Science of Chess - Achtung! Einstellung!

> there is not enough time to corral my pieces into anything resembling a coordinated attack on the Black King

I like the "corral", but taken out of context (and my ways of reading amount to that...) it could mean bullet human time running out, or board tempo currency, that corralling one sided might have other player a say in the plan.

I guess you meant calculating time. now that I am asking and can read externally my own question.... :)

In second example, why give up so early, the disappointment of the plan gone flat?

Sure, "look the same" is the whole problem of generalization skill, gone overfitting. I.e. not having been trained with enough contrsasting examples. I find the implicit theory of learning in chess to be based too much on imitation, and not enough on generalization, which would have one find that example should always come with counter examples, and not be relegated to mere "exceptionality".

Learning where the boundaries are between the patterns (or their cluster in appropriately reorganized set of similar enough position for the trigger pattern to make the dynamic patterns be "desirable" as method to ultimate goal).

not any pixel (with diffent categoris of pixels) on 8x8 grid) metric is going to be useful metric of static kind in chess and its local dynamics ruleset.

but it might touch the E thing. in not being aware of context sufficient distance, from familiary territory.

So, Is the E. effect, actually the same thing as wrong generalization of a dyanmics pattern, given an existing similarity, partial, between 2 contexts.

Would not the question, then become, of what is similar in the 2 boards.
what it the pattern actually. the trigger one.

not done reading. as usual, I am slow. and react a lot to each and every sentence that is stimulating. and this is. not yet read the other comments either.. but will.

Edit: I meant over-generalizing (easier angle to the same thing, but overfitting would need more words to make sense).

> zoom out.
yes! Let's breathe. I think chess learning itself might be the same kind of meta problem solving; not just the one game position problem solving, but the whole scope of many game, the problem of "strategy" of learning, which is, most of the time, not really part of the thinking, grabbing anything that might be shiny enough to promise better ratings, all hard work being on each and every one single game, and those "recipes".

But isolating and zoom-ing out, can be needed as chess does have a finite logical ruleset, in that sense it ought to be at least as pursuable as object of science as cognition might be. The fun part is that cognition is also involved in each and every game or game fragment (segment?). So, some sort of scientific self-similarity at scale. scuze the poetry (kind of) ...

> Nope. Not at all, and for the sake of completeness you can work through my sorry demise in this game too to see the problems I failed to think through carefully in the moment. Spoiler alert: Black has more resources than I took seriously.

I like the tone with respect to own games, it creates another arc, so we enjoy the reading more. At least here, it fits to put oneself into the picture, from data point to general or more theoretic treatment presentation objective (effectively zooming out of self).

in that vein:
I know: very detailed feedback, all over the place. I wish I could have a bigger working memory. (or less interference in that black box). Also, here, if I could reorder, to make my disordered chunks reading invisible later. (without adding more ramblings, ... ahh, but no, stuck with this reality).

@hicetnunc said in #5:
> So all in all, my understanding is that - yes, we will use processes which we have found to work in the past and it may indeed make it more difficult to discover new ideas, but it doesn't mean we can't be aware that different tasks require different kind of solutions, especially in chess.

The problem is one of self-awareness of own familiarity (and maybe bullet not allowing such depth of perception, but not sure). I think this is mathematically illustrated in reinforcement learning, deep or not (usually using deep for non-tic-tac-toe problems), I mean the machine learning implement of the behavioral psychology theory of learning (long ago, and not that obsolete, if it is thought so). They call this the dilemna of exploration versus exploitation (of what was explored).

This goes with the more expert you are, the less exploration you do, as you "know" more what works, but then the error margin, in big chess (that is hard to really assume being known all over, so one has to compromise at some point, and ratings will reinforce, within one lifetime and enough people playing in the same neighborhood of the expert pool expectations, soemthing like that, it may not be always as conservative over time, in human, thanks for our diversity of trajectories, accident happens, i.e. progress).

the assumption that there is not time to explore outside a certain well hard worked bias, that there are no real surprises around the corner, that come with success and expertise, is being reinforced.. did not start this sentence appropriately. help! but elements are here.

@torscani, can you put the link for the paper that you shared with me. It does talk about this, I did not read, or know the method of inverstigation, but I remember from abstract having touched that question. I wish I could think the above, and then write it concisely, but then I would not be able to develop as well. I need that external memory support so my working memory can juggle above it.. (or around it, not hierarchy needed).

Is it possible that pattern recognition and problem-solving dichotomy be a trap in concept chunks, if taken as atomic concepts themselves and in opposition.

I kind of find it frozen in your presentation. I do not think there has to be an opposition between problem solving, which for chess you seem to assimilate to calculation, and pattern recognition. The 2 might be dialoguing and seamlessly making think we are only calculating while we are also using pattern recognition.

Sure, one can use a forced dichotomy for a while until it fails to see the in-between aspect that might need to be considered explicitly for a better understanding of expanded data set, including other theories of subjective origin (because there is a lot of that, as evidence, and I am not saying it can't be made objective, but when it comes to cognition, we are cognate ourselves).

It seems to me that imagination is not included, and that might be where I find the calculator interpretation of problem solving to be unsatisfying. Perhaps it comes from the object of science to be a unitary game performance and does not include off performance study, which is about many games, and all sorts of chess experience, where the nature of the problem solving is not as limited as within one game performance, with timer.

I am thinking of the visual search tasks, from a paper, where it was important to have external memory to help in a problem-solving task that was bigger than one head could contain without external support. That the process was a complex process that involved frequent visual searches back to offload information and back to problem at hand. I suspect imagination was being involved and tested back and forth through a potential inductive process (should be familiar to the scientific process).

See, I just used my subjectivity to propose a mechanism (I might be rephrasing something I read or interpreted as well, I don't pretend to reinvent any wheel, I just try my best to understand what comes to my senses).

The point is, I have had my share of difficult problem solving in my past professional training. And it would not fit in live memory, not just my limited one, but I would say anyone's. External memory required. Why in mathematics (or some partition subset of it) there is a need for visual support, at least in linguistics (enough for some) but also a visual projection on 2D plane of pieces of paper. And discovery is not calculation. Calculation is there to filter imagination into shareable discovery. (or in chess, letting the board and opponent test the plan, or the game continuation continuously test the plans imagined and continuously updated as the game flows (continuous approximation of turn-by-turn chess time, I guess I should have said contiguously).

I have spoken. lol.

I heard about the einstellung effect a year or so ago and keep a reminder on my phone so I don't forget there are solutions to problems that I'm completely unaware of!

concise: relation with Occam's razor "principle"? E. effect. could it not be about assuming that the known is all there is, as world of pre-condition candidates for woodpeckered solutions learned?

i was too disappointed that you could just pour water in any container, and you didnt start with the 8 unit container full, to care about the rest of the article i am afraid.

from the full 8 unit you fill the 5, from that you fill the 3. you empty the 3 in the 8 and you have 6 units in there now. in the 5 there are 2 left, you pour them into the 3. you fill the 5 with the (6) units in the 8 unit container and you fill up the remainin 1 unit in the 3. what you have left in the 5 unit container are 4 units of water.
and then you can always play Bxh7 double exclam.