Pavlovian method of chess training

How much better would the quality of your moves become, if a computer gauged your playing and rewarded you with a sugar treat or IV drip or serotonin booster or something proportionally to the quality of each move as instant feedback?

Do you think that would make your game improve quickly, similarly to how we train rats?

no it wouldn't.the higher centers like the cerebral cortex functions in a different way.

Could it be an IV drip of whiskey?  Then I'd play like a Grand Master, or at least I'd be so drunk I'd think I was playing that well.

But it would certainly make practicing a lot easier and more compelling. I think it would definitely drive improvement as you'd never get bored of playing. When you get a rush from making a good move, or winning a game, it's pretty much the natural equivalent of the same reward system anyway.

You, Sir, are a genius! This is exactly how the mammalian brain learns, using a simple Pavlovian system of positive and negative feedback.  This already occurs at a mild level during our chess games as we are trying to win and feel upset when we lose and a rush of pleasure (dopamine and serotonin) when we win.  Thus we naturally tend to learn the moves, tactics and strategies that will increase our chances of feeling the rush of victory rather than the pain of defeat.  Your hypothesis of augmenting this process is fascinating.  Heismann already teaches that chess is hugely psychological and he advises to play like your life depended on it, but this mental state is very difficult to achieve and maintain as deep down we know there really is no physical repercussion for a loss outside of our own disappointment.  How about if, as you suggest, we were to actually link a physical outcome with the outcome of a game.  Some sort of physical reward attached to the win, some of negative physical outcome attached to a loss?  A limited example of this could be, as a somewhat random example, a delicious slice of chocolate cake.  If you win, you get the usual rush of victory PLUS the pleasure of eating the slice chocolate cake, augmenting your seratonin and dopamine release.  If you lose, you must throw the slice of chocolate cake in the trash and perform 200 pushups/sit ups/other strenuous activity, thus combining the pain of the loss with the loss of your dessert and a strenuous physical punishment.  You could of course substitute milder or more extreme rewards and punishments as you see fit.  The theory would be that this "must win" would be played at the limit of your chess ability, you will focus harder, calculate further, and any bad moves will be forever burned into your memory until the end of time.  I will have to investigate this hypothesis, and continue my important beer/chess experimentation after my hiatus...

Pavlov's classical conditioning had to do with teaching the dog to salivate on hearing a bell, that is, the pairing of a stimulus with a reflex response.  B.F. Skinner's operant conditioning (behaviorism) had more to do with influencing voluntary behaviours such as playing chess.  Chomsky attacked Skinner around 1959 asserting that the brain is built in such a way as to facilitate the creation of rules, and this potential is present at birth.

In any case, operant conditioning as a method of teaching went out of fashion in the 1960's.

If you are interested in psychology and theories of learning, perhaps you would enjoy GM Jonathan Rowson's book Chess for Zebras.

You are, of course, both correct. I was using the term "Pavlovian" in response to the OP and as a colloquial catch-all term to incorporate Skinner's operant conditioning. I must admit I had not expected such erudite responses on such an esoteric subject... mea culpa...

Perhaps operant conditioning went out of fashion in the 60s, but as a father of a two year old I can attest to its immense learning potential, at least... that's my parenting style... and as they say, fashions change... Style's eternal :)

Kids imitate their parents and friends, and learn a lot things that way.  I think one of the reasons that behaviorism went out of fashion is people realized that you don't necessarily need material rewards to learn.  Mastering new skills is to some extent a 'reward' in and of itself.