Science of Chess: Looking for Beauty on the Chessboard

Comments on https://lichess.org/@/ndpatzer/blog/science-of-chess-looking-for-beauty-on-the-chessboard/vUZYqdFY

Before getting to chess, an important question to ask is are you a Platonist (are math and scientific ideas are mind independent)? Among philosophers about 40% are Platonists and 40% Nominalists, as where mathematicians are closer to 60% Platonists, holding the subject they study (math) is mind independent, humans use there minds to discover the Truth that exists outside of minds. Among Philosophers the 40% who are Nominalists, there is no such thing as mind independence, and even laws of math and science are not objective but subjective. But classifying yourself as a Nominalist or a Platonist will clarify your research, as you tend to bounce back and forth between the two, confusing readers and followers.

Related to chess, chess is objective, and what the best move can be considered mind independent, a computer can calculate the Truth of the matter, or at least a percent probability. What human minds think has no scientific value. Beauty in chess will not be able to be calculated is an objective way. Like Clavicular, at best you can use a standard of what minds find to be aesthetic, separate those and measure those, but is still not objective, because it is based on a presumption of what minds find aesthetic. Or at best can predict what human minds on average find aesthetic but not an objective standard.

Similar to understanding chess as anything more than a simple game. Chess might mean more to different people, but no objective claim can be made to chess having any greater meaning that a child's game we still play or study.

Regarding the importance of studying beginners being more important for science than experts, your 'joke' (mere mortals) shows that you are not actually being scientific, as obviously from a scientific standard we use a baseline of universal humanism, and the top chess players are definitely mere humans, and their expertise was achieved step by step similar to anyone else. At some point they to passed from the beginner stages through intermediate to mastery. Without a detailed theory for the progression from novice to mastery, the study of mastery is less informative than the study of mastery. And if fact the process of study, including the top players from novice to mastery in chess has been well studied, and although top players may have higher skills in certain areas, all went through known processes over long periods of time in the same manner that any new player does.

So the study of the greats does little for anyone but already top players who already mastered the game trying to climb further ranks among the masters, as opposed to normal chess improvement, there is very little to learn from top players, but the process of novice to intermediate, and the long path of progression from intermediate to masters that most never achieve. The criticism might be more the approach of studying masters is less informative, and less scientific, and if one insists on studying masters, one must have a working theory for how they achieved mastery, or else like your poor joke, you put forward unscientific ideas that players like Magnus Carlsen are not mere mortals, and did not go through the same universal process everyone else did. Or what mixture of natural characteristics Magnus might have that made him excel on the journey more than others.

Otherwise you are mixing science and fantasy.

The important distinction you may be missing is 'objective' versus 'subjective' in the classical sense, where objective means mind independent and subjective is mind dependent. In the example of facial recognition, determining the face is the same is objective and does not depend on mind, as where is the face aesthetic is mind dependent. One can try to make aesthetic more objective by applying criteria, and the criteria are objective in terms of measurable aspects like proportionality, golden ratio (similar to popular influencer Clavicular's beauty rankings based on 'objective' geometric properties). So to try for a science of beauty, first you must recognize that only minds find beauty and is subjective. At best you can try to determine the rules that minds use to determine beauty and then apply the rules to determine beauty (like Clavicular's beauty rankings for faces, but even he uses a 1-10 scale and is not meant to be objective but only in comparison of what humans find aestetic). But in that case you are not measuring beauty, you are creating a theory for what human minds find aesthetic, and then trying to measure those standards independent of human minds to make a aesthetic ranking, as there can by definition never be an objective measure of beauty. Before getting to chess, an important question to ask is are you a Platonist (are math and scientific ideas are mind independent)? Among philosophers about 40% are Platonists and 40% Nominalists, as where mathematicians are closer to 60% Platonists, holding the subject they study (math) is mind independent, humans use there minds to discover the Truth that exists outside of minds. Among Philosophers the 40% who are Nominalists, there is no such thing as mind independence, and even laws of math and science are not objective but subjective. But classifying yourself as a Nominalist or a Platonist will clarify your research, as you tend to bounce back and forth between the two, confusing readers and followers. Related to chess, chess is objective, and what the best move can be considered mind independent, a computer can calculate the Truth of the matter, or at least a percent probability. What human minds think has no scientific value. Beauty in chess will not be able to be calculated is an objective way. Like Clavicular, at best you can use a standard of what minds find to be aesthetic, separate those and measure those, but is still not objective, because it is based on a presumption of what minds find aesthetic. Or at best can predict what human minds on average find aesthetic but not an objective standard. Similar to understanding chess as anything more than a simple game. Chess might mean more to different people, but no objective claim can be made to chess having any greater meaning that a child's game we still play or study. Regarding the importance of studying beginners being more important for science than experts, your 'joke' (mere mortals) shows that you are not actually being scientific, as obviously from a scientific standard we use a baseline of universal humanism, and the top chess players are definitely mere humans, and their expertise was achieved step by step similar to anyone else. At some point they to passed from the beginner stages through intermediate to mastery. Without a detailed theory for the progression from novice to mastery, the study of mastery is less informative than the study of mastery. And if fact the process of study, including the top players from novice to mastery in chess has been well studied, and although top players may have higher skills in certain areas, all went through known processes over long periods of time in the same manner that any new player does. So the study of the greats does little for anyone but already top players who already mastered the game trying to climb further ranks among the masters, as opposed to normal chess improvement, there is very little to learn from top players, but the process of novice to intermediate, and the long path of progression from intermediate to masters that most never achieve. The criticism might be more the approach of studying masters is less informative, and less scientific, and if one insists on studying masters, one must have a working theory for how they achieved mastery, or else like your poor joke, you put forward unscientific ideas that players like Magnus Carlsen are not mere mortals, and did not go through the same universal process everyone else did. Or what mixture of natural characteristics Magnus might have that made him excel on the journey more than others. Otherwise you are mixing science and fantasy.

NDpatzer

I was working on a response to some of the more interesting points you made, but I think I'm going to stick with this for now.

"Regarding the importance of studying beginners being more important for science than experts, your 'joke' (mere mortals) shows that you are not actually being scientific..."

It's not especially constructive to dismiss someone as unscientific because they use a light-hearted analogy you don't like. To clarify, I don't think GMs are gods or have supernatural powers, and I'm amazed you arrived at any other conclusion. It's difficult to want to engage with your other points when you decide to kick off a discussion this way.

I was working on a response to some of the more interesting points you made, but I think I'm going to stick with this for now. "Regarding the importance of studying beginners being more important for science than experts, your 'joke' (mere mortals) shows that you are not actually being scientific..." It's not especially constructive to dismiss someone as unscientific because they use a light-hearted analogy you don't like. To clarify, I don't think GMs are gods or have supernatural powers, and I'm amazed you arrived at any other conclusion. It's difficult to want to engage with your other points when you decide to kick off a discussion this way.

DIAChessClubStudies

edited

My main point in criticism of the joke is science is no joking matter, and should be objective. Many chess players have a self-depreciating sense of humor, and value criticism (or find humorous) more than praise. As the process of chess improvement is accepting criticism.
One might argue there is no place at all for humor in science.

My main point in criticism of the joke is science is no joking matter, and should be objective. Many chess players have a self-depreciating sense of humor, and value criticism (or find humorous) more than praise. As the process of chess improvement is accepting criticism. One might argue there is no place at all for humor in science.

NDpatzer

@DIAChessClubStudies said ^

My main point in criticism of the joke is science is no joking matter, and should be objective. Many chess players have a self-depreciating sense of humor, and value criticism (or find humorous) more than praise. As the process of chess improvement is accepting criticism.

Again, it's remarkable to me that I need to spell this out, but if I'm designing a study to investigate chess expertise I won't be starting from the hypothesis that GMs have superhuman powers. If I'm writing about science for a general audience, the reader is at risk of encountering non-literal language that is intended to make reading the article more enjoyable. To call that "mixing science with fantasy" is disingenuous.

You also lost me at "science is no joking matter." I disagree with this very strongly and I'd probably quit doing research if I thought it was necessary to accept this kind of moribund perspective on discovering new things.

Also, it seems like your point is that I should be appreciative of you calling me unscientific because chess players value criticism? Do I have that right?

@DIAChessClubStudies said [^](/forum/redirect/post/diXH5ZRs) > My main point in criticism of the joke is science is no joking matter, and should be objective. Many chess players have a self-depreciating sense of humor, and value criticism (or find humorous) more than praise. As the process of chess improvement is accepting criticism. Again, it's remarkable to me that I need to spell this out, but if I'm designing a study to investigate chess expertise I won't be starting from the hypothesis that GMs have superhuman powers. If I'm writing about science for a general audience, the reader is at risk of encountering non-literal language that is intended to make reading the article more enjoyable. To call that "mixing science with fantasy" is disingenuous. You also lost me at "science is no joking matter." I disagree with this very strongly and I'd probably quit doing research if I thought it was necessary to accept this kind of moribund perspective on discovering new things. Also, it seems like your point is that I should be appreciative of you calling me unscientific because chess players value criticism? Do I have that right?

NDpatzer

"One might argue there is no place at all for humor in science."

I find that an incredibly depressing perspective.

"One might argue there is no place at all for humor in science." I find that an incredibly depressing perspective.

DIAChessClubStudies

edited

Think you are letting your ego miss the points I was making. My comments are not about you, but the research and direction of research.

DIAChessClubStudies

I also research the science of humor, and hold like many great minds that humor is a sign of bad character, mostly to sublimate animalistic desires, which is still the mainstream scientific hypothesis, as humor is not well understood. But that might be cultural, but in many cultures, humor is just seen as a sign of being unserious and bad character.
Science writing (As well as most chess literature) is usually dry, devoid of humor.

I also research the science of humor, and hold like many great minds that humor is a sign of bad character, mostly to sublimate animalistic desires, which is still the mainstream scientific hypothesis, as humor is not well understood. But that might be cultural, but in many cultures, humor is just seen as a sign of being unserious and bad character. Science writing (As well as most chess literature) is usually dry, devoid of humor.

NDpatzer

@DIAChessClubStudies said ^

I also research the science of humor, and hold like many great minds that humor is a sign of bad character, mostly to sublimate animalistic desires, which is still the mainstream scientific hypothesis, as humor is not well understood. But that might be cultural, but in many cultures, humor is just seen as a sign of being unserious and bad character.
Science writing (As well as most chess litera...

Wow - is it just my ego again, or have you pivoted to telling me I have bad character? You're not doing a great job of convincing me that you're trying to comment on the research rather than just piling on ad hominems.

Help me out: In your first comment, was your point that I was being unscientific? Likewise, is your current point that using humor in my science writing to avoid it being "dry" is a sign of bad character? I'm having a hard time working out what your criticism actually is - is your point that this was inappropriate for science writing and you'd have preferred the absence of humor? Alternatively, is your point that you don't like it when researchers decide to study certain topics because you've decided that these aren't serious questions to ask? Something else?

@DIAChessClubStudies said [^](/forum/redirect/post/Y7NQM6WV) > I also research the science of humor, and hold like many great minds that humor is a sign of bad character, mostly to sublimate animalistic desires, which is still the mainstream scientific hypothesis, as humor is not well understood. But that might be cultural, but in many cultures, humor is just seen as a sign of being unserious and bad character. > Science writing (As well as most chess litera... Wow - is it just my ego again, or have you pivoted to telling me I have bad character? You're not doing a great job of convincing me that you're trying to comment on the research rather than just piling on ad hominems. Help me out: In your first comment, was your point that I was being unscientific? Likewise, is your current point that using humor in my science writing to avoid it being "dry" is a sign of bad character? I'm having a hard time working out what your criticism actually is - is your point that this was inappropriate for science writing and you'd have preferred the absence of humor? Alternatively, is your point that you don't like it when researchers decide to study certain topics because you've decided that these aren't serious questions to ask? Something else?

NDpatzer

@DIAChessClubStudies said ^

Think you are letting your ego miss the points I was making. My comments are not about you, but the research and direction of research.

I'll try to engage with this one because I assume you're talking about your long section about why you think studying GMs scientifically isn't useful. I disagree with this very strongly and think you're missing the point of studies that choose to study high-performing players. You seem to be assuming that researchers only study those players to learn about improvement, which is absolutely not the case. Like other domains of expertise, many of the interesting questions aren't about developing some theory of how someone arrived at a high-level of performance or helping other people do so - instead, the goal is to understand what perceptual and cognitive processes may have changed as expertise was acquired. Studying beginners or intermediate players doesn't necessarily help us answer those questions because they haven't undergone enough training for those effects to be evident.

@DIAChessClubStudies said [^](/forum/redirect/post/t5wYKyjj) > Think you are letting your ego miss the points I was making. My comments are not about you, but the research and direction of research. I'll try to engage with this one because I assume you're talking about your long section about why you think studying GMs scientifically isn't useful. I disagree with this very strongly and think you're missing the point of studies that choose to study high-performing players. You seem to be assuming that researchers only study those players to learn about improvement, which is absolutely not the case. Like other domains of expertise, many of the interesting questions aren't about developing some theory of how someone arrived at a high-level of performance or helping other people do so - instead, the goal is to understand what perceptual and cognitive processes may have changed as expertise was acquired. Studying beginners or intermediate players doesn't necessarily help us answer those questions because they haven't undergone enough training for those effects to be evident.