Psychology in Chess

Chess is a mental battle. So, there is a close relationship between chess and psychology. For a long time chess researchers seek to answer: "How do chess players think?" From an anatomical viewpoint, after under taking various scientific experiments, they came to the conclusion that chess is not necessarily a game reserved for people with IQ scores on par with Einstein. During a test involving the scan of the brains of novice players during a match, they found a flurry of activity in the parietal and occipital lobes, areas not associated with general intelligence. The activity observed in the parietal lobe suggests that this area may be capable of handling complex spatial functions, such as the interaction of memory and incoming spatial information. And inactivity in another area – the left lateral frontal lobe – raises questions about the role of general intelligence in high-level cognition and problem solving. Following picture taken in a test shows the difference of eye movements between a master and a novice chess player.

Master's eye movements		Novice's eye movements

[For more information about this visit: http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/research/credit/]

How do a grandmaster think?

It is often supposed that expert players have photographic memory and higher calculating abilities. But some think this is a wrong concept. In his book ‘Think like a Grandmaster’ Alexander Kotov wrote: “Those chess lovers who ask me how many moves I usually calculate in advance, when making a combination, are always astonished when I reply, quite truthfully, 'as a rule not a single one’”. Chess research papers show that, whatever makes the difference between masters and the common people, it's not the ability to calculate. In his booklet Chess and Education (1995, Gresham College, London), the British GM David Norwood wrote:

"It is often supposed that, apart from their 'extraordinary powers of memory', expert players have phenomenal powers of calculation. The beginner believes that experts can calculate dozens of moves ahead and he will lose to them only because he cannot calculate ahead so far. Yet this is utter nonsense. From my own experience I can say that grandmasters do not do an inordinate amount of calculating. Tests (notably de Groot’s experiments) support me in this claim. If anything, grandmasters often consider fewer alternatives; they tend not to look at as many possible moves as weaker players do. And so, perversely, chess skill often seems to reflect the ability to avoid calculations. It is, in truth, not clear that chess is a game of calculation. Of course there are times when intense calculation is called for, and often the master is better at dealing with these situations than the amateur. No wonder, he has had more practice than the amateur, but all the same his innate calculating ability need not be any greater. Most of the time it is something quite different that is required in chess, something more akin to 'understanding' or 'insight'."

As for the memory of the grandmasters, there developed the 'recognition-association' model, which suggested that strong players play essentially by analogy: recalling positions and elements of positions, and making judgements about the current position based on this recall. This surely makes a great deal of sense. How often have we seen players flash out the 'stock' Bxh7 sacrifice? Is this skill or merely recognition? Gerald Abrahams, in The Chess Mind, argues strongly for the primacy of vision, and says:

"Seeing the idea precedes the logical argument."

Similarly, Hartston and Wason give an imaginary post mortem conversation which we seem to have heard before:

[Stronger player rejects a move suggested by the weaker player]

Weaker player: What's wrong with it?

Stronger player: It's not good.

Weaker player: Why not?

Stronger player: It's not the sort of move you play in this sort of position

[end of conversation]

So, this "vision thing" seems more important than memory or calculation.

On the other hand, Holding, in his PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 1992, rejects this idea of 'pattern-recognition' model. According to him, "chess skill relies on thinking ahead rather than on pattern recognition". He adds, "The recognition-association theory appears to be founded on indirect evidence concerning visual short-term memory, together with supplementary assumptions that may be questioned, and provides no role for verbal processes. There is no direct support for the theory, which omits forward search for reasons that are reexamined."

In the conclusion, we may offer that memory, judgement and analysis are all important, that we have different abilities and experiences for each aspect, and that different positions make different demands on each skill. Without some pains being taken to discover the balance of skills amongst players of different strengths (style notwithstanding), and the balance of demands of different positions, we are not yet in a position to say what (if anything) is the key to chess mastery.

[Based on a internet writing by Dr. Dave]