honest, not to think of it...hmmmm) from gross or is it coarse or strength based motor skillls.

writing , eatning, primate hair combing (forgot the term, épouiller in french, and here for some smiling purpose).

kicking swinging, throwing..

me left on first line.. and right on second line. so to someone of does not make such task separation, I might have been averagely described as ambidextrous.. Just a an anecdote..

Lost of traits in the population, when comes to psychological ones, are mutligenic in biology, and usually spread on some best thought of as continuous axis. It might be easier to start coarse in our theoretical grasping or scientifi models as first... but increasing, one can see such spectrumifications of past very simple dichotomies (as a joke: witch or not witch, for example, possessed or not, crazy or not, we start there...).

not weird at all the subjective comparative ease. It means you mind if free to waste energy against the flow of normalcy elsewhere.. kidding that last part.. Just that you don't have to spend energy against your fundamental mode. I believe, that having to constantly work against what comes easy, it a form of add mental charge. And blow flow limitations and neurtransmitter waste to recuperate from that superfluous activity is mental "energy" wasted. So a general working against the current compared to others.

Good question, and thanks for the structure. btw: all sorts of wirings out there. I think there exist a whole spectrum from true left handedness, to true right handedness, (omitted the environment factor, which may vary with generation and region on the globe). I have never been contradicted in my upbringing, but I have heard that my mother had been probably. But even if not an active pressure made by parents in how they insist on presenting the spoon on the normal side, in spite of lack of preference manisfest then, or that scissors may have been for a long times made to cut better with a right hand.. things like that. My wiring has been clearly neither ambixestrous not true left handed or right footed. The distinction that makes most sense in my life experience and subjective lateralized ease (and likely objective if I had been testing in collective sport contexts, with witnesses to the difference) is that my wiring lateralization is best explained by distinguishing fine motor skill tasks (well not talking about foot then, i did not explore that... to be honest, not to think of it...hmmmm) from gross or is it coarse or strength based motor skillls. writing , eatning, primate hair combing (forgot the term, épouiller in french, and here for some smiling purpose). kicking swinging, throwing.. me left on first line.. and right on second line. so to someone of does not make such task separation, I might have been averagely described as ambidextrous.. Just a an anecdote.. Lost of traits in the population, when comes to psychological ones, are mutligenic in biology, and usually spread on some best thought of as continuous axis. It might be easier to start coarse in our theoretical grasping or scientifi models as first... but increasing, one can see such spectrumifications of past very simple dichotomies (as a joke: witch or not witch, for example, possessed or not, crazy or not, we start there...). not weird at all the subjective comparative ease. It means you mind if free to waste energy against the flow of normalcy elsewhere.. kidding that last part.. Just that you don't have to spend energy against your fundamental mode. I believe, that having to constantly work against what comes easy, it a form of add mental charge. And blow flow limitations and neurtransmitter waste to recuperate from that superfluous activity is mental "energy" wasted. So a general working against the current compared to others.

I am not sure that how we process sensory information and how we execute motor plans are directly connected at hemispheric level (but maybe there are subtleties there).. I would believe perhaps more of a relationship at sensory level like eye dominance, yet I don't think we are playing chess faster than movies images and the crossover might be enough to smudge such thing.

Unless one views chess skills as motor skills more than sensory skills. yet, i don't think the decision about what to do and which hand is going to pick up the piece have more hemispheric basis in correspondance with the hand that moves. Maybe a very fast move chess perspective, with very targeted woodpecker in such context?

But maybe your blog looked around at all such handedness aspect in chess you could.. I would have to keep reading. . And short of scanning blood flow, how else is one to approach the question.. handedness being the first hint of possible lateralisation. I am just evoking here to the possible independence of chess thinking lateral specialization, and move motor skill handedness.

I am not sure that how we process sensory information and how we execute motor plans are directly connected at hemispheric level (but maybe there are subtleties there).. I would believe perhaps more of a relationship at sensory level like eye dominance, yet I don't think we are playing chess faster than movies images and the crossover might be enough to smudge such thing. Unless one views chess skills as motor skills more than sensory skills. yet, i don't think the decision about what to do and which hand is going to pick up the piece have more hemispheric basis in correspondance with the hand that moves. Maybe a very fast move chess perspective, with very targeted woodpecker in such context? But maybe your blog looked around at all such handedness aspect in chess you could.. I would have to keep reading. . And short of scanning blood flow, how else is one to approach the question.. handedness being the first hint of possible lateralisation. I am just evoking here to the possible independence of chess thinking lateral specialization, and move motor skill handedness.