PDA

View Full Version : a theory of cognitive chess psychology



qpawn
04-08-2006, 05:34 PM
For the past three months I have been playing correspondence chess. I am finding it far more enjoyable than OTB chess; I can play far more creatively with much sharper tactics.

But I have noticed that my OTB chess on the internet has got worse. I miss mates in one and simple thoughts. To some extent this may be an issue of motivation: I value my play on in an envelope far more than on a net site. But I am going to propose a theory that may be the main reason for my OTB chess going down the tubes.

I theorise that my correspondence chess has in fact made my OTB chess worse by influencing my style of analysis. In correspondence chess the emphasis is on broad ideas and patterns: where is that diagonal going to lead to later on if I plonk my bishop there? While short-term tactics still matter they are a secondary concern due to the facility of moving pieces about being available. Hence I have deveoped my "general idea" and "long-run" thinking while paying less attention to short term factors.

Alekhine was a good correspondence chess player before he rose to the heights of OTB chess. I do not know if he played both modes at the same time. I don't know if it is a permanent affliction. But for the moment I can't play OTB chess to save my skin: my abilities in the two modes have diverged. I would say that I am 1000 ELO points better in CC than in OTB chess. The quality of ideas that I deal with in correspondence chess is infinitely better than the garbage that I produce in OTB chess. When I get those long-run positional ideas going, combined with imaginative tactics assisted by disciplined longhand analysis, I can do just about anything.

Just don't ask me to play chess over the board :eek:

Desmond
04-08-2006, 06:52 PM
Good for you, I'm glad you found something you like. :clap:

qpawn
04-08-2006, 10:11 PM
You should see my analysis in correspondence chess :D

You thought that zargon was weighed down with info in thta home loan advert...you would gasp at the megabytes of my variations :evil:

MichaelBaron
04-08-2006, 11:54 PM
It is hard to compare correspondence and OTB analysis these days given the extensive use of computers. As for the genuine correspondence players who never use computers, rating difference between computers and OTB is never greater than 300 points or so

all the top correspondence players are at least national masters in OTB

firegoat7
05-08-2006, 12:09 PM
But I have noticed that my OTB chess on the internet has got worse. I miss mates in one and simple thoughts. To some extent this may be an issue of motivation: I value my play on in an envelope far more than on a net site. But I am going to propose a theory that may be the main reason for my OTB chess going down the tubes.



Congratulations on your new chess related pursuit, qpawn. I believe that correspondence chess can only be of immense benefit to your over the board play. Maybe you might want to balance it with 15-20 minutes of 1 0 on the internet.

I have also noticed cognitive problems with different forms of the game. For a brief period of my life I played chess about 8 hours a day online. I noticed however that when I went to the chessclub on a Saturday to play in the weekly allegro tournament that I had trouble visualising the board. The 3d scope of the pieces was actually disturbing my sight, as if somehow, I was on drugs. It would generally take me about an hour to get used to 3d pieces as oppossed to the 2d board on the computer. It was quite wierd.

cheers Fg7

P.S You ought to repost your interesting story at other chess BB's. Arosar's blog can point the way.

qpawn
05-08-2006, 01:05 PM
It is hard to compare correspondence and OTB analysis these days given the extensive use of computers. As for the genuine correspondence players who never use computers, rating difference between computers and OTB is never greater than 300 points or so

all the top correspondence players are at least national masters in OTB

**********

First of all, I never use a computer in any CC. Not only is it cheating but I am firmly of the belief that it is utterly pointless: no computer could produce "broad design" as in Capablanca's positional games or in the famous masterpiece Sclechter vs John. Even in tactics I would rather trust my analysis than that of any computer. For instance I am in a game at teh moment that I will put on this site when I have finished; I have no doubt whatsoever that the tatics involved will be too much for any engine set to any ply. There is no engine in the world that will cope with its horizon effect limitations.

I disagree with Michael Baron that OTB acumen is needed to be a top correspondence player. WhilE Purdy, Zagorowsky etc clearly were strong players OTB , what about Tim Runting? Or Silva, winner of the oz champs for cc, who said in the quarterly that he could not play OTB chess without blundering?

Firegoat's comment that there is a change form 2-d to 3-d when playing at a board or on a screen is interesting and worthy of some psychological study. I have thought about it before and I think that I find the screen easier in 2-d . But then again maybe I have got used to it; I found it very hard to play on a creen at first. Now I even use a screen for my correspondence games with chessbase light.

Desmond
05-08-2006, 01:30 PM
I have no doubt whatsoever that the tatics involved will be too much for any engine set to any ply. There is no engine in the world that will cope with its horizon effect limitations.Wanna bet?

qpawn
05-08-2006, 03:18 PM
Well, being mathematically trained and hence aware that very few things have a proability of 1 [certainty] I don't tend to bet.

But I am confident in this case that no engine will cope with this position. In fact, I will laugh when I rybka, fruit or any other silicon monster go from plus 3 to minus 3 and back again :D

Aaron Guthrie
05-08-2006, 06:23 PM
I thought since you guys are talking about ratings, why not use actual ratings for comparison.

http://www.iccf.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=43

Click on rating search, change federation to Australia, change order to rating. About 30 players below 1900, and about 40 above 2300.

Garvinator
05-08-2006, 06:46 PM
But I am confident in this case that no engine will cope with this position. In fact, I will laugh when I rybka, fruit or any other silicon monster go from plus 3 to minus 3 and back again :D
I would be willing to play two correspondance games against you, with me using rybka which you laugh at. One as white, one as black.

I will even give you draw odds, meaning if you draw even one of the games, you win the match. Means you only need to score 0.5 out of 2.

What do you think of this challenge?

AlexDavies
06-08-2006, 07:00 AM
I disagree with Michael Baron that OTB acumen is needed to be a top correspondence player. WhilE Purdy, Zagorowsky etc clearly were strong players OTB , what about Tim Runting? Or Silva, winner of the oz champs for cc, who said in the quarterly that he could not play OTB chess without blundering?

If I recall correctly, Tim Runting was clearly the strongest chess player at Bendigo Chess Club in about 1980. So he was probably as good as myself, Bas van Riel, or Nigel Barrow. If he was much stronger, I don't think he would bother coming to the club. I think he was only in Bendigo for a short time, so he must have played OTB somewhere else before that.

Cheers,
FM Alexander Davies

P.S. After writing the above message, I noticed that Runting is rated 1880?? on the ACF master list.

qpawn
06-08-2006, 11:28 AM
In response to ggray please see the correspondence thread that I have begun in the correspondence section.

I do not shirk from ay challenge.

As you will see, bring it on baby.

pax
08-08-2006, 12:21 PM
all the top correspondence players are at least national masters in OTB

This is not at all the case.

E.g Tim Runting (1880 ACF, 2388 CCLA), Max Salm (1846 ACF, 2519 CCLA), Paul Ma (1974, 2316), Robert Seaman (1867, 2313), S J Henri (2009, 2322), F P Hutchings (1898, 2327). And, of course the late Simon Fitzpatrick, who was around 2000 otb and over 2400 (and an IM) in correspondence.

I don't know about all of the above players, but I do know that Simon never used a computer. The top CC players will beat an unassisted computer every time.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2006, 12:44 PM
In response to ggray please see the correspondence thread that I have begun in the correspondence section.

I do not shirk from ay challenge.

As you will see, bring it on baby.

Can I make a suggestion.
While don't we sit a strong OTB player (2000+) against qpawn (in the same venue) on a following condition:

qpawn can go to another room, set up pieces and analyse (unassisted), while OTB player cannot (and can't watch qpawn analysis). qpawn will also get considerably more time then his opponent (say 1 hour versus 10 minutes).

qpawn
08-08-2006, 02:22 PM
Igor, thank you for suggesting something very interesting. I think that two masters played somethi ng along those lines a long time ago: Alapin [ I think] was allowed to only use normal OTB methods while his adversary was allowed to use longhand moves. Alapin won the contest quite easily in spite of being handipcapped.

While I would like to do that at some point there is one problematic aspect of it: if I am using longhand analysis as in correspondence chess won't I take a considerable amount of time going back and forth through variations , resetting the board etc? Hence a time advantage that I got given could prove illusionary.

Let me think about it; it is a really good idea if issues like the above could be sorted out.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2006, 02:41 PM
Igor, thank you for suggesting something very interesting. I think that two masters played somethi ng along those lines a long time ago: Alapin [ I think] was allowed to only use normal OTB methods while his adversary was allowed to use longhand moves. Alapin won the contest quite easily in spite of being handipcapped.

While I would like to do that at some point there is one problematic aspect of it: if I am using longhand analysis as in correspondence chess won't I take a considerable amount of time going back and forth through variations , resetting the board etc? Hence a time advantage that I got given could prove illusionary.

Let me think about it; it is a really good idea if issues like the above could be sorted out.

The time difference is not given for the advantage of correspondence player, but to compensate for the extra time spent analyzing.

Garvinator
08-08-2006, 02:43 PM
qpawn v Igor :D

pax
08-08-2006, 03:00 PM
qpawn v Igor :D

How about you do it on chesschat on a trust system.

Igor promises to time himself and post the amount of time taken with each move. We give him something like 120 minutes plus 60 seconds per move (maybe a bit more to compensate for it not being in a single concentrated sitting). Igor also promises not to use any computer or book.

Qpawn gets two days per move, unlimited thinking time, and promises not to consult any computer engine. Qpawn may be allowed to use databases and books if all parties agree (for geniune CC vs OTB this should be allowed).

Both parties act on trust since there is nothing at stake, except for the intellectual question.

MichaelBaron
08-08-2006, 03:33 PM
I second this Idea and offer my services to play QPawn (as long as he has not got a computer in his pocket :) or an opening encyclopedia).

He can have 6 hours I will have half an hour for the whole game. Also, he can shuffle the pieces around. All i want is an independent observer in the room where he will be carrying out his analysis to make sure that QP. recieves no additional assistance.

QP and myself can bet $50 each with the winnings being donated to the charity of the winner's choice :hmm:

How about that?

pax
08-08-2006, 03:47 PM
What is qpawn's OTB rating?

qpawn
08-08-2006, 03:56 PM
I am happy to do this against either Michael Baron or Igor.

Let me think about it a bit. I share my computer with someone on the same internet/phone line. [ I still use dialup!!! :D ] Hence I would need to arrange a six hour period where I had exclusive use of my pc. That could be done but I would need to sort it out.

Just give me a few days to sort this out and I will post here again with more details.

As to what outcome is likely in such a match I have no real idea; despite my bursts of temper in other threads I do have respect for the abilities of both of you. My own abilities are quite odd; I am hopeless at blitz chess but quite ok at slow chess. I play on playchess under the handle of qpawn. My slow rating, defined basically as games of 15 minutes or longer, is approx 1750 ELO against average opponent strength of about 1710. I got to 1821 ELO as a peak. Obviously this is a lot lower than the ratings of either Michael or Igor. Yet I can produce bursts of speed in games when I have to despite my hopeless blitz rating. In the last game I was in real time trouble against a 1930 ELO player ; he had 10 minutes left and I had 1 minute with only a 4 second increment. I was exchange up rook for knight and pawn with a lot of pawns left. At one stage I got down to 8 seconds but managed to get a draw :lol:
:)

qpawn
08-08-2006, 03:58 PM
I feel that my playchess rating gives the best indication of my real strength.

If you go to playchess and look up qpawn you will see that I am about 1700 to 1750 ELO .

Bill Gletsos
08-08-2006, 04:02 PM
What is qpawn's OTB rating?1177

qpawn
08-08-2006, 04:30 PM
Of course I am aware that I have that rating in your system. I have dealt with all that in other threads. We are dealing with whatever rating is the most relevant to the matches being proposed. If it is going to be played from my study where I do not get attacks of nerves then the rating from playchess more accurate and relevant.

Bill, If there is one thing that I understand and you don't about how to use a rating system it is the perceptive handling of it. But if you want to imitate a cross between a rule lawyer an accountant you are free to go ahead.

Desmond
08-08-2006, 04:33 PM
I feel that my playchess rating gives the best indication of my real strength.

If you go to playchess and look up qpawn you will see that I am about 1700 to 1750 ELO .
After 3 games on playchess, my rating has already surpassed my ACF rating by 100pts. I don't think there is much value in comparing the two.

qpawn
08-08-2006, 05:03 PM
I was the same. I got 1850 ELO after a handful of games. But my rating settled down to about 1700 to 1750 ELO which is more accurate. After playing over rated slow 250 games on playchess I think that is far more reliable than anything I did under ACF.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2006, 08:32 PM
How about you do it on chesschat on a trust system.

Igor promises to time himself and post the amount of time taken with each move. We give him something like 120 minutes plus 60 seconds per move (maybe a bit more to compensate for it not being in a single concentrated sitting). Igor also promises not to use any computer or book.

Qpawn gets two days per move, unlimited thinking time, and promises not to consult any computer engine. Qpawn may be allowed to use databases and books if all parties agree (for geniune CC vs OTB this should be allowed).

Both parties act on trust since there is nothing at stake, except for the intellectual question.

For the clarity of experiment it has to be done OTB. Elwood chess club is open (to everyone) each Saturday 12pm-5pm.

Desmond
08-08-2006, 08:42 PM
I was the same. I got 1850 ELO after a handful of games. But my rating settled down to about 1700 to 1750 ELO which is more accurate. After playing over rated slow 250 games on playchess I think that is far more reliable than anything I did under ACF.
If you have played many more games on playchess, then your rating there would probably be more accurate than your ACF rating.

However, taking a playchess rating and claiming that it is your true ACF strength is ridiculous since the two have no direct relevance.

MichaelBaron
08-08-2006, 08:47 PM
I am happy to do this against either Michael Baron or Igor.

Let me think about it a bit. I share my computer with someone on the same internet/phone line. [ I still use dialup!!! :D ] Hence I would need to arrange a six hour period where I had exclusive use of my pc. That could be done but I would need to sort it out.

Just give me a few days to sort this out and I will post here again with more details.

As to what outcome is likely in such a match I have no real idea; despite my bursts of temper in other threads I do have respect for the abilities of both of you. My own abilities are quite odd; I am hopeless at blitz chess but quite ok at slow chess. I play on playchess under the handle of qpawn. My slow rating, defined basically as games of 15 minutes or longer, is approx 1750 ELO against average opponent strength of about 1710. I got to 1821 ELO as a peak. Obviously this is a lot lower than the ratings of either Michael or Igor. Yet I can produce bursts of speed in games when I have to despite my hopeless blitz rating. In the last game I was in real time trouble against a 1930 ELO player ; he had 10 minutes left and I had 1 minute with only a 4 second increment. I was exchange up rook for knight and pawn with a lot of pawns left. At one stage I got down to 8 seconds but managed to get a draw :lol:
:)

Hang on, we are not going to play online so no need for dial up. We can play at Melbourne chess club or Elwood. This way I can be sure that no computer assistance is being recieved by either players.

qpawn
08-08-2006, 09:57 PM
Yes, that's better then.

Better still, perhaps someone like Bill Jordan might be interested in moderating/refereeing it if we did it at MCC. I think that the facilities at MCC really are better at doing this than the ones at Elwood; we would need a few rooms it seems to me. Of course I don't want to intrude upon what anyone else is doing; there are coaching sesseions etc going on at MCC a lot of the time.

MCC is a bit of a trip for me but a Saturday morning might be the time for it?? Unfortunately this Saturday is a bit difficult .

I don't think that any of this should be hurried to get it "over with". This is is an interesting exercise that should be done properly.

By the way I base my stated playing strength [ 1700 to 1750 ELO approx] based on not only 250 games at playchess, but also ageneral feel for differng playing strengths . I am not going to pretend that I am 2000 ELO or something like that: I am definitely not. But when I look at the people I have held my own with at playchess they are not mugs I assure you. That last one Tempest, he was good. He gave his real name in his notes and I googled him. He plays in A LOT of tournaments. He was fast I can tell you. I didn't get into time trouble at the rate we played at [ 18 mins each with 4 sec inc] because I was being slow. I know what it is to have a positional /tactical grasp at 1700 ELO level and, when my nerves don't let me down, that's what I play at. When I had coaching from Bill Jordan he thought that my positioal understanding was reasonably good: not master level but good.

MichaelBaron
08-08-2006, 11:18 PM
Yes, that's better then.

Better still, perhaps someone like Bill Jordan might be interested in moderating/refereeing it if we did it at MCC. I think that the facilities at MCC really are better at doing this than the ones at Elwood; we would need a few rooms it seems to me. Of course I don't want to intrude upon what anyone else is doing; there are coaching sesseions etc going on at MCC a lot of the time.

MCC is a bit of a trip for me but a Saturday morning might be the time for it?? Unfortunately this Saturday is a bit difficult .

I don't think that any of this should be hurried to get it "over with". This is is an interesting exercise that should be done properly.

By the way I base my stated playing strength [ 1700 to 1750 ELO approx] based on not only 250 games at playchess, but also ageneral feel for differng playing strengths . I am not going to pretend that I am 2000 ELO or something like that: I am definitely not. But when I look at the people I have held my own with at playchess they are not mugs I assure you. That last one Tempest, he was good. He gave his real name in his notes and I googled him. He plays in A LOT of tournaments. He was fast I can tell you. I didn't get into time trouble at the rate we played at [ 18 mins each with 4 sec inc] because I was being slow. I know what it is to have a positional /tactical grasp at 1700 ELO level and, when my nerves don't let me down, that's what I play at. When I had coaching from Bill Jordan he thought that my positioal understanding was reasonably good: not master level but good.

Cool...so lets set a date when no allegro is on and play on Saturday at MCC...would be nice if somebody other than your coach is an arbiter heh..Firegoat can be an arbiter on behalf of chesschat;)

qpawn
09-08-2006, 11:57 AM
At this stage next Saturday looks good for me. Bill Jordan isn't coaching me at the moment but anyway...it would be the same as flying your Russian endgame coach over I suppose...:D

But Being unaware of the timetable of MCC I will have to rely upon others to find a date that doesn't conflict with their activities.

In the meantime might drop in at a few chess clubs for a few friendly games just to get back the psychomotor elemnt of playing with a board again after having played on screen for awhile.

MichaelBaron
09-08-2006, 11:52 PM
At this stage next Saturday looks good for me. Bill Jordan isn't coaching me at the moment but anyway...it would be the same as flying your Russian endgame coach over I suppose...:D

But Being unaware of the timetable of MCC I will have to rely upon others to find a date that doesn't conflict with their activities.

In the meantime might drop in at a few chess clubs for a few friendly games just to get back the psychomotor elemnt of playing with a board again after having played on screen for awhile.


Lol i do miss my russian coach :)

This saturday i will be playing allegro at MCC (looks like since the allegro is not confirmed). Hey, come and play allegro and we can talk about it in person :) Besides, allegro is great practice for both of us

qpawn
10-08-2006, 12:31 PM
Unfortunately this Saturday I am a bit busy :mad:

Next Saturday will probably be better.