Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Science of Chess: Reflex Epilepsy induced by Playing Chess

I do not think that the science of chess has to be the science of how to single handeldly improves one chess.
It is about many small brains helping each other.
Theories of learning for chess can help figure out pre-learned plans that might not go against the biology of thinking and learning. In that, there is not that much time to err when consecrating so much time.

But more basically, chess and the populatoin of humans playing chess can be an object of scientific curiosity beyond the mere self-improvement deep culture groove of one track minded ambition.

@Toadofsky: but what you say is still true. It might be more the objection tone, or the implied goal of any science of chess that proposing such truth AND objecting to the blog proposition, that I do not share, as it does seem to assume that it would have to be about the individual goal as the only interesting thing to pursue. Is that not part of the reasoning?

I do not think that the science of chess has to be the science of how to single handeldly improves one chess. It is about many small brains helping each other. Theories of learning for chess can help figure out pre-learned plans that might not go against the biology of thinking and learning. In that, there is not that much time to err when consecrating so much time. But more basically, chess and the populatoin of humans playing chess can be an object of scientific curiosity beyond the mere self-improvement deep culture groove of one track minded ambition. @Toadofsky: but what you say is still true. It might be more the objection tone, or the implied goal of any science of chess that proposing such truth AND objecting to the blog proposition, that I do not share, as it does seem to assume that it would have to be about the individual goal as the only interesting thing to pursue. Is that not part of the reasoning?

@dboing said in #11:

Is that not part of the reasoning?

Perhaps if people close to you were subjected to "mental health" medication that failed while also causing many negative side effects year after year, you too might be critical of arguments which confidently suggest, "We understand how the brain works and we can leverage that understanding to improve..." etc.

@dboing said in #11: > Is that not part of the reasoning? Perhaps if people close to you were subjected to "mental health" medication that failed while also causing many negative side effects year after year, you too might be critical of arguments which confidently suggest, "We understand how the brain works and we can leverage that understanding to improve..." etc.

@Toadofsky said in #12:

Perhaps if people close to you were subjected to "mental health" medication that failed while also causing many negative side effects year after year, you too might be critical of arguments which confidently suggest, "We understand how the brain works and we can leverage that understanding to improve..." etc.

I misunderstood the angle of approach. Thanks for sharing. The experimental method is indeed surrounded by painful experiences, not only for those impaired. And that might explain the students' priority of attention not being the cognitive science of it. I did not finish reading, but I would not think it was about that goal. It takes a bit of distance to "profit" from the accidental and painful (not just physical pain of course, just in case) experiences of others, but I do not think it was about selfish goal catering. Or, if so, it might be the lobby ambiance consequences that all blogs would need to cater to that.

I am glad you clarified, sorry you had to share, but appreciate you did.

@Toadofsky said in #12: > Perhaps if people close to you were subjected to "mental health" medication that failed while also causing many negative side effects year after year, you too might be critical of arguments which confidently suggest, "We understand how the brain works and we can leverage that understanding to improve..." etc. I misunderstood the angle of approach. Thanks for sharing. The experimental method is indeed surrounded by painful experiences, not only for those impaired. And that might explain the students' priority of attention not being the cognitive science of it. I did not finish reading, but I would not think it was about that goal. It takes a bit of distance to "profit" from the accidental and painful (not just physical pain of course, just in case) experiences of others, but I do not think it was about selfish goal catering. Or, if so, it might be the lobby ambiance consequences that all blogs would need to cater to that. I am glad you clarified, sorry you had to share, but appreciate you did.

@Toadofsky said in #12:

Perhaps if people close to you were subjected to "mental health" medication that failed while also causing many negative side effects year after year, you too might be critical of arguments which confidently suggest, "We understand how the brain works and we can leverage that understanding to improve..." etc.

I think this helps me understand more clearly what motivated your previous comments here. I would like to try and clarify my perspective now that I've seen this because the ending of your quoted text above is not what I am trying to present in any of these articles. That this is what you took away from this piece is a signal that I need to work on my writing to differentiate my main points from the "pie-in-the-sky" promises I presume you're attributing to me. That's useful for me - I write these because I want to get better at this kind of science communication.

I am a basic scientist who conducts cognitive research to try and understand mechanisms of visual recognition. When I teach, my focus tends towards emphasizing the use of behavioral observation and measures of neural function to try and draw conclusions about the mind. The word "try" is very important there. Whether we're talking about my own research or the exercises we work through in class, I try to emphasize that those conclusions are provisional and incomplete. They are attempts to summarize and synthesize what we observed, but they aren't the final word on how the brain and the mind work.

I started writing this series of articles because I wanted to learn more about cognitive research that used chess as a problem domain and I also wanted to try writing for a wider audience than usual. I'm learning as I go, but I'm trying to use these as a vehicle for explaining how cognitive researchers conduct their studies and describing what conclusions they have drawn from the studies I've selected. Along the way, I also offer my own take on their results when I have one - if I seem confident in those, I'm not always especially so. I may just have an idea I want to talk about. I have been trying hard to avoid the sort of "This one weird brain trick will make you better at chess..." pitch because I've seen many Lichess users express frustration with that kind of reductionism. I do think, however, that there are some things about the brain that we do understand pretty well. I think there are many others that we don't. I think the results of these studies offer new ideas that could guide further work, which I think is exciting.

So I'm going to take a hard look at my own writing here and elsewhere on Lichess to try and evaluate if it's gone astray in the manner you describe and how. I'm not trying to hoodwink anyone into thinking we have some complete model of the brain that I can explain in under 3000 words and I don't want it to seem that way. Apologies for the length of this reply. I care a great deal about communicating science, so these are important issues to me.

Thanks,
NDPatzer

@Toadofsky said in #12: > Perhaps if people close to you were subjected to "mental health" medication that failed while also causing many negative side effects year after year, you too might be critical of arguments which confidently suggest, "We understand how the brain works and we can leverage that understanding to improve..." etc. I think this helps me understand more clearly what motivated your previous comments here. I would like to try and clarify my perspective now that I've seen this because the ending of your quoted text above is not what I am trying to present in any of these articles. That this is what you took away from this piece is a signal that I need to work on my writing to differentiate my main points from the "pie-in-the-sky" promises I presume you're attributing to me. That's useful for me - I write these because I want to get better at this kind of science communication. I am a basic scientist who conducts cognitive research to try and understand mechanisms of visual recognition. When I teach, my focus tends towards emphasizing the use of behavioral observation and measures of neural function to try and draw conclusions about the mind. The word "try" is very important there. Whether we're talking about my own research or the exercises we work through in class, I try to emphasize that those conclusions are provisional and incomplete. They are attempts to summarize and synthesize what we observed, but they aren't the final word on how the brain and the mind work. I started writing this series of articles because I wanted to learn more about cognitive research that used chess as a problem domain and I also wanted to try writing for a wider audience than usual. I'm learning as I go, but I'm trying to use these as a vehicle for explaining how cognitive researchers conduct their studies and describing what conclusions they have drawn from the studies I've selected. Along the way, I also offer my own take on their results when I have one - if I seem confident in those, I'm not always especially so. I may just have an idea I want to talk about. I have been trying hard to avoid the sort of "This one weird brain trick will make you better at chess..." pitch because I've seen many Lichess users express frustration with that kind of reductionism. I do think, however, that there are some things about the brain that we do understand pretty well. I think there are many others that we don't. I think the results of these studies offer new ideas that could guide further work, which I think is exciting. So I'm going to take a hard look at my own writing here and elsewhere on Lichess to try and evaluate if it's gone astray in the manner you describe and how. I'm not trying to hoodwink anyone into thinking we have some complete model of the brain that I can explain in under 3000 words and I don't want it to seem that way. Apologies for the length of this reply. I care a great deal about communicating science, so these are important issues to me. Thanks, NDPatzer

Thanks... yes, psychology is a complex, emergent field; and I see that many community blog authors do err as you describe. I can see that effort went into this and previous articles to avoid explicitly making dubious statements.

My position is somewhat ironic because as a chess expert and a chess engine developer, I have a wealth of competitive chess domain knowledge and I realize that there are many kernels of wisdom the average player is unaware of. I find your blog much more interesting than other blogs because it hints at practical chess strategy, and yet I'm likely to be the first to comment when a post starts to approach reductionism.

Research is difficult, applying research findings in practice may be difficult, and conveying how best to apply research findings may also be difficult! I guess I'm just trying to clarify for myself and others where our knowledge ends and where our reasonable hypotheses begin.

Thanks... yes, psychology is a complex, emergent field; and I see that many community blog authors do err as you describe. I can see that effort went into this and previous articles to avoid explicitly making dubious statements. My position is somewhat ironic because as a chess expert and a chess engine developer, I have a wealth of competitive chess domain knowledge and I realize that there are many kernels of wisdom the average player is unaware of. I find your blog much more interesting than other blogs because it hints at practical chess strategy, and yet I'm likely to be the first to comment when a post starts to approach reductionism. Research is difficult, applying research findings in practice may be difficult, and conveying how best to apply research findings may also be difficult! I guess I'm just trying to clarify for myself and others where our knowledge ends and where our reasonable hypotheses begin.

How's the research situation regarding evaluation of different anti-convulsants' effects on chess-playing ability?

How's the research situation regarding evaluation of different anti-convulsants' effects on chess-playing ability?

@BarakSaltz said in #16:

How's the research situation regarding evaluation of different anti-convulsants' effects on chess-playing ability?

I'm afraid I don't know much about that. In general, I have far less experience with anything related to medication and neurochemistry.

@BarakSaltz said in #16: > How's the research situation regarding evaluation of different anti-convulsants' effects on chess-playing ability? I'm afraid I don't know much about that. In general, I have far less experience with anything related to medication and neurochemistry.