Looking for 1600–2200 players for a 12-position chess decision-making test

After analysing the results, I’ll send participants a free preliminary profile highlighting possible strengths and recurring decision-making blind spots.

Hi! I just did the test, but how do you send the results if you keep it anonymous? also I felt like I considered more than three moves for some and for others I had no idea what to do so I did so...

By anonymous I mean that the test doesn’t require your real name, email or account details.
If you’d like to receive your preliminary profile, just DM me the participant code/alias you entered in the test. If you left it blank, you can send me the session ID from the JSON instead. Otherwise your result will simply stay anonymous and be used only in the aggregated analysis.
And thanks for the feedback about the candidate moves. The limit of three is intentional: we want the three moves you would seriously calculate, not every move that crossed your mind. If in some positions you genuinely had no idea and chose something almost at random, that’s useful information too — especially together with the confidence rating.
I’ll make the instructions clearer on that point. Thanks for taking the test!

@Anon1mouse said [^](/forum/redirect/post/ndEwrXsg) > > After analysing the results, I’ll send participants a free preliminary profile highlighting possible strengths and recurring decision-making blind spots. > > Hi! I just did the test, but how do you send the results if you keep it anonymous? also I felt like I considered more than three moves for some and for others I had no idea what to do so I did so... By anonymous I mean that the test doesn’t require your real name, email or account details. If you’d like to receive your preliminary profile, just DM me the participant code/alias you entered in the test. If you left it blank, you can send me the session ID from the JSON instead. Otherwise your result will simply stay anonymous and be used only in the aggregated analysis. And thanks for the feedback about the candidate moves. The limit of three is intentional: we want the three moves you would seriously calculate, not every move that crossed your mind. If in some positions you genuinely had no idea and chose something almost at random, that’s useful information too — especially together with the confidence rating. I’ll make the instructions clearer on that point. Thanks for taking the test!

LuxTux

@woodfantasy said ^

Stockfish giving crazy numbers without context tilts everyone lol. There's an iOS app called 'ChessMinds · Chess Coach' on the App Store that explains turning points and threats in plain words instead of endless variations.

Yeah, agreed, raw engine numbers without context can be pretty useless.
That’s actually something we’re trying to avoid: the test doesn’t show engine evaluations or variations while you’re solving. The main focus is on which candidate moves you generate and why you end up choosing one over the others, then later explaining the missed idea in human terms.
I’ll check that app out though, thanks for the reference.

@woodfantasy said [^](/forum/redirect/post/zs9qKKET) > Stockfish giving crazy numbers without context tilts everyone lol. There's an iOS app called 'ChessMinds · Chess Coach' on the App Store that explains turning points and threats in plain words instead of endless variations. Yeah, agreed, raw engine numbers without context can be pretty useless. That’s actually something we’re trying to avoid: the test doesn’t show engine evaluations or variations while you’re solving. The main focus is on which candidate moves you generate and why you end up choosing one over the others, then later explaining the missed idea in human terms. I’ll check that app out though, thanks for the reference.

Dark_Emporer66

I’m sorry I would’ve loved doing it but every time I colic on start nothing happens

LuxTux

@Dark_Emporer66 said ^

I’m sorry I would’ve loved doing it but every time I colic on start nothing happens

Hi! Thanks for letting me know — and sorry about that.
The issue should be fixed now, so if you’re still willing to take part, could you please try again here:
https://enginemind-alpha.netlify.app/
When it asks for a participant code, please enter:
DE66
That will let me match your submission to you later so I can send you the individual feedback.
If Start still doesn’t work, let me know what device/browser you’re using and I’ll check it. Thanks again!

@Dark_Emporer66 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/2ejFZfiC) > I’m sorry I would’ve loved doing it but every time I colic on start nothing happens Hi! Thanks for letting me know — and sorry about that. The issue should be fixed now, so if you’re still willing to take part, could you please try again here: https://enginemind-alpha.netlify.app/ When it asks for a participant code, please enter: DE66 That will let me match your submission to you later so I can send you the individual feedback. If Start still doesn’t work, let me know what device/browser you’re using and I’ll check it. Thanks again!

LuxTux

the participant code/alias you entered, if any;
the rating/platform/time control you entered;
roughly when you completed the test;
optionally, one or two moves/positions you remember answering.
If you downloaded the backup JSON after completing the test, even better: the session ID from that file identifies your submission exactly.
I’ll verify the details privately before linking your result to the follow-up. Please don’t post these details publicly.
If you prefer not to do the follow-up, you can still contact me and I’ll send the feedback from your first test.

Quick update: I’ve finished the first analysis and I’m now sending the short blind follow-up before the individual feedback. Some completed submissions were anonymous or used an alias that I can’t match to a Lichess account, so I’m unable to contact those participants directly. If you completed the test and haven’t received a message from me, please send me a private message. To make sure I match you to the correct anonymous submission, please include as much as you remember of: - the participant code/alias you entered, if any; - the rating/platform/time control you entered; - roughly when you completed the test; - optionally, one or two moves/positions you remember answering. If you downloaded the backup JSON after completing the test, even better: the session ID from that file identifies your submission exactly. I’ll verify the details privately before linking your result to the follow-up. Please don’t post these details publicly. If you prefer not to do the follow-up, you can still contact me and I’ll send the feedback from your first test.

LuxTux

Small update on the EngineMind experiment.

A first group of players has now completed both the original assessment and the blind follow-up with completely new positions.

The results are already showing something interesting: two players can make the same inaccurate final move for very different reasons.

For example, in some cases a strong move never enters the candidate set at all. In others, the player actually finds the strong move during analysis but later rejects it. We are also seeing cases where deeper search improves the initial intuition, and others where practical preferences influence the final choice.

This is exactly what I’m trying to investigate: not simply whether a move is right or wrong, but where the decision process changes.

I’d now like to expand the sample.

I’m mainly looking for players roughly in the 1700–2300 online range, although slightly outside that range is also fine.

The first assessment is 12 positions, with no engine feedback during the test. If you leave a contact at the end, I can later invite you to the blind follow-up and send you your individual preliminary decision profile once both parts are complete.

If you’d like to participate:

https://enginemind-alpha.netlify.app/?ref=lichess_forum_update

Please don’t post solutions or discuss the test positions publicly, as that would contaminate the blind assessment for future participants.

Thanks again to everyone who has already helped — the explanations players have given after the follow-up have been particularly useful.

Small update on the EngineMind experiment. A first group of players has now completed both the original assessment and the blind follow-up with completely new positions. The results are already showing something interesting: **two players can make the same inaccurate final move for very different reasons.** For example, in some cases a strong move never enters the candidate set at all. In others, the player actually finds the strong move during analysis but later rejects it. We are also seeing cases where deeper search improves the initial intuition, and others where practical preferences influence the final choice. This is exactly what I’m trying to investigate: not simply whether a move is right or wrong, but where the decision process changes. I’d now like to expand the sample. I’m mainly looking for players roughly in the 1700–2300 online range, although slightly outside that range is also fine. The first assessment is 12 positions, with no engine feedback during the test. **If you leave a contact at the end, I can later invite you to the blind follow-up and send you your individual preliminary decision profile once both parts are complete.** If you’d like to participate: https://enginemind-alpha.netlify.app/?ref=lichess_forum_update Please don’t post solutions or discuss the test positions publicly, as that would contaminate the blind assessment for future participants. Thanks again to everyone who has already helped — the explanations players have given after the follow-up have been particularly useful.