A brief review of Pawn Sacrifice

I was fortunate enough to see an advanced screening of the new movie "Pawn Sacrifice", based upon Bobby Fischer's life and the 1972 World Championship. (The advanced screening is one of the benefits of being an AMC Stubs Member) Overall, both me and my wife enjoyed the movie; they took a few liberties, but produced a good, engaging movie about chess that got a lot of details correct.

First, the details. As far as I could tell, all of the boards were setup correctly (White on Right, Queen on Color); a detail that a significant number of movies and other media get wrong. I also could recognize some of the positions as accurate from the World Championship games; 29...Bxh2 from Game 1 and the significance of that move is highlighted in particular. Attention was also paid to Game 3 (particularly the daring 11..Nh5), Game 5, and of course the beautiful Game 6 (One of my other favorites, Game 13, was not mentioned).

A few minor details were slightly inaccurate; for example, the film depicts the 1966 Piatigorsky cup in Santa Monica as Fischer's return to tournament play. Although this is true in some sense (first OTB international tournament of the return, depending on how you define it), Fischer played in and placed 2nd at the 1965 Capablanca Memorial. That tournament was held in Havana, but due to poor USA-Cuba relations, Fischer played remotely. I may have missed this detail, but I think they also misrepresented the games and orders in which he played at Santa Monica (i.e. He didn't win his first round match, and it wasn't against Ivanovic; although he did beat Ivkov in round three). They also chose not to highlight or mention the incredible nature of Fischer's achievement in the candidates tournaments (two 6-0 match victories as part of his 20 straight wins), even though they do a montage that details which opponents he beat in this run.

Although I have read a bit about Bobby Fischer (For example, the excellent book 'Bobby Fischer Goes to War' is in my personal library), I cannot claim to be an expert historian. Therefore, I am not sure how accurate the representation of Fischer is; certainly, his paranoia is given a lot of attention in the film. I also question if the scene of Fischer calling out Spassky on the beach is accurate. Even if it caricatures this aspect of Fischer's personality to some extent, it is not surprising given the drama it helps introduce, and in how it helps convey the idea of who Fischer was to an audience that may not be familiar with him. Indeed, I think that is a good summary of the movie; it may take liberties on some details, but it is accurate in spirit and tells a good story.

The acting, production, and drama in the movie were great. Although she has a passing interest in the game, and has even observed some of my tournaments, my wife does not play or study chess regularly. Therefore, she acted as proxy for the non-chess playing audience, one that was not familiar with all the aspects and drama surrounding the story of the 1972 world championship. Even still, she was engaged during the movie and thoroughly enjoyed it, praising the acting and drama. Perhaps most telling, after the movie she wanted to see historic footage of Fischer (with Dick Cavett and Bob Hope) and learn a bit more about him.

As far as dramatic movies about chess go, this was excellent; personally, I thought it was better than The Search for Bobby Fischer and Queen to Play (although I did enjoy the latter a lot). This is a movie for the chess-playing and non-chess public alike, and is one both (especially the latter) should see if they aren't familiar with the story of Fischer. 

Despite writing several book reviews for Chesscafe in the past, I don't consider myself a critic. Please feel free to share your opinion about the movie, or ask me questions about details that I may have left out if you want to know before the general premier of the movie.

The image used for this post is not mine and I claim no rights; I 'borrowed' it from Pawn Sacrifice LLC. Seeing as I am positively reviewing their production, I hope they don't mind.

Making Random Moves

Most human players and chess computer engines alike select their moves through a combination of two processes: searching through the consequences of possible moves, and evaluating current and future positions. Each of us have our own talents and capabilities in performing these two tasks. But what if chess was played randomly, with no bias, ideas, experience or thought put into any moves?

Well, somebody took the time to answer this question, and did so in an impressive fashion. This report by @billautomata, generated approximately 100,000 random games, finding that a vast majority ended in a draw (85%) and lasted an average of 342 moves. This data is presented with some very neat visualizations.

While the high draw is not necessarily surprising (after all, these computer players are identically matched in skill), it would be interesting to know if White or Black had a greater share of the few wins that did occur. Unfortunately, the data from the above analysis is not freely available (as far as I know).

In light of this, I have utilized the chess.js JavaScript library to create an accessible way to generate and store random computer games. You can access this simple tool from my other site. While this may not serve any useful purpose, it could nonetheless be interesting to see which side (White or Black) ends up with a better score after random moves. I should note that others have created random moving chess programs with better visuals, such as developed by the chessboard.js team.

That's all for this week! Stay tuned for more computer analysis and links. Please share your thoughts, questions, comments and consternations below. 

Complete Datasets for Fischer and Carlsen as White

If you read this blog regularly or saw my work featured at ChessBase, you will be familiar with the tools I have developed to analyze square utilization and occupancy, and represent these as heatmaps. In response to a reader comment, I am providing available for download the complete datasets for both Fischer and Carlsen as White. I may eventually post the corresponding datasets of these two world champions playing Black.

This data is being provided for now with very limited annotation (Select 'Read More' to view); it is up to you, dear reader, to decide how to use it, what points to examine further, and what conclusions you can draw from it. If you download these ZIP packages, you will find the calculated analysis of square utilization and occupancy, as well as the differential data and a subfolder containing heatmap representations for each of the White and Black pieces (all 12 piece types).

Remember, a scientific approach to chess only means that you are willing to test your own ideas about the game in a systematic way, hoping to improve your understanding and thus your performance. Hopefully, the tools and datasets I have made available will assist you in asking scientific questions about chess. In the future, I may post the insights I have gleaned from analyzing this and similar datasets. This future may have to wait some time however, as I have been rather busy lately with my professional commitments!

Select 'Read More' to see details regarding methodology as well as a few initial insights. Please feel free to share your own insights from this dataset, or your critical comments regarding this method! Stay tuned for more science on the squares!

Finding Difference Makers

Using JavaScript tools I recently created, you can determine the square utilization or occupancy for any particular piece, for any given square, across all moves and all games in a PGN database. One potentially useful application is to apply these tools separately to the wins and losses (1-0 versus 0-1) in the database of your choice. As featured in a recent ChessBase article, I have done this to find which piece movements or placements are featured more often in wins versus losses. These are potential difference makers in a chess game.

In this post, I will describe in more detail how I performed these calculations. Although this can be done by hand, I created an Excel spreadsheet to facilitate processing of the data you can get from using the aforementioned tools. This spreadsheet is available for download; select 'Read More' to see the rest of this article to find instructions on how use the excel file, as well tips on how to represent the results using the heatmap tool. Stay tuned for more differential data and analysis in the coming weeks.

Chessboard Heatmap and Updates

In a previous post, I introduced a suite of Javascript tools that can be used to reformat PGN files and determine square utilization (traffic) and square occupancy (parking) for different pieces. Since that post, I have rewritten the code and improved the functionality of each of these tools. I have used these tools to collect data on square utilization or occupancy, which I then process further in an excel file (which I will make available shortly) and generate heatmaps using Plotly. However, Plotly was cumbersome to use, having to reformat the heatmap for each data set.

Here, I am introducing another Javascript tool that can be used to take square utilization or occupancy data and generate customizable heatmaps specifically for chess. This can be found at the following address: http://djcamenares.x10.mx/chess/heatmap.shtml

In the rest of this post, I describe how to use the features on the heatmap program, as well as detailing other updates to the site. Select 'Read More' to view the rest of the article. Please feel free to share your comments regarding this tool, especially if you used it to generate interesting insights!

Tools for Statistics of the Squares

Ever wonder which squares see the most traffic? Or which squares have pieces 'parked' on them for the longest periods of a game? Now, you can answer these questions easily using a series of JavaScript powered tools I have developed. These are based upon the LT-PGN JavaScript viewer, and calls upon that code (which I did not write) for certain functions. In fact, it directly calls upon the LT-PGN PGN2FEN tool, although my adaptation can handle PGN files with multiple games. 

I was inspired to develop these tools after reading some of the chess-visualization articles posted on the ChessBase website, namely, the analysis of square utilization by Seth Kadish earlier last year (analysis which you can also find at Seth's blog). I really liked the approach, and although the source of the game PGNs were made clear, I wasn't sure how he extracted the data. Also, I thought there was potential to observe more than just square utilization, or 'traffic'.

In order to carry out this analysis, I created three separate JavaScript tools. They aren't shining examples of efficient coding, but they get the job done. They are as follows:

Reformatting PGN Text
http://djcamenares.x10.mx/chess/pgnreform.shtml
Although PGN files from 365chess.com can be used directly in the downstream applications, the chess software I use (HIARCS) places line breaks within the game score. This tool will remove them, leaving all other features of the PGN intact.

Move Counting (Determining Square 'Traffic')
http://djcamenares.x10.mx/chess/traffic.shtml
This tool takes a PGN file, with single or multiple games, and can determine the square utilization or traffic of the White player, Black player, or both players. It also reformats the PGN so as to remove the header tags.

Batch Conversion of PGN to FEN, Counting Square Occupancy ('Parking')
http://djcamenares.x10.mx/chess/parking.shtml
This tool takes a PGN file, with single or multiple games, and does several things. First, it removes header tags from the PGN. Then, it converts the PGN first to FEN, then to an expanded version of FEN in which each square, filled or empty, is declared. Finally, the occupancy, or parking, of different pieces (selected by user) on each square is reported.

To see some example results of these tools, which expands upon the aforementioned work by Kadish, please select 'Read More' below. 

Chess Channels on Youtube: A Brief Review

There is a wealth of chess information available now on the internet, and arguably the fastest and most useful repository for chess is now found on YouTube. There are many different channels and videos on YouTube devoted to chess, ranging from coverage of tournaments, instructional lessons and lectures, and even blitz games with live commentary.

Below is a list of some of my favorite channels devoted to Chess. I'm not the first to attempt such a list. For example, OnlineChessLessons.net offers an interesting list. My list focuses more on live blitz games with commentary, with my three favorite channels as follows:

Chessexplained
This channel is my personal favorite, and it is maintained by IM Christof Sielecki. He is a very strong player with a positional style and a great approach to the game. There is a variety of videos at the channel, including instructional lessons on tactics, openings, and endgames, as well as coverage of major tournaments and matches. Best of all, he usually posts three blitz or rapid games with commentary every day. I'm quite surprised that Sielecki's channel is not on OCL's list mentioned above.

Kingscrusher
Another great and active channel by a very strong player. Compared to the positional style of Christof Sielecki, Kingscrusher has stronger focus on aggressive, open, or gambit lines. He also uses a relatively more systematic and sometimes rigid style of commentary, searching for the weakness of the last move and using other interesting decision making devices. He also has an associated website that is useful for navigating his video series. 

Chess.com
This channel contains a wide variety of videos, all of them of great quality. This channel is actively updated and has many live commentary games, mostly by the entertaining and insightful IM Danny Rensch. There are also 'Hack Attack' session by IM Thomas Rendle. If you like the videos, you should consider joining the main chess.com site and subscribing to their premium video service.

Select 'read more' to see the rest of my list. What are your favorite YouTube chess videos and channels? Please feel free to share them in the comments section.

A Scientific Approach to Chess

For a blog about Chess and Science, you might expect more articles about the intersection between the two. Indeed, I have occasionally written here about research articles that have involved chess (such as studying the physiology of players during a game, the Einstellung effect), even including my own efforts in exploring mutual information in chess. Usually, chess is used as a vehicle in science to study physiology, memory, or decision making in general. However, I think it is worth exploring a truly scientific approach to Chess.

In its essence, Science is about gaining useful knowledge in a systematic way to solve problems. Chess players engage in a similar activity all the time, if even subconsciously, studying games and reading literature to build a model of the game in their mind that can be applied to making decisions at the board. Likewise, scientific knowledge about the natural world has informed incredible advances in technology for a wide range of industries.

Below I suggest different ways in which the scientific method can be applied to different aspects of chess. I encourage any interested readers to take up the challenge of performing chess research, following the principles featured in the rest of the article. I intend on making this blog a vehicle for such research, and welcome submissions of original research to this blog (or at least posts that link to your analysis). Perhaps Science on the Squares can become the first real scientific journal of chessology (or chessonomics?)

Do you think that such a method will prove useful and yield insights? Is it too slow and laborious? Have you made any discoveries in Chessology? Please share your thoughts and comments below, or contact me directly. 

My Worst Blunder of 2012

In 2012, I played quite a few chess games. I was active on Chess.com, playing 41 turn-based correspondence style games (with a 28-8-5 Win-Loss-Draw record), as well as countless blitz games. The story was similar with my over-the-board (in person) play; I had numerous casual blitz and slow games at the Stony Brook Chess Club as well as the Bayshore Chess Club this year. Finally, I participated in 3 different Chess tournaments this year: The Long Island Open (where I placed second in the U1700 section), the Manhattan Open, and the Empire City Open (The last two were played in the New Yorker Hotel, in Manhattan. The facade of the building is shown below). My overall record in these events is 11-5-2 (18 games total, six in each event).

From this collection of games, I could choose several that have egregious blunders, as well as good moves, with varying levels of instructive value. To me, at least at time of writing, my worst blunder of 2012 is clear. This, surprisingly, wasn't even a chess move, but rather my failure to use two half-point byes in the Empire City Open.

Read on the find out why, and see what I learnt about tournament Chess in the process. Have you had tournaments where you wished you took a bye?

To my regular readers, I apologize for the delay in posts, and the fact that there was no Scrambled Chess Sunday Puzzle this past week. In addition to playing in the Empire City Open, I celebrated New Years with my beautiful and wonderful girlfriend at Hunter Mountain. Unfortunately, I became sick the next day! Once I recover and finish some work obligations, you can expect more regular posts and progress.

Book Review: Thinking with Chess

You can find another one of my book reviews at Chesscafe.com. (Previously, I reviewed Walter Browne's "The Stress of Chess".)

This time around, I took a look at "Thinking With Chess", by Dr. Alexey Root. This book is more or less a teaching guide for chess coaches or parents. My review is entitled "Teaching with Challenges", named because the most interesting and valuable part of Dr. Root's book are the challenges. These are essentially mini-games used to exercise a particular chess skill.

Image taken from www.brooklyncastle.com

The book is put together nicely, but unfortunately I couldn't bring myself to give it a great rating because of the limited amount of material (the size of the book). This is reflected in the concise nature of the review; there was simply not a whole lot to talk about! (My apologies to Dr. Root for any offense, but I'm just trying to deliver an honest opinion.)

Did you read this book? If so, what did you think? What is your favorite book on chess instruction?

The Science of Chess: Moving to the (heart) beat

Recently a team of researchers published an article (PDF format) in which they monitored the heart rate of Chess players during a game (Aptly titled The tell-tale heart: heart rate fluctuations index objective and subjective events during a game of chess. Published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2012, Vol 6, No 273). 

The same authors of that study have summarized their work for chessbase news in a report also aptly titled: "Psychology: The Heart of Chess". Naturally, I was interested, as I have posted before about the intersection of science of chess and I check PubMed occasionally for such work (although I must have missed this particular study).

Picture reposted (with modifications) from Chessbase. I do not own the rights to the above picture (or for that matter, any of the pictures used in this post).

The article is interesting and thought provoking. There have been many studies that examined some psychological or mental aspect of the game, but there are much fewer (to my knowledge) that studied the physiological manifestations of a chess player's mind. As the article reminds us, Chess is fertile ground for studying all of these phenomenon. 

What did you think of the article? Select 'Read More' to see my full opinion. Please share your thoughts in the comment box below!

Introduction to Scrambled Chess Puzzles

Here, I will describe a new type of chess puzzle, which I call Scrambled Chess. This is going to be a small example puzzle; I will commence a larger series (Scrambled Sundays!) which will feature full puzzles posted biweekly. (The first one will be posted tomorrow, Dec 2nd!)

Image from http://sp.life123.com/bm.pix/scrambled-eggs1---eggs-on-plate.s600x600.jpg

Like Freeze Chess and ChessWords, I think Scrambled Chess is a good tool for visualization. In fact, they are probably even better, since they can test visualization skills in several different ways. Also, unlike Freeze Chess (which I developed independently, but are very similar to Bruce Alberston's Chess Mazes), it seems that Scrambled Chess is completely novel. They are also somewhat difficult to explain, but hopefully the example below will make the objective and rules clear.

As an introduction, here is a smaller version of one of these puzzles. (The rules / how to play is described below).

Introduction / Example Puzzle. Movement is Rook by Knight (The notation used for these puzzles will be RxN). Starting Square: A4. Target Square: B1

This is a smaller, 4x4 board (the real puzzle would be a standard 8x8 board). As you can notice, each square is inscribed with the coordinates of another square. The goal is to make piece movements that are legal for both, according to the pieces specified. 

In these puzzles, two pieces will be specified, from the choice of Knight, Bishop or Rook. The first piece dictates the movements that should be taken on the board, while these movements must correspond to legal moves in within the scrambled coordinates.

If the puzzle is Rook by Knight (This one is, as specified by RxN), this means that only Rook moves are allowed, but the correct moves are those to squares with written coordinates that correspond to a Knight move.

The goal is to go from the starting square (shown in brick red) to the target square (shown in blue), making moves that conform to the above rules.

As mentioned above, I will be posting a puzzle every other week, on Sunday (starting tomorrow). Some of these puzzles can be complex, and can be any combination of Rook, Knight, or Bishop moves (RxR, RxN, NxN, NxB, etc). Remember, the first piece dictates movement on the puzzle board, the second piece corresponds to the coordinates inscribed within each square. In this same notation, I have developed puzzles such as Rx2N; what this signifies is that the moves must be with coordinates that correspond to a two move hop of the Knight. 

In the above example, a Rx2N move would be A4-A3, since this uses the inscribed coordinates E4-D5. This corresponds to a two move route of the Knight; E4-f6-D5, or E4-c3-D5. In this particular example, however, that would be a dead end (you cannot read the target square under those conditions). 

What do you think of Scrambled Chess? Please share your thoughts by leaving a comment below!

Stay tuned for a full puzzle tomorrow!

Please hit 'Read More' for the solution to the above puzzle, explained. For now, I've suddenly got an appetite for some scrambled eggs....

Mutual information in Chess

In a previous post, I introduced the topic of mutual information. This is a statistical analysis technique that can be used to determine if there are a connection between two variables.

Mutual information finds many applications, including analysis of biological sequences (this is the use I am most familiar with). Last time, I questioned whiter or not this technique can be applied to chess in any meaningful way. I think the answer is a partial yes, and here I will share with you my initial exploration of this idea.

Opening Lanes looks at the ...e5 Anti-Anti-Sicilian

International Master Gary Lane runs a very informative, interesting, and entertaining column at ChessCafe.com called Opening Lanes, in which he answers reader questions about various chess opening variations. 

In this month's column, he answered a question I posed, about the variations 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 e5 and 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 e5. I was excited to see a titled player look at these variations, especially a Bishop Opening's specialist like IM Lane (Since 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 c5 transposes).

You can read his analysis in PDF format.

I have been posting analysis on meeting Anti-Sicilians with ..e5. There were not many games to be found featuring this move, and very little freely available analysis. I already have surveyed 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 e5, and will return to this line in more depth in the future. I am also going into more depth with 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 e5 (which could also arise from the Bishops Opening).

I may eventually pen a larger response to IM Lane's analysis, although I doubt there is much to be critical of (after all, he's hundreds of rating points stronger than I, and probably has more time and resources to boot!). That being said, after 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 e5 3.f4, the only third move he analyzed for White, I would prefer 3…exf4 over either 3…d6 or 3…Nc6 (the options he covered in his article).

My analysis on 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 e5 3.f4 will be posted in the near future, since it is anyway the next option in my series of 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 e5 (It will be line D).

Please check out IM Lane's column, and let me know what you think!

(The pictures above are from Chesscafe.com; I claim no right on them, providing them only for aesthetic pleasure.)

Combating Anti-Sicilians with ...e5: Anti-Bc4 (Line C)

This post is concerned with the line 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 e5 3.Nc3, or Line C in the series. See the introductory post for this series for Line A, as well as an explanation of the entire variation and some database statistics. 

This is part of a larger series on meeting anti-Sicilian lines with …e5. In a previous post, I covered how this move can successfully be employed against the Rossolimo Siclian (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5).

In the introduction to this series on ..e5 against the anti-sicilians, I point out that Black needs to take care of d5, anticipating moves from White such as Nc3-d5, Na3-c4, and c3 followed quickly by d4. The move Bc4 also introduces pressure against f7. Black should be on guard for moves like Ng5 (which in the initial position is not possible due to Qxg5).

1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 e5

A) 3.Qh5

B) 3.c3

C) 3.Nc3

D) 3.f4

E) 3.b4

F) 3.Nf3 (Followed by c3, O-O, d3, or b4)

Click 'Read More' below to see the analysis. Stay tuned for continued analysis of this variation, from Lines D through F (Links will be activated once the posts are up.) 

I try to provide as comprehensive and accurate analysis as I can, but as a class player with limited time and computer resources, I've probably missed quite a bit. 

Please let me know what you think, and add any of your analysis in the comments section!

My Book Review at Chesscafe.com

I have recently reviewed a book, Walter Browne's "The Stress of Chess", for the excellent chesscafe.com website. You can check out my review, which I titled "A sometimes stressful read" at their site (now archived; 11/12/12).

Since I live on the East Coast, hurricane Sandy has interrupted my blogging efforts. Now, I am up against a deadline for a very important meeting with my thesis committee on November 6th (after which I will exercise my civic duty and vote). So, dear reader, please excuse the dearth of posts in the coming week. 

Combating Anti-Sicilians with ...e5: Anti-Bc4 (Line B)

This post is concerned with the line 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 e5 3.c3, or Line B in the series. See the introductory post for this series for Line A, as well as an explanation of the entire variation and some database statistics. 

This is part of a larger series on meeting anti-Sicilian lines with …e5. In a previous post, I covered how this move can successfully be employed against the Rossolimo Siclian (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5).

In the introduction to this series on ..e5 against the anti-sicilians, I point out that Black needs to take care of d5, anticipating moves from White such as Nc3-d5, Na3-c4, and c3 followed quickly by d4. The move Bc4 also introduces pressure against f7. Black should be on guard for moves like Ng5 (which in the initial position is not possible due to Qxg5).

1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 e5

A) 3.Qh5

B) 3.c3

C) 3.Nc3

D) 3.f4

E) 3.b4

F) 3.Nf3 (Followed by c3, O-O, d3, or b4)

This post has been vastly expanded, as part of blog renovations described in an earlier post. If you would like to see the original analysis, please email/contact me.

Occam's Razor in Science and Chess

Somewhere along their education, most scientists learn about Occam's razor. This principal, attributed to the 14th century logician William of Ockham, is usually stated as the preference for a simpler theory over a more complex one (as long as both are supported by the facts). When formulated this way, it might also be called the law of parsimony or economy, or just the rule of simplicity.

Occam's razor does not only apply to the hard sciences. This rule has been applied, sometimes in a modified form, to many fields. Even chess players may utilize Occam's razor. After all, while scientists use experimentation to falsify competing hypotheses, chess players engage in a similar activity by evaluating competing moves through analysis (often with computer help). Just as two different hypotheses may explain the facts, two candidate moves may appear (at first blush) to be playable. In either case, experimentation or analysis is used to find the correct choice between the alternatives.

I would suspect, however, that many scientists  do not appreciate the rationale behind this razor, as well as it limitations. They may be in danger of over estimating the power of this principle. In fact, I'd wager that chess players are more aware of the proper use of Occam's razor. Some of the original justifications for the razor where aesthetic (simpler theories and more elegant moves must be better), but this rationale is quite simply irrational. There is no good reason to believe a priori that either the inner workings of the cell or the strategy on a chess board must be simple. Even if many successful theories rely on simplicity, this does not preclude a phenomenon (or a position) being studied that requires a complex explanation.

Select 'Read More' to see the complete article, in which I discuss the justifications for Occam's razor using examples, and exceptions, from the chess world. The law of simplicity is more of a guideline, a way of prioritizing experiments and guarding against circumstantial theories. 

As Sherlock Holmes might say, understanding Occam's Razor is "Simplicity itself!"

Bryant Park Blitz: An Einstellung loss?

A few weeks ago, I was in the city on a Sunday, killing somme time while my girlfriend was recording some music (Check out her itunes page!). Naturally, I took the opportunity to get in a game of chess, and headed down to Bryant Park. There I found a player, sitting smugly with sunglasses on (it was a nice September day) taking on various opponents. Most of the opponents he played were crushed, making fairly simple mistakes and dropping pieces to simple tactics as the bespeckled player jokingly taunted them. I noticed, however, some errors in his play (both tactical and positional), and his tendency to underestimate the counterplay of his opponent.

I have posted the game below for your enjoyment. It was played with the time control of 5-0 (5 minutes each side, no increment). In hindsight, I think that this game might be a good example of the Einstellung effect. This effect is essentially when you become fixated on only certain moves or ideas, miss the optimal continuation in a position. I recently posted about some research concerning the Einstellung effect on chess players (it is a more generally phenomenon), and it brought this game back to my mind. In fact, I otherwise would have not posted the following game, because it contains some really rather sloppy play (I'm usually sharper that this tactically, I swear!), but is nonetheless instructive on several points.

In particular, I became fixated on the pressure my opponent was exerting on my King in the above position, and missed an excellent resource on move 21; I played the awkward 21.Bf4, when a combination of 21.fxg6, Rf7 and Rh7 would have easily secured the win.

Select 'Read more' or the following link to view the whole game.

The time pressure of blitz can sometimes highlight our tendency to overlook important possibilities. What examples of the missed possibilities and the Einstellung effect do you have in your own games?

The Science of Chess: Fernand Gobet and the Einstellung effect

Since this blog is about Chess and Science, it is only natural to discuss the nexus between the two: scientific studies that examine some aspect of Chess. The game of chess is used by some social science, psychology and neuroscience researchers as a model or tool to examine memory, expertise, decision making skills, or some other process that two combatants engage in over the chessboard.

A few chess players may be already familiar with an example of this type of work, perhaps the highly cited studies by Adriaan de Groot. In some of the studies conducted by de Groot, chess players of different skill levels were tasked with position recall and were told to analyze a position while thinking out loud. This has led to conclusions about the way expert players organize their memory, and how they search and evaluate a position. (I'll probably revisit de Groot in a future post)

A contemporary researcher in this field is Fernand Gobet, a professor at Brunel University, West London. (See his professional homepage). Gobet has dual qualification to study chessplayers, since he is both a cognitive psychologist and an international master (a qualification not unique to the researchers in this field). He has published a number of interesting articles on a variety of aspects of the game, ranging from memory, visualization skills of chess players, and even gender differences between players. Of particular note, Dr. Gobet has attempted to simulate certain aspects of expert memory and skill using commuter models.

Below, I'll give you my reaction to a paper by Dr. Gobet that deals with the interesting Einstellung effect. While I am scientist, cognitive psychology is not my field, so the experts will have to forgive me if I do not assess the work correctly. Also, I provide below only a brief sketch of the work; I might someday blog about the individual topics in more detail, as I learn more about them.

I'd love to hear from you, dear reader, if you have some insight onto to the work of Dr. Gobet or others. In particular, please feel free to let me know if I have gotten something wrong. You can do so by leaving a comment.