IS CHESS THOUGHT BASICS STILL A MYSTERY?



Can we crack open the black box of how chess players think? It would be astonishing to glimpse inside the brain to find out what goes on there in total darkness, position after position, move after move. Alas, it seems impossible, as most operations of our chess self are flying on the auto pilot, unnoticed from the outside.

Chess thinking has been a dear topic of much scientific research in quite a few domains, psychology, philosophy, neuroscience, computer science (artificial intelligence), etc. In particular, chess has been a darling of cognitive psychology where some seminal research into attention, perception, mental representation, memory, decision making, learning, and expertise acquisition have come from (the works of Binet, de Groot, Simon & Chase, Gobet, Ericsson, etc.). There are thousands of scholarly articles discussing pattern recognition, the chunking mechanism, the template theory.

The nature of chess is debatable. Some say chess is just a game. For others it is sport, or even an art. Because of the systematic way it is studied it is also considered science. If chess can be (partially) regarded as science as well (Botvinik was of this view, he was the pillar of "scientific chess" and contributed heavily to the development of chess software), then chess must have its basic paradigm as all sciences do.

This means definition of some basic concepts laying the foundation for all further research in the field. Before the emergence of its paradigm, a science is still considered immature, in its prehistory. It can develop any further only after acquiring its first universally received paradigm by all its practitioners (Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions).

There is the primacy and fundamental role of theories, perspectives, views in the acquisition and growth of knowledge (philosopher Helena Cronin). Without some kind of view, or a paradigm, the observation in the world, chessboard including, is impossible. We typically tell the beginner to carefully observe position first. But, as Karl Popper noted, the "Observe!" instruction is absurd. Because, of course, one needs to know, "Observe what?" All observation is in the light of some theory. Only then a problem and the quest for a solution can speak to us in revealing ways.

But it looks there is still a mystery around what that basic chess concept is. Something that has been acquired early by all chess players and serves as a starting point in their thought process.

[The criteria chess players use in the move selection process, or] "Cognitive constraints are very elementary... People never mention them in [speak aloud] protocols, though they obviously follow them. One cannot find them in chess books, and I have found that chess players are not familiar with them. The cognitive constraints seem to be very much like the grammatical rules. We follow them unconsciously and unintentionally to represent the environment in a senseful manner" (FM Pertti Saariluoma, Professor of cognitive science, FIDE 2350).

The topic we discuss here is not just an academic question. It has huge practical consequences on the methods for improvement of established players, for instance. It is still more important for the beginner. The authors of chess primers face a challenging question about how to make the beginner's blank slate mind set up properly. How to set the core gears of that incredible, impenetrable black box we mentioned in the beginning, before the gears are put into a sturdy case and the box closes. Do those who teach the beginner really know what kind of quality gears should be initially installed? Attempts to tweak this central mechanism of thought later on, once the black box's logic grows too complex and rigid, and its operations automatic, are destined to be much less effective.

It is hard to believe, it is 21-st century but chess hasn't clearly defined its basic paradigm yet.

And it must be something extremely simple as it is known that humans generally respond to the overwhelming complexity of the world by using simple, small-scale mental models of reality. These abstract models are deeply held structures of thinking. They are our mental tool box for acting and making decisions. We can't avoid using them, it is simply the way we are wired. Our only way when we are taking up a new skill lies in adopting some fundamental concepts and use them as the foundation of all further knowledge expansion. Only if such a repertoire of concepts existed in the brain, we could say that chess players actually perceive something and understand what's going on on the board.

Again, what that (funda)mental chess model may be? That chess paradigm, still hidden to the chess community and its educators.

The professor Pertti Saariluoma whom I quoted above, wasn't quite right after all. The speak-aloud protocol Adrian de Groot conducted with the leading players of the time did show very clearly how the thinking process of chess Masters got initiated with the simplest ideas. It gives us the key hint in our quest for the first chess paradigm. Here are their first instinctive reactions when presented with a new position (de Groot, Thought and Choice in Chess). Amazingly simple (if we know what to look for )

KERES: Let's first have a look at what can be taken; are there any immediate attacks?

ALEKHINE: Is the pawn at b2 really attacked?

EUWE: "...hanging position of the Knight." "overburdening of the Bishop," "Bishop at R2 undefended," pieces being "tied down," "overloaded."

Now Nimzo with his First Hour published in Shakhmatny Listok in 1929. The first excerpt is about what one of the greatest chess thinkers sees as a fundamental problem in early teaching (something chess educators and thinkers have failed to see for ninety years now).

Then take a look at how Nimzo starts teaching chess to the beginner. The key word below is in italic.

Chess teachers of the world, that's right, Alekhine, Keres, Euwe and Nimzovich tell us without a trace of doubt, it is functional relationships that come first! The concept of Force and how Force is exchanged between chess pieces through connections they establish constitutes the basic chess paradigm that should be adopted by all chess practitioners.

All chess primers and early courses in the world should therefore update for the 21-st century. Put the piece relations before everything else! As Nimzo did. It is the basic concept that permeates all chess. It helps unify, bring together disparate ideas and disparate chess knowledge and make sense of them.