In the classic experiment math problems were used. Participants were asked to solve basic arithmetic problems by visualizing water jugs. Each problem had a similar solution. When given the 3rd problem, participants failed to solve it in the best way because they stuck to the pattern used in the first two. (Notice the last two puzzles have the same solution, did you find the fastest solution in puzzle #3?)
Finally they were given a 4th problem. It was simpler, but couldn't be solved using the familiar pattern. Participants found it quite hard, and some even gave up saying there was no solution!
So how did you do? The idea is that when trying to solve a problem, our brains use familiar ideas. This is actually critical for chess strength. But in some cases it can also blind us if we're unwilling or unable to look for something different in the position.
Chess blindness and the Einstellung effect
@ LW
Yeah, that was the intention.
I was lucky enough to be shown the puzzles face to face, so it was easier to do... I tried to reproduce it here... hopefully it's not too obvious and it totally fails to fool anyone :(
Anyway, good job! When I was shown this, it fooled me. On the 4th puzzle I tried a long time to make something work in that corner before my eyes noticed the b2 bishop might be important lol.
I got all of them easily. I was familiar with the idea in #4 already.
Good stuff. Here is a review of a chess book that (indirectly) addresses this same issue and uses a strategy of countering the Einstellung effect as a learning method.
http://sagarteacheschess.blogspot.in/2015/03/mating-castled-king-review.html
Interesting.
I feel like this is an area where I'm weak (patterns against the castled king) so this may be a good book for me.
Good stuff. Here is a review of a chess book that (indirectly) addresses this same issue and uses a strategy of countering the Einstellung effect as a learning method.
http://sagarteacheschess.blogspot.in/2015/03/mating-castled-king-review.html
Interesting.
I feel like this is an area where I'm weak (patterns against the castled king) so this may be a good book for me.
- Go to chesstempo.com
- Make a custom set with problems tagged with "Anastasia's, Arabian, Boden's, Blackburne's, Damiano's, Greco's, Lolli's, Morphy's, Opera, Pillsbury's"
- Drill set until it's 2nd nature
- Profit
Oooh, thanks.
So many options these days.
Pattern recognition (memory of kerns) is perhaps the single most important skill to have in order to be a chess player. Some people have a neural network that is able to record and access patterns with maximum efficiency and these people can often become very strong chess players. If the nueral network is not already wired then crunching thousands of patterns when one is young has a chance of wiring it for the task of doing it onsight under time constraints like one need do at a tournament.
This is why older people (40+) ain't gonna get much better at chess regardless of the work they put in unless they already neurologically wired properly.
Yeah, it's very important.
It's just interesting when patterns block other patterns. I'm sure we've all come back to a position and instantly seen something we'd missed. Or when shown a solution we wonder how we could have missed it.
As for older folks not getting better, surely that's a big part of it. However some of my experience with much weaker adult players makes me wonder if some don't improve because they aren't willing to think in different ways.
Almost a chicken or the egg problem. Is my general approach to a position the way it is because I reached a certain critical mass of known positions? In some ways I think the answer is yes, and in other ways, no.
This is also why correscpondence chess is really not in the same league as otb chess. It does nothing to address this issue of memory and ability to quickly and accurately recognize patterns and find the 'correct' answer on the first real sincere effort.
This is the real skill being tested in a chess match, the true essence of what makes chess chess, and this is why cc chess falls far short of otb chess as a real competition of neural capabilities.
Surely a "real competition of neural capability" is broad enough to include more than just OTB chess though :p
The last problem didn't trip me up, but I suspect it may be because I was expecting the last one to contain a trick that made the pattern not work. It's hard to get around that when the person knows it's a test that involves chess blindness.
The last problem didn't trip me up, but I suspect it may be because I was expecting the last one to contain a trick that made the pattern not work. It's hard to get around that when the person knows it's a test that involves chess blindness.
You're missing the point.
You're supposed to detect the difference in the last problem. The trick question is number 3, and it fooled you :-)
Didn't miss that point, just didn't comment on it. Much of the commentary was about how the last one should be difficult to solve after doing the previous ones. That's what I was addressing.
...So refreshing to have a post/thread about chess.
Thank you Leiph18
I solved all correct in the first try but admittedly I spent a very long time at the last one.
I say the idea of Qh6 only after I blindly played Qe6+.
Yes, hopefully they are easy to solve. The 3rd puzzle intentionally has a longer solution. If I set it up well enough (I may not have) most people will not notice this though, good job! (Also if the mind goes to the smothered mate, then the 4th puzzle will be harder than if you'd seen it first instead of last.)
Very cool.
However, the second puzzle is flawed due to 1..Rd5
Maybe move that rook to e8 in the starting position
Very cool.
However, the second puzzle is flawed due to 1..Rd5
Maybe move that rook to e8 in the starting position
Nice!
The last problem didn't trip me up, but I suspect it may be because I was expecting the last one to contain a trick that made the pattern not work. It's hard to get around that when the person knows it's a test that involves chess blindness.
You're missing the point.
You're supposed to detect the difference in the last problem. The trick question is number 3, and it fooled you :-)
I don't think it's really fooling. If there are two themes on the board, and one is much more common, seeing the more common theme first strikes me as being more efficient if the practical result is the same (checkmate).
It means your brain is looking for the frequent patterns first before falling back to plan B.
I got all of them. Indeed I picked the smothered mate option in #3, but that seemed like a pretty reasonable road since it was the most obvious, and it was letting me do it :) If I was asked to find the fastest solution I would, but chess doesn't make that distinction :) Of course chess experience helps a lot in all of this. I think a lot of chess skill is learning to detach yourself from insisting a certain move must work. Like being able to say, ok, maybe there is another way to tackle this problem. Or sometimes it will be the combination you think it is, but you need to make a few other moves before it works. True others would just say it's all pattern recognition, but then again, as you sort of said, that can even work against you because it can keep you from looking at at least slightly different possibilities. In fact a lot of times a solution is not even complicated, but is simply unexpected to those who weren't thinking flexibly enough.
In puzzle #2 though, I couldn't find anything against 1 Qb3+ Rd5 2 Qxd5+ Kh8, since any "smothered mate" will result in the queen on g8, guarding f7. I looked for other ideas but couldn't really find any, especially since back rank mate is constantly being threatened. Maybe there is some sort of strange bind white has here although I kind of doubt it. In any case I don't see an immediate mate and white may even need to take a draw.
Oops on #2, I didn't bother to check them with an engine (obviously).
I agree.
Also about not complicated, just unexpected. I find myself often checking out "crazy" moves, just to see. "It doesn't have to be good, just interesting" is something I find myself saying often. I suppose that's my way of trying to stay flexible.
In the 1940s some experiments were being done by psychologists interested in how people solve problems, and why we're sometimes blind to solutions we would otherwise normally see. What they found can be applied to us chess players, and in fact it already has. So for those who haven't had the pleasure, I thought I'd share it here.
The following is how the experiment was reproduced using chess puzzles. By solving the following 4 puzzles you'll be participating in the same sort of experiment!
All puzzles are white to move and mate: