ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2022
- Jesse Kraai discusses the two ways that chess players think.
Thinking Fast and Slow: amzn.to/3M9fiiy
The Invisible Gorilla: amzn.to/3VhpfyO
Check out "Why Players Overvalue Openings" based also Kahnemann
• Why Players Overvalue ...
Interested in improving? Check out the all-new Dojo Training Program - chessdojo.shop/training
Want to support the channel? Donate here - streamlabs.com/chessdojolive
Follow ChessDojo here:
Website: chessdojo.shop
Twitch: / chessdojolive
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / chess_dojo
Patreon: / chessdojo
Instagram: / chess_dojo
Podcast: chessdojotalks.podbean.com/
Our beloved chess psychologist strikes again with a very thought-provoking video! Many thanks Jesse, you are worth your weight in gold!! 🤩
It was said that Reshevsky and Bronstein played most of their chess looking 2 moves or 4 ply ahead. That feels like a intermediate or hybrid approach. My guess is that 2 moves allowed them to evaluate both the potential danger or complexity of the resulting positions, but also gives the player a range by allowing them to see what kinds of positions could occur. Obviously experience could code this into what we would call intuition. An example might be driving. Mostly it's "automatic." But if the weather is bad or traffic is heavy we need to concentrate. But that concentration doesn't ever seem to be anything like a math problem or chess combination. For one thing it happens in real-time, once.
I like your driving in bad weather analogy. Is it still using system 1 only, or is it a mix of both systems? That's not simple to figure out. System 1 is the fast part of Thinking Fast and Slow, and you need to think fast, but you're still giving conscious attention to what you're doing. Interesting.
You might be interested in Lex Fridman's interview of Magnus. Magnus says he's very good at short calculation, about 4 moves deep, and relies on intuition after that. He thinks his intuition is better than anyone else's but admits he's not very good at deep calculation.
@@bluefin.64 I saw Lex's interview with Magnus, thanks. That's a nice point. The literature on this is tortured. Think about the difference between Activities of Daily Living (ADL) - things like toothbrushing or making breakfast - and playing a musical instrument. People used to think that ADLs were motor schema. But that can't be right for two reasons. First, the world is constantly changing. And second, we all make mistakes, called action slips. Normally we catch them. An example is when you have a box of cereal in your hand when you get milk from the refrigerator. Sometimes you take the milk out and go to put the cereal in. So even ADLs are better thought of as planning in action. Most ADL plans don't have to be perfect, and aren't worth the cognitive resources to even try. Even if you could, which you can't.
In music, eventually you do develop motor schemas. Sometimes you can play a song without knowing exactly what you're doing. And sometimes you are seeking "perfection." But sometimes, the blues on guitar for example, you're assembling riffs as you improvise. Often the riffs are schemas, but the where and when require knowledge and thought. And situational awareness.
Riffs seem similar to tactical motifs. But even then, contra Kotov in Think Like a Grandmaster, you can't calculate in some optimally efficient way, if that means only visiting each node of the tree once. You backtrack, when you notice something in one line that you missed in another line. What makes this different from music and driving is that it's all in the head. Even though driving, chess, and improvisation are all forms of decision making under uncertainty. And they all have "opponents" who get a say. Unlike playing a piano sonata or golf.
But all of these examples somehow code experience into intuition and/or declarative or procedural knowledge. What if engines had existed when Nimzowitch and Reti were developing the hypermodern style. Would classical players have thought they were cheating because their strange intuitions matched the "engines." What makes chess and great players special is when surprises work. Intuition can both find them and hide them. When doing a math problem we know how to do it - the procedure - but we just need time. Intuition works well in a relatively stable situation where you have great experience. Especially if "good enough" is sufficient because perfection is not attainable. But at my level, and even for GMs, there are times where both intuition and procedure seems insufficient because you don't know what's going on. Which is why being told who's better can be like a road sign that warns you of driving difficult.
What Kahneman shows is that "framing" matters a great deal for many decisions. Most experts flip when identical data is framed differently. Our intuition is strong, but most of us contradict ourselves.
In some sense, good decision in chess requires knowing when accuracy or perfection matters.
@@mikem668 I'm not surprised the literature is tortured on this subject. Even without the too common motivated reasoning that affects interpretation, this would be a difficult subject. It's trying to make sense of what were only partly aware of, and I'd guess there are probably many even 'objective' angles to tackle it from.
I know that framing is a huge problem in the sciences and other fields, and I've read or watched stories involving it or about it that are shocking. If I understand it properly, it's certainly been a problem for Hans Niemann.
My favorite action slip, as it appears to be called, is throwing the fruit in the garbage and being left with the peel in my hand. :-)
A related issue is flow versus stop. One of the great problems in chess is the fact that flow is so great a feeling that you don't do the checklist (or whatever your list is). In there is the assumption that you are intuitive, flow is natural, the moves flow. To stop and calculate is hard and disruptive. Flow is so seductive, how many games has one lost to the feeling of flow.
Great information that makes sense and a perfect explanation to correlate to studying and gameplay.
Great Topic!! It seems clear that GMs quickly distinguish between system-1 vs system-2 positions because of your massive experience. I still have to assess material, CCTs, compare weaknesses, perform some system-2 analysis just to determine whether I have a system-1 or -2 position. I'm already tired. 🤕 (And I still don't know if I'm highlighting the right things to make the determination.)
This is a good video. Like most other chess players, I've tried to apply this general outline for a while but struggle w/ trying to know when to switch between the two. I'll often see a few tactical ideas in a position and spend some time calculating lines only to see a bunch of unclear resulting positions. Then I'll play something too quickly a couple of moves later to try catching up on the clock and blunder some tactic in the position that suddenly works now. It's the hard-knock life!
Great advice!
Jes, Kahneman’s book is a goldmine for such ideas. Something in your association intuition/system 1 raises some doubts imo. System 1 is, I think, associated with authomatic behavior, like driving a car for an expert driver. While driving he/she loses focus on driving: have you ever driven almost asleep to your daily job-place, realizing at the arrival you could not remember anything of what you saw and did while driving? A move’s intuition is not necessarily the act of playing it. Even if you play it without calculation (ie in a short time, sometimes referred as 3 seconds) you should consider that a sufficiently expert player does authomatically some checking (checks, threats, and son) on the move he/she intuitively generated. Therefore I think intuition is only apart of the behavior of playing authomatically a move, and imo you should describe it more thoroughly. Moreover, an expert soon learns to avoid impulsivity, sits on his/her hands, and does some even minimal blunder checking: even if you’ll play your intuitive move you will do an at least little calculation. It seems to me intuition in this description may reside both in system 1 and 2. What in my too long comment resides in system 1 is authomatic and maybe impulsive. Thx for your great matherial!
Very interesting comment. Some things to think about.
I can't wait til my next games to develop my Sys1 and Sys 2 awareness. Also, i sent the link to my daughter who has just joined the senior executive ranks of the public service -to be aware of sys 1 and sys2 in negotiations (and when opponent is cynically trying to tax her sys 2 to gain advantage by exhausting her sooner).
System 2 "sweat work" is essential and unavoidable, but system 1 is also powerful. Babies learn something very complex, their first language, using system 1. It's the kids are sponges thing and losing that is probably a big part of why improvement is so tough for adults. If system 1 is indeed so powerful, it would be great to find a method to harness it properly for chess training. Adult improvers like me would be ecstatic.
Do you think deliberate practice is just another term for system 2 thinking? I’m a musician and I always find that noticing when I’m not exerting myself in practice is the thing that is difficult. In chess it’s nice because you get feedback (if you don’t exert yourself in a calculation exercise you won’t solve it, or in a classical game you probably won’t perform well). For a musician if my scales aren’t played mindfully the feedback is less obvious. In both cases I guess it could also be described as being detail oriented.
Just a random thought for the TH-cam comments. Another great video by Jesse.
good video my weakness is that i am using intuition in critical positions which point out that my ability to distinguish when i have a system 2 position in many positions
Hey dude, I exhausted in the mid of the video.😝 However, I will once again repeat the video to 'educate' my intuition. Thanks for educating us!
Great matter!
Thanks
An afterthought. I wonder how System 1 and System 2 relate to the way Stockfish 8 and Alpha Zero work, if at all. If they do, it's interesting that the strongest engine ever, Stockfish 15, uses a hybrid approach.
While I'm personally unqualified based on my chess level, I think a problem is you're saying that those small moves say from your first position matter less, whereas from watching Magnus stream even blitz with 14 plausible moves that keep him ahead slightly, he really feels the .1 eval difference e.g., after an inane a3 move played by himself mentions things like "now my opponent feels he provoked a weakness & I feel like I've gained some space." So, I certainly get the feeling being able to differentiate between subtleties do begin to matter for getting favorable positions.
I think what I'm getting at is that more type 2 thinking isn't necessarily the only way to improve your chess, but broadening your chess vocabulary so that your type 1 thinking is just so much superior to others is what really takes someone to the next level.
That sounds about right. Study is mostly about using system 2 to move knowledge to the part of your brain where system 1 lives.
After watching this….I think a subconscious, almost innate, understanding of this is why so many (of us) beginners get enamored with studying openings.
Without even knowing this deeper psychological consequences of system 2, we desire and yearn to master an opening with the misguided desire to carry as far into the game operating in system 1.
Decision fatigue is a real thing. As is fatigue from persist uncertainty. If you're 40/50/60+ moves into a game, that's a ton of decisions considered. And you can never be certain one of them hasn't left you hamstrung.
Never mind the invisible gorilla, I have seen people ignore change of person mid conversation. A stranger approached and asked for directions. Workmen carrying a screen walk between the inter locutors and the person is swapped out. Not even similar looking people. One changed from a heavy set man to a slight woman. First stranger is nowhere to be seen, the people didnt even notice or question it.
I believe that good chess players do not spend much time on calculating, they have a much more efficient way of thinking based on the position. They only calculate when it matters.
The gorilla experiment had ppl sitting on chairs in a circle and passing a basketball around. The observer's task was to count the number of passes. At some point, the man dressed in a gorilla costume jumped in front of the camera and was missed by most observers because they were so focused on tracking the basketball.
System 1: inserting beads
System 2: interpreting vibrations
well said haha
Too soon😂
Speaking as a married man, "System 2" thinking can be detrimental to domestic tranquility. 🙂
I used type 2 to listen to this
So you're saying use type 1 when talking to your girl on the phone during a tourny
The correct way and the incorrect way.
There is a third option: Some people can reach system zero in their thinking.
System 1 right brain system 2 left brain?
Probably not that simple, search for "left right brain divide myth".
o.
Is this book actually useful?...
Nxg4 would be better. I guess you shouldve expanded a bit more energy.
Im 1000 elo without training lol
I can't wait til my next games to develop my Sys1 and Sys 2 awareness. Also, i sent the link to my daughter who has just joined the senior executive ranks of the public service -to be aware of sys 1 and sys2 in negotiations (and when opponent is cynically trying to tax her sys 2 to gain advantage by exhausting her sooner).