Now on ScienceBlogs: Another week of GW News, August 29, 2010

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

« Charity is Social | Main | Musical Predictions »

Chess Intuition

Posted on: January 18, 2010 12:20 PM, by Jonah Lehrer

Time Magazine has an interesting profile of Magnus Carlsen, the youngest chess player to achieve a number one world ranking:

Genius can appear anywhere, but the origins of Carlsen's talent are particularly mysterious. He hails from Norway -- a "small, poxy chess nation with almost no history of success," as the English grand master Nigel Short sniffily describes it -- and unlike many chess prodigies who are full-time players by age 12, Carlsen stayed in school until last year. His father Henrik, a soft-spoken engineer, says he has spent more time urging his young son to complete his schoolwork than to play chess. Even now, Henrik will interrupt Carlsen's chess studies to drag him out for a family hike or museum trip. "I still have to pinch my arm," Henrik says. "This certainly is not what we had in mind for Magnus."

Even pro chess players -- a population inured to demonstrations of extraordinary intellect -- have been electrified by Carlsen's rise. A grand master at 13 (the third youngest in history) and a conqueror of top players at 15, he is often referred to as the Mozart of chess for the seeming ease of his mastery. In September, he announced a coaching contract with Garry Kasparov, arguably the greatest player of all time, who quit chess in 2005 to pursue a political career in Russia. "Before he is done," Kasparov says, "Carlsen will have changed our ancient game considerably."

One of the fascinating elements of Carlsen's talent is that he's learned the game by playing computer chess, matching his wits against advanced algorithms. The end result is a prodigy who's amassed an unprecedented amount of deliberate practice at an early age, as he's able to play multiple games on the same machine at the same time. Computers, in other words, have accelerated the pace of his chess education.

The article then discusses Carlsen's semi-mystical chess "intuition," which allows the youngster to "feel for where to place the pieces":

According to Kasparov, Carlsen has a knack for sensing the potential energy in each move, even if its ultimate effect is too far away for anyone -- even a computer -- to calculate. In the grand-master commentary room, where chess's clerisy gather to analyze play, the experts did not even consider several of Carlsen's moves during his game with Kramnik until they saw them and realized they were perfect. "It's hard to explain," Carlsen says. "Sometimes a move just feels right."

At first glance, there is something surprising about a teenager weaned on chess software extolling the wonders of intuition. It's as if we expect Carlsen to act like his software, to be as explicit in his strategic decisions as Deep Blue, the IBM supercomputer. But that misses the real purpose of practice and the real genius of the human brain. When we practice properly - and this means engaging in deliberate practice - we aren't just accumulating factual knowledge. Instead, we're embedding our experience into our unconscious, so that even insanely complicated calculations - and Carlsen can regularly plan twenty chess moves in advance - become mostly automatic.

This is a truism of expertise. Although we tend to think of experts as being weighted down by information, their intelligence dependent on a vast set of facts, experts are actually profoundly intuitive. When experts evaluate a situation, they don't systematically compare all the available options or consciously analyze the relevant information. Carlsen, for instance, doesn't compute the probabilities of winning if he moves his rook to the left rather than the right. Instead, experts naturally depend on the emotions generated by their experience. Their prediction errors - all those mistakes they made in the past - have been translated into useful knowledge, which allows them to tap into a set of accurate feelings they can't begin to explain. Neils Bohr said it best: an expert is "a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." From the perspective of the brain, Bohr was absolutely right.

And this is why we shouldn't be surprised that a chess prodigy raised on chess computer programs would be even more intuitive than traditional grandmasters. The software allows him to play more chess, which allows him to make more mistakes, which allows him to accumulate experience at a prodigious pace.

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook
Find more posts in: Education

Trackbacks

Trackback URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/129742

Comments (33)

1

Maybe it also means that strategic skills are more endemic to our so-called emotional brain than our rational brains are wont to admit.

Posted by: royniles | January 18, 2010 12:29 PM

2

I can verify this from my personal experience. I used to play Armagetron Advanced massively for a few years, a very simple free Tron-like game.

At times when I was playing all day long, I had rather intense repetitive dreams, where opposing players would box me in over and over again, in short: where I had to relive all the mistakes I made over the day.

The next day, I could anticipate harmful situations from a mile away. I started to notice that the less I concentrated on the game, the better I would play, the more effortless my winning strikes became. When intuition took over, I was perfect.

I remember especially one game where I was playing against eight opponents and got caught up in an on-screen religious discussion with one guy, which only helped my rational mind to focus away from the action - I effortlessly won the game, and I will never forget it. The mind is a wonderful tool.

After about one and a half year into playing Armagetron, I became virtually invincible, no-one wanted to play against me anymore, so I wrote a few tutorials on strategies, which leveled the playing field a bit.

I don't play AA anymore though. The last time I tried, I was out of practice, and people had new tricks up their sleeves - luckily.

Posted by: Leonard Ritter | January 18, 2010 1:43 PM

3

For what it's worth, the chess grandmaster Lars Bo Hansen agrees with you. Further, he argues that intuition is going to be an increasingly important part of chess for the next generation as players struggle against opponents armed with computer-prepared opening surprises.

See his recent book Improve your Chess by Learning from the Champions (Gambit, 2009).

Posted by: Joshua | January 18, 2010 3:24 PM

4

"Instead, experts naturally depend on the emotions generated by their experience. "

No, this is deeply wrong.

I think you'll find Carlsen goes deeper and does more efficient calculation than his opponents, and that this looks like 'intuition' but it is not in any way based on 'feel' or 'emotion' or 'it just seems right'. Carlsen has some amazing pattern recognition and move tree pruning heuristics built in to where he does more efficient calculation and can make better predictions in unclear situations. For every move he makes on the board, he has done hundreds of calculations internally, the 'intuitive' part only comes after all of this, the process is nothing like the colloquial usage of the word 'intuition'.

Posted by: inboulder | January 18, 2010 8:34 PM

5

This is interesting in reverse as well. With artificial intelligence design, not just to create better chess programs but better digital instincts, the mistake model could be very helpful. Instead of merely programming to remember right answer, having a program which remembers wrong answers, and chooses anything other than those experiences.

Posted by: Matthew Putman | January 19, 2010 5:19 AM

6

@inboulder

For every move he makes on the board, he has done hundreds of calculations internally, the 'intuitive' part only comes after all of this, the process is nothing like the colloquial usage of the word 'intuition'.

This gets it backwards. It's intuition first, then calculation. Garry Kasparov, Carlson's coach, discusses the importance of intuition in his book "How Life Imitates Chess," in a way that is roughly similar to Jonah's analysis. According to Kasparov, first intuition gives the player a candidate move, and then calculations are used to verify the soundness of the intuition. The intuitions themselves come with experience.

Posted by: SJA | January 19, 2010 10:37 AM

7

Except that "intuition" IS the result and response to an "instinctive" form of learned strategic calculation. The rational brain further analyzes those results to look for flaws. That's what "verify the soundness" refers to, the "logical" soundness of the emotional brain's unconscious calculative process.

Posted by: royniles | January 19, 2010 1:14 PM

8

Very well written. This kid seems amazing. Kasparov said it well I guess. He will change the game by the time he's done!

Posted by: liberalcynic | January 19, 2010 2:22 PM

9

Intuition is only a reflection of subconscious calculations. As mentioned above, we may try to validate these subconscious calculations using conscious rational skills.

This also has an interesting relationship (perhaps exactly the same thing?) with the concept of "Flow", a state when someone is fully engaged in a task. All resources are completely focused on the task, so much so the individual may not be conscious of their own body. Their brain is only reacting.

A state of flow comes when great skill meets challenge. This reflects the 'intuition' of an expert mentioned here. The calculations are not conscious acts, and appear to be instinctive reactions by the individual and observers.

Posted by: Kevin Vogelsang | January 19, 2010 3:03 PM

10

@royniles

Except that "intuition" IS the result and response to an "instinctive" form of learned strategic calculation. The rational brain further analyzes those results to look for flaws. That's what "verify the soundness" refers to, the "logical" soundness of the emotional brain's unconscious calculative process.

By "calculation," I meant conscious calculation—which is the ordinary usage. This kind of calculation goes like this: "If I go here, he will go here; if he goes here..." I highly doubt the subconscious mind goes through anything resembling this kind of process. Nor is it likely that the mind runs through each and every possible move to evaluate it. It seems more likely that the mind engages in pattern recognition, i.e., "chunking," which is not the same as "learned strategic calculation."

Posted by: SJA | January 19, 2010 6:05 PM

11

SJA, the "subconscious" does exactly the type of calculation you propose as the sole purview of the conscious, and more. If it didn't, what else would then account for the effectiveness of intuition?

"Learned strategic calculation" is what instinctive behavior is all about. Pattern recognition is only a mall part of this. Instincts are in effect strategies that evolve through the augmentation of learned experience.

Posted by: royniles | January 19, 2010 6:23 PM

12

Great article, but I must say Magnus got good at the game not because he has been playing vs chess engines but because he has a deep understanding of a given position. I will not get into the topic of positional chess, if you are anywhere near interested in Chess then you should check out some of Vladmir Kramnik games, he is probably one of the best positional chess players. Back to Magnus, he has learnt a lot over the years and Chess Engines are only good analyzing and in some cases may be helping you become better player but a GM does not need a chess engine to become a better player. Please refer to this great post http://www.mychessblog.com/intuition-vs-logic-in-chess-do-you-hold-chess-to-be-a-game-of-logic-only/

Posted by: Azi | January 19, 2010 6:49 PM

13

@roy

the "subconscious" does exactly the type of calculation you propose as the sole purview of the conscious, and more.
If the subconscious mind executes the type of calculation I sketched, then the brain would be overwhelmed, because so many options are available at any given point in a game. This would also be in conflict with experimental data, which shows that expert chess players expend less energy in their brains when analyzing a position than novices do. This is because expert chess players consider fewer alternatives than novices do. In other words, experts calculate less.


If it didn't, what else would then account for the effectiveness of intuition?

Heightened awareness and pattern recognition ("chunking").


"Learned strategic calculation" is what instinctive behavior is all about.

That's not true at all. Instincts are not learned; they are hard-wired. Intuitions, on the other hand, are learned—in the sense that we develop them through experience.

Posted by: SJA | January 19, 2010 7:08 PM

14

SJA,
Well, if you disagree, you disagree. But ask yourself how the hard wiring came about that, if not at some point learned, was nevertheless so eerily consistent with each species-specific learned experience? And how the wiring seems to change over time with such consistency to adaptive pressures?
And pattern recognition doesn't then give us the strategies that are to be associated with that pattern, and then make by some autonomous process the series of decisions needed to respond to the situation on the ground, so to speak - or does it?

And by the way, in your posited process of learning intuitional "logic" through experience, was there any calculation going on in the emotional brain apparatus, and if so, was it not an "if this, then that" determinative process at the very minimum?
And do not lower forms of animal life that seemingly act intuitively hunt and play using the same "if this, then that" strategic systemological methodology?

But enough with the rhetorical diversion. The pattern of irreducible difference here is clear.

Posted by: royniles | January 19, 2010 8:00 PM

15

Your piece, and most of the comment stream, seem to imply that intuition is not much more than massively rapid calculations, achieved via massive, deliberate practice. If so, then anyone playing the same number of hours vs. the same algorithms would be Carlsen's equal. Isn't it more likely that particular brains more efficient than others in processing particular types of experience? So the genius, intuitive play that Carlsen displays occurs only when there is a perfect coincidence of ability and subject matter? Or perhaps that ability is universally-applicable, meaning Carlsen could now be the world's greatest chef, if he had spent an equal number of hours with recipe databases? Interested in any insights/suggested reading you or your readers have on these questions.

Posted by: dowells | January 19, 2010 8:47 PM

16

Perhaps it is not as complicated as it seems.

*Synthesis*

Instincts, intuitions, experience - all interchangeable, all interplays - flowing back and forth, to and from, up and down, past/present/future, holistically - the result being a synthesis point when all come together to actualise that moment of the decisive move.

Enjoy enjoy enjoy


Posted by: meryl | January 19, 2010 11:11 PM

17

@royniles, thanks for the stimulating questions, even if you intended them as mere rhetoric.

But ask yourself how the hard wiring came about that, if not at some point learned, was nevertheless so eerily consistent with each species-specific learned experience? And how the wiring seems to change over time with such consistency to adaptive pressures?

I think you're equivocating with the word "learned." Of course, in a sense, instincts are "learned" by a species over generations. But not in the same way that intuitions are learned by a person during that person's life. A person is born with instincts but can develop intuition. Here's how Marilyn vos Savant put it, "the distinction between instinct and intuition is like the difference between the autonomic nervous system and the central nervous system." Brain Building, pg. 97.

And pattern recognition doesn't then give us the strategies that are to be associated with that pattern, and then make by some autonomous process the series of decisions needed to respond to the situation on the ground, so to speak - or does it?

I can assure you that Carlsen develops his strategies prior to his games, at least if he is preparing for his games with Kasparov. The process of developing strategies will involve intuition as well, but strategies are not generally "felt" in the way that a good move on the board is felt, which is what Carlsen and Kasparov were talking about in the interview. As for your suggestion that it is absurd to think that pattern recognition might "give us" associated strategies, why not? A set of strategies might be neurologically connected to a given pattern due to past associations.

And by the way, in your posited process of learning intuitional "logic" through experience, was there any calculation going on in the emotional brain apparatus, and if so, was it not an "if this, then that" determinative process at the very minimum?

M point was that, whatever the process, it won't involve calculating each and every option. As for "intuitional 'logic'", I don't know what that is. I talked about "chunking." Here's what it says over at Wikipedia about chunking: "A chunk can then be defined as "a collection of elements having strong associations with one another, but weak associations with elements within other chunks" (Gobet et al., 2001, p. 236). Chase and Simon (1973), and later Gobet, Retschitzki and de Voogt (2004), showed that chunking could explain several phenomena linked to expertise in chess.

And do not lower forms of animal life that seemingly act intuitively hunt and play using the same "if this, then that" strategic systemological methodology?

What is "strategic systemological methodology"? I googled it, and it looks like you may be the first person to have used this term on the internet. Cool.

Posted by: SJA | January 20, 2010 11:00 AM

18

"Strategic systemological methodology" is what you would use to take advantage of your prior "intelligent choice" selection of "pattern relevant" memory chunks. Which were strategies you had learned and deemed material for their potential value as enhancements to the wired versions that had evolved as the basic modus operandi for human competitive success. Or not.

Posted by: royniles | January 20, 2010 1:02 PM

19

Great article, I was with you all the way until this part:

"And this is why we shouldn't be surprised that a chess prodigy raised on chess computer programs would be even more intuitive than traditional grandmasters."

That is quite a leap. The truth is we have 0 idea why this young genius is more intuitive, nor do we even have any way of knowing if he is "more intuitive" since it's such a subjective and abstract thing to measure. Unless "intuitive" equals "the best" in which case I suppose you can claim whoever is the best at something is the most intuitive at it.

Posted by: David | January 21, 2010 12:00 AM

20

Nice comment, David. I agree you regarding the leap in logic as to the connection between computer programs and intuition. There are at least two assumptions here: (1) chess players play more games because of computer programs, and (2) playing games on the computer improves intuition at least as much, if not more, than playing over the board.

These assumptions are questionable. Players have traditionally played tons of games over the board in chess clubs or at home with a tutor or in other forums, and there's something to be said for practicing face-to-face with a human opponent. (Josh Waitzkin touches on this subject in his book, "The Art of Learning.") After all, games are played face-to-face in tournaments.

However, I disagree about evidence regarding Carlsen's superior intuition. We do have some evidence. First, we have Kasparov's informed opinion—after all, he is Carlsen's coach, and he is still widely considered the best player ever. Second, we have Carlsen himself, who has said, "Sometimes a move just feels right"—which indicates the operation of intuition. These opinions should not be dismissed.

Posted by: SJA | January 21, 2010 11:59 AM

21

Astonishingly high level of commentary.

Key issues are whether Carsen's 'something special' was accelerated by computer games and whether they would have a similar effect on ordinary mortals. I understand the Polgar story is being presented as 'nurture over nature'.. My 'intution' senses the case to favour 'nature supported by nurture'.

Posted by: Tudor | January 21, 2010 1:47 PM

22

Great post, thanks! I've written a short piece on it on ChessVibes, curious to hear your opinion.

Posted by: Arne | January 22, 2010 5:42 AM

24

Fishing.

Posted by: Tony Comstock | January 24, 2010 1:22 PM

25

There was an article about computer chess programs and the programmers that write them in The New Yorker. I read it in Best American Science Writing 2006:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/12/051212fa_fact_mueller

Posted by: Patrick | January 25, 2010 9:41 AM

26

All in all, I have been blogging for nearly 11 months, but I cannot seem to get anyplace. I just keep using random techniques, and not using a plan or system. I looked around and saw the technique Blogging to the Bank. I heard great things about it but not convinced if I am gonna purchase it. I am thinking of purchasing this new blogging system, i was just curious if somebody had bought it before and what your experience was with it.

Posted by: Mepirrappy | February 19, 2010 3:15 AM

27

I wonder if Magnus could beat this chess playing chicken?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTwbfw-js3A

Posted by: Orot Led | February 25, 2010 12:32 AM

28

Oh! This is perfect! Thanks for putting to rest many
misunderstandings I have seen about this recently.

Posted by: story | March 12, 2010 11:55 AM

29

I got a great FREE quote from this site and thank the good lord that I didn't just say the hell with it and join through Progressive or Geico, they were more than anyone. It is funny too how they have the most commercials about being the kings of saving people a lot and their prices turn out to be the worst. Unreal.

______________
JCB

Posted by: Flowsshoxyvow | March 23, 2010 12:26 PM

30

По-моему это уже обсуждалось

Posted by: TractorZhuuv | April 8, 2010 3:48 PM

31

The everyone continually makes the assumption that the publication of an slip is duplicate with the ascertaining of truly - that the howler and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the on cloud nine turns to, when it is cured on entire error, is commonly simply another error, and maybe one worse than the first one.

Posted by: Logitech | April 14, 2010 5:45 AM

32

Eating, loving, singing and digesting are, in actually, the four acts of the jocose opera known as freshness, and they pass like bubbles of a bottle of champagne. Whoever lets them contravene without having enjoyed them is a complete fool.

Posted by: Longines Conquest | April 18, 2010 7:30 AM

33

Tiger always gives 110 percent. That is why he gave 100 percent to his wife and still had 10 percent left over for his alleged mistress.

Posted by: Golf Carts | August 29, 2010 6:48 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter
Advertisement
Change.org|Start Petition

© 2006-2010 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.