Monday, September 19, 2022

System1, are you awake?

 We know that system 1 is all about SEEing.  But how do you know when you have seen enough? System 1 doesn't tell you when he is ready. Say, you SEE the lines of attack, and you SEE the pivotal points, and you SEE the overloaded piece and you SEE the elimination of the defender. And you measure, that you SEE everything within a few seconds. How do you know that you have learned everything you can from this position?

Somehow the communication with system 1 seems to be a bit one dimensional.

21 comments:

  1. I think the seeing system gives you a quick onramp to calculation or PopLoafun. you might not even realize it's happening. So remind me does the SEE in SEEing stand for an acronym or is it just SEEing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Today I saw a documentary about gold diggers in Australia. I have seen the series quite a few times. I noticed that I needed very little time to recognize the persons. A silhouette, a posture, even a glove was enough to recognize who it was.

    On the other hand, when I look at a chess position about which I have written a post in the past, It might take 30 seconds before I realize which position it is. Considering it took me hours to write that post, it is weird that it takes me so long to recognize it.

    In a documentary about Susan Polgar, it was stated that she had hijacked her fusiform face area for the recognition of chess positions. Given the fact that it still costs me a few seconds to recognize a chess position I have studied for long, in comparison to how fast I recognize the people from Aussies Gold Hunter, I guess I'm not there yet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Some chess combinations, like Boden's mate, Anastasia's mate and a smothered mate, I recognize as fast as I recognize the persons in Aussies gold hunter. But other chess positions take me more time. So even for adults it is possible to hijack their fusiform face area for chess. I hypothesize that we need to do that for our basic chess relations. Recognize an overloaded piece with your FFA.

    ReplyDelete
  4. TS, This train of thought reminds me of things we were talking about in 2006. Do we just see things or do we jumpstart our recognition engine by asking ourselves questions/rules of thumb? Perhaps a little bit of both. It is of no use looking for a Boden Mate if you don't have 2 bishops or control of a diagonal by the king. I have said if you can get a Rook on the eighth rank supported by bishop move heaven and earth to make this happen (but check by calculation 8)) as this is checkmating move in a high percentage of problems once all the furniture is moved. It would be interested to note what patterns you don't feel you are recognizing. Do these patterns have names ? Can you give them a name ? I have found after I learned of a dovetail & epaulette mate name I have recognized these pawn structure more often. There are a lot of interesting questions in chess and I am glad you keep thinking on them through the years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In 2006 we were very close to the answer. There were very few details missing. Since those details are in the invisible part of the mind (system 1) we can only find these details my systematic reasoning in combination with close observation of what is going on in our minds. MDLM put us totally on the wrong foot by accentuating speed and repetition. Both are irrelevant to the subject.

      It takes courage and patience to think everything over and over again, until all the wrinkles are ironed out. I hope the readers have some patience left. Years of reasoning have cut out all the nonsense out there which is popular among students and chess coaches alike.

      I think that we need the FFA to explain why a 12 year old girl can become a grandmaster. I think there is a difference between what you recognize in a few seconds, and what you recognize with the aid of the FFA. Different part of the brains are involved.

      I can explain the average speed of Susan Polgar of 2.6 seconds per move (walking from board to board and tea pauzes included!) only with the aid of the FFA.

      We can hijack our FFA for chess. Age doesn't stand in the way. We only have to find an efficient method. We have some kind of method now. But it is not efficient.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the link on the FFA and Chess Expertise! The research on FFA is fascinating.

      How can we apply the results of the research?

      Delete
    3. I'm not sure yet. But I think in the following direction. The FFA is not solely for faces. I saw the same when I was looking Aussies gold hunters. The series provided the context. I saw a glove and due to the elegant shape I knew immediately who it was. So it was a combination of context and object recognition. What did I do to absorb that knowledge? I have been exposed to the series.

      As you see, age doesn't matter. I learn new faces every day. Although it becomes a bit worse lately, mostly due to that I'm less interested in new faces.

      So why is our Tai SEE method less effective than looking at the telly? I think we should focus on less objects, and that we must look much deeper. The power of the FFA is that it is able to recognize faces everywhere. Even in tree bark.

      So take a simple object, like an overloaded piece, and find as many lookalikes as you can get, and the mere exposure should do the job. Don't be satisfied as long as the recognition isn't immediate

      Delete
    4. Maybe we shouldn't look deeper but longer. And more focused.

      Delete
    5. So would one reconstruction the position on a physical board from memory be beneficial ?

      Delete
  5. BTW. Are you watching the American series Gold Rush with Parker Snaabel and Tony Beets ? or is it something else ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I looked at that series too. But this is specific about gold prospecting in Australia.

      Delete
  6. Also through the years I wonder if solving the problem continuously incorrectly leads to false memory links. If it might be better to watch the movements of chess pieces as a video or GIF.so study the right moves first to link the position to best play.

    ReplyDelete
  7. PART I:

    Corrective feedback generally prevents false memory links from being created and strengthened.

    Getting a problem wrong MIGHT be a stepping stone to learning. Feedback (after a brief delay) increases long-term retention. Interleaving of different types of problems can also be a stepping stone to learning. There’s an essential kind of learning that comes from reflection on personal experience. If we don’t reflect on what we SHOULD be SEEing, then it is impossible to learn the appropriate lesson.

    Our intention during problem solving is usually focused on solving the problem. The specific problem SHOULD be a mere vehicle, a means to an end and not an end in itself. The individual problems are unimportant as long as the process is repeated. The implication of that assertion s that we are (usually?) looking at the wrong thing(s) when problem solving. That’s why we repeat the process (‘solving’ problems) - and fail to learn from them. This is one of the major reasons for failing to improve after ‘solving’ thousands of problems.

    To make sure that new learning is available when it’s needed, you memorize the list of things to do in a given situation: steps A, B, C, and D and you drill on them. Then there comes a time when you get in a tight situation and it’s no longer a matter of thinking through the steps [System 2], it’s a matter of reflexively [System 1] taking the correct action. Unless you keep recalling this maneuver, it will not become a reflex. Recalling it over and over, practicing it over and over. That’s just so important. [From a surgeon]

    Practicing retrieval makes learning stick far better than re exposure to the original material does. To be most effective, retrieval must be repeated again and again, in spaced out sessions, so that the recall, rather than becoming a mindless recitation, requires some cognitive effort. Repeated retrieval can so embed knowledge and skills that they become reflexive; the brain [System 1] acts before the mind [System 2] has time to think.

    [Regarding repeated puzzles that we get wrong, are we trying to recall the moves to solve the puzzle (and getting them wrong AGAIN) or are we trying to recall what we should be SEEing?]

    The best results occur when spending approximately 60 percent of the study time doing recitation and reflection.

    Extracted and paraphrased from:

    make it stick: The Science of Successful Learning, Brown, Roediger II and McDaniel, © 2014.

    ReplyDelete
  8. PART II:

    Intensity of focus during training is essential but NOT sufficient in itself. The Buddhists have a saying: Practice like your hair is on fire! But no matter how intensively you try to focus, if you are focusing on the wrong thing (like solving a puzzle rather than learning from it), the effort is generally wasted.

    I suggest that if we are repeating the same problem multiple times and get it wrong every time, then we have not spent sufficient time reflecting on the problem and what it can teach us.

    When I practiced martial arts, I would start learning a new kata (form) by memorizing the individual techniques in sequence – A, B, C, D, … etc. In mot cases, this would be many more steps than could be held in short-term memory. As soon as I could (sloppily) get all the way through it, without leaving out any of the specific techniques, I would then perform it for my instructors. That’s when the repetition began, with feedback. The feedback was usually non-verbal. The instructor would reposition a hand, leg or foot or shift the body (sometimes so slight and subtle a change that I would wonder what the actual difference was – and I would have to reflect on the reason for that change over and again), and then I would repeat that sequence again. It took months (sometimes years) to get to the point required: to KNOW that kata sufficiently well to perform it without any criticism from my instructors. At that point, System 1 was in complete control. The fascinating feeling is that you are being carried along, with System 2 totally free to observe what was happening, without any logical interference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "if you are focusing on the wrong thing (like solving a puzzle rather than learning from it), the effort is generally wasted."

      Luckily, the things that we need to practice are way more basic and simple than we are inclined to think. Yesterday I was watching two 1100 players, and I focused on what they were missing and what I was missing. It appeared that I missed some basic stuff. Like what is mentioned here in the post about salient cues It is really that simple.

      Delete
  9. Thanks RC. Will reflect on this.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thinking roles not moves is SEEing not Calculation

    ReplyDelete