> Patterns are only worth so much if they aren't part of a plan
Pattern recognition needs to migrate/extend into pattern imagination (what is planning?).
or recognition in fore-sighting for juicy targets further ahead within calculation breadth ("horizon"), and beyond for longer term plans (working hypotheses imagined the current position and within individual partial tree "horizon" from there). Not just one plan, given the accepted fog. One has to realize we will always have fog. There is no human calculation machine (there isn't even a non-human one yet....).
Looking ahead for plans through turn by turn and beyond. That is what the coaches and chess theory are trying to instill I would say. I think that is might not be explicit enough though the part about using own imagination early in one's chess life.
I am sorry to say that I want to learn more about patterns from you, or the science you can share, or the research being done in the science you can share, but for their psychology, how do they exist, what is the relation to the board patterns (is it instantaneously transmitted as the teaching or experience set would intend, how much autonomous experience should be had besides the guided helping hand from other people live or read).
I think you might have an impatient bunch talking to your ear. Sigh!
On a good note, thank you very much for this blog. I was jumping up and down to hear more about a chess player with such access to cognitive science modern methods.... (I appreciate all the previous blogs in this series as well)
Pattern recognition needs to migrate/extend into pattern imagination (what is planning?).
or recognition in fore-sighting for juicy targets further ahead within calculation breadth ("horizon"), and beyond for longer term plans (working hypotheses imagined the current position and within individual partial tree "horizon" from there). Not just one plan, given the accepted fog. One has to realize we will always have fog. There is no human calculation machine (there isn't even a non-human one yet....).
Looking ahead for plans through turn by turn and beyond. That is what the coaches and chess theory are trying to instill I would say. I think that is might not be explicit enough though the part about using own imagination early in one's chess life.
I am sorry to say that I want to learn more about patterns from you, or the science you can share, or the research being done in the science you can share, but for their psychology, how do they exist, what is the relation to the board patterns (is it instantaneously transmitted as the teaching or experience set would intend, how much autonomous experience should be had besides the guided helping hand from other people live or read).
I think you might have an impatient bunch talking to your ear. Sigh!
On a good note, thank you very much for this blog. I was jumping up and down to hear more about a chess player with such access to cognitive science modern methods.... (I appreciate all the previous blogs in this series as well)
привет
Thank you so much for explaining the instruments at the basis of what is to come. I am having a blast. I read by chunks so it settles better (and because I can't do it otherwise... when this is interesting that my imagination gets humming).
Indeed it was new to me that the corneal reflection was an instrument input signal. I assume it does not have to be in the visible spectrum, but that we need to see it in an explanation. Or that the intensity from some fixed environment of light sources could be normal, and the instrument be calibrated upon that setting for a glare upon our eyes, although it could have its own low intensity source of light if needed. i.e. no clue but asking if that is a problem.
edit: post below answer: yes I went to look at Purkinje images wiki you out linked. Part of my mumblings above were assuming a simple eye. But the layers of various optical properties offer their own signals (optics of interfaces)
Indeed it was new to me that the corneal reflection was an instrument input signal. I assume it does not have to be in the visible spectrum, but that we need to see it in an explanation. Or that the intensity from some fixed environment of light sources could be normal, and the instrument be calibrated upon that setting for a glare upon our eyes, although it could have its own low intensity source of light if needed. i.e. no clue but asking if that is a problem.
edit: post below answer: yes I went to look at Purkinje images wiki you out linked. Part of my mumblings above were assuming a simple eye. But the layers of various optical properties offer their own signals (optics of interfaces)
@dboing said in #4:
> Thank you so much for explaining the instruments at the basis of what is to come. I am having a blast. I read by chunks so it settles better (and because I can't do it otherwise... when this is interesting that my imagination gets humming).
>
> Indeed it was new to me that the corneal reflection was an instrument input signal. I assume it does not have to be in the visible spectrum, but that we need to see it in an explanation. Or that the intensity from some fixed environment of light sources could be normal, and the instrument be calibrated upon that setting for a glare upon our eyes, although it could have its own low intensity source of light if needed. i.e. no clue but asking if that is a problem.
Many eyetrackers include an illuminator that shines light on the eye to produce a controlled corneal reflection. This can be in the infrared or visible range, and controlling for other sources of Purkinje images on the eye is indeed important.
> Thank you so much for explaining the instruments at the basis of what is to come. I am having a blast. I read by chunks so it settles better (and because I can't do it otherwise... when this is interesting that my imagination gets humming).
>
> Indeed it was new to me that the corneal reflection was an instrument input signal. I assume it does not have to be in the visible spectrum, but that we need to see it in an explanation. Or that the intensity from some fixed environment of light sources could be normal, and the instrument be calibrated upon that setting for a glare upon our eyes, although it could have its own low intensity source of light if needed. i.e. no clue but asking if that is a problem.
Many eyetrackers include an illuminator that shines light on the eye to produce a controlled corneal reflection. This can be in the infrared or visible range, and controlling for other sources of Purkinje images on the eye is indeed important.
Not to sound too pessimistic but this might all be moot, cause gazing with strong players is just bonus. At a glance or two they can remember the whole position and if they wished, they could just close their eyes and "solve" it.
Also, someone could stop and look away and to the left for example. To quote some random quick google:
>Looking to the left:
>
>Glancing to the left suggests that you are remembering facts or having visual thoughts. This is often a good way to check >whether someone is telling you the truth. It can also mean that someone is having a conversation with themself internally or is >rehearsing their next line.
Also, someone could stop and look away and to the left for example. To quote some random quick google:
>Looking to the left:
>
>Glancing to the left suggests that you are remembering facts or having visual thoughts. This is often a good way to check >whether someone is telling you the truth. It can also mean that someone is having a conversation with themself internally or is >rehearsing their next line.
@icytease said in #6:
> Not to sound too pessimistic but this might all be moot, cause gazing with strong players is just bonus. At a glance or two they can remember the whole position and if they wished, they could just close their eyes and "solve" it.
>
> Also, someone could stop and look away and to the left for example. To quote some random quick google:
Stay tuned for the second installment of this article - we'll be looking at exactly the capability you're talking about: How much of the board can a strong player pay attention to at once? As a quick spoiler, it turns out that it isn't the entire board at one glance and I'll talk about how what techniques researchers use to measure players' visual span.
I'm also sorry to say that there aren't strong links between glancing in one direction or the other and truth-telling, creativity or other processes. This article from the Smithsonian magazine has some nice links to primary research about this one - it's a popular idea, but sadly hasn't held up in published work. www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-busted-looking-left-or-right-doesnt-indicate-if-youre-lying-1922058/
> Not to sound too pessimistic but this might all be moot, cause gazing with strong players is just bonus. At a glance or two they can remember the whole position and if they wished, they could just close their eyes and "solve" it.
>
> Also, someone could stop and look away and to the left for example. To quote some random quick google:
Stay tuned for the second installment of this article - we'll be looking at exactly the capability you're talking about: How much of the board can a strong player pay attention to at once? As a quick spoiler, it turns out that it isn't the entire board at one glance and I'll talk about how what techniques researchers use to measure players' visual span.
I'm also sorry to say that there aren't strong links between glancing in one direction or the other and truth-telling, creativity or other processes. This article from the Smithsonian magazine has some nice links to primary research about this one - it's a popular idea, but sadly hasn't held up in published work. www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-busted-looking-left-or-right-doesnt-indicate-if-youre-lying-1922058/
@icytease said in #6:
> Not to sound too pessimistic but this might all be moot, cause gazing with strong players is just bonus. At a glance or two they can remember the whole position and if they wished, they could just close their eyes and "solve" it.
>
> Also, someone could stop and look away and to the left for example. To quote some random quick google:
I play friendly unrated OTB games, against random people, sometimes stronger than me. I often use my eyes to destabilize: sometimes I stare at my opponent for a long time (the fake hypnosis thing), or I close one eye for a long time while examining the position (questions from the opponent: what do I do, am I afraid of having a bad position ? Do I make fun of him ? Do I have excess confidence ?). The fun fact is that it's working !
> Not to sound too pessimistic but this might all be moot, cause gazing with strong players is just bonus. At a glance or two they can remember the whole position and if they wished, they could just close their eyes and "solve" it.
>
> Also, someone could stop and look away and to the left for example. To quote some random quick google:
I play friendly unrated OTB games, against random people, sometimes stronger than me. I often use my eyes to destabilize: sometimes I stare at my opponent for a long time (the fake hypnosis thing), or I close one eye for a long time while examining the position (questions from the opponent: what do I do, am I afraid of having a bad position ? Do I make fun of him ? Do I have excess confidence ?). The fun fact is that it's working !
<Comment deleted by user>
<Comment deleted by user>