Author
|
Topic: Falsifying chess moves (Read 961 times) |
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.06
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
  
|
 |
Falsifying chess moves
« on: 2004-08-09 20:55:25 » |
 |
Science secret of grand masters revealed
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040802/full/040802-19.html
Chess experts gain the edge over opponents by falsifying their own ideas
For all you budding Kasparovs out there, a team of cognitive scientists has worked out how to think like a chess grand master. As those attending this week's Cognitive Science Society meeting in Chicago, Illinois, were told, the secret is to try to knock down your pet theory rather than finding ways to support it - exactly as scientists are supposed to do.
<snip>
Each player had to speak their thoughts aloud as they decided what move to make. Cowley scored the quality of the move sequences by comparing them with Fritz 8, one of the most powerful chess computer programs available.
She found that novices were more likely to convince themselves that bad moves would work out in their favour, because they focused more on the countermoves that would benefit their strategy while ignoring those that led to the downfall of their cherished hypotheses.
Conversely, masters tended to correctly predict when the eventual outcome of a move would weaken their position. "Grand masters think about what their opponents will do much more," says Byrne. "They tend to falsify their own hypotheses."
"We probably all intuitively know this is true," says Orr. "But it's never a bad thing to prove it like this."
Strategic thinking
The philosopher Karl Popper called this process of hypothesis testing 'falsification', and thought that it was the best way to describe how science constantly questions and refines itself. It is often held up as the principle that separates scientific and non-scientific thinking, and the best way to test a hypothesis.
But cognitive research has shown that, in reality, many people find falsification difficult. Until the latest study, scientists were the only group of experts that had been shown to use falsification. And sociological studies of scientists in action have revealed that even they spend a great deal of their time searching for results that would bolster their theories1. Some philosophers of science have suggested that since there is so much rivalry within science, individuals often rely on their peers to falsify their theories for them.
Byrne speculates that the behaviour may actually be widespread, but that it could be limited to those who are expert in their field. She thinks the ability to falsify is somehow linked to the vast database of knowledge that experts such as grand masters - or scientists - accumulate. "People who know their area are more likely to look for ways that things can go wrong for them," she says.
<snip>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Falsifying chess moves
« Reply #1 on: 2004-08-14 05:19:00 » |
|
rhinoceros
Sent: 10 August 2004 02:55
Science secret of grand masters revealed
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040802/full/040802-19.html
Chess experts gain the edge over opponents by falsifying their own ideas
[Blunderov] Mostly true; but not to forget that chess is a sport and from
time to time a shrewd calculation of psychological probability will inform a
grandmaster's choice of move.
In particular Emmanuel Lasker (a personal hero of this writer) would
sometimes choose a move on this basis. It was his contention that chess is a
struggle between two human minds and not a science.
Mikhail Tal, the magician from Riga, also did also not always play
completely soundly. Many of his most astonishing combinations have later
been found to have 'falsifications' - chess players call these 'busts' - but
the point is that they were very hard to find over the board in a limited
time.
For us less gifted mortals though, the best advice is to never make a plan
that depends upon your opponent making an inferior move. This works quite
well in life too.
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.06
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
RE: virus: Falsifying chess moves
« Reply #2 on: 2004-08-15 20:26:24 » |
|
[rhinoceros]
Science secret of grand masters revealed
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040802/full/040802-19.html
Chess experts gain the edge over opponents by falsifying their own ideas
[Blunderov]
Mostly true; but not to forget that chess is a sport and from time to time a shrewd calculation of psychological probability will inform a grandmaster's choice of move.
[rhinoceros]
True! Many chess players routinely assign a "probability" to their opponents replies. As much as playing "objective chess" has been praised, if your opponent is known to avoid all tactical complications, you can afford to play a "leaky" move knowing that your opponent is unlikely to exploit it. The reverse is true as well...
[Blunderov]
In particular Emmanuel Lasker (a personal hero of this writer) would sometimes choose a move on this basis. It was his contention that chess is a struggle between two human minds and not a science.
[rhinoceros]
Haha! Historians of chess are still puzzled with how Lasker kept his crown for 40 years having played so many "bad" moves (and his opponents even worse). But they were not there, sitting accross Lasker...
I remember his game against Capablanca, St Petersburg 1914. He was old, he had already lost his crown to Capablanca, he had to win that game (a draw would not be enough), and the simple and controlled Capablanca only needed a draw and he had not lost a single game for years. Everyone was expecting a fierce battle.
And what did Lasker do? He played a simple and peaceful line (Ruy Lopez, exchange variation) with a quick exchange of Queens because (as he explained later) the correct plan for Capablanca in that position was to play energetically with the pair of Bishops -- not statically. And he won!
By the way, I think the use of Popper's falsifiability in the Nature article was just "name dropping" in this case. It was rather about good old falsification -- not falsifiability. A better "name dropping" would be a reference to "minimaxing", an algorithm where you select the "best of the worst" option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
