English Chess Forum

Chess, imagination, and Perceptual Understanding

Fri 02 Mar 2012
Time: 17:45
Location: 14 Gordon Square

Like many physical sports, chess can be highly competitive. To play chess effectively requires mastery of a number of different skills. In particular it requires a special kind of imaginative ability, one that is allied to perception. In this talk I examine the role of the imagination in the way that human chess players (as contrasted with computers) exercise their understanding of both tactics and strategy. I conclude by showing why there are important parallels between our grasp of the possibilities latent in a chess position, and our perceptual understanding of the nature of physical objects.

Paul Coates

http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org ... display/77

John Foley wrote:Paul Coates

In the usual way of the forum, you both google and look up the grading list

So from Google
http://www.starbrightbooks.org/authorsDetail.php?id=36

Paul Coates lives in London with his family and five cats. He teaches philosophy at the University of Hertfordshire, plays chess and enjoys cooking curries and juggling. He is currently mastering 6-ball tricks.

which is fair enough

but no match from the ECF grading site. Lots of Coates, notably Ken and Christine, but no Pauls.

John Foley quoting Paul Coates wrote:In this talk I examine the role of the imagination in the way that human chess players (as contrasted with computers) exercise their understanding of both tactics and strategy. I conclude by showing why there are important parallels between our grasp of the possibilities latent in a chess position, and our perceptual understanding of the nature of physical objects.

Without wishing to disagree with this, does he agree with Korchnoi that the Kings Indian is essentially bad for black, or like Nakamura values the hacking possibilities?

After a winning KID 'hack' K-side attack against Anand, I believe Nakamura, in the commentary room, said he was probably objectively lost and that a computer opponent would have seen him off.
However, he relished the fact that humans are not computers. Victor K might agree with him in that.
And, Mr Coates' lecture may shed some light on the wider aspects of chess even if it doesn't restore the KID from its theoretical 'sickbed' to full health.

John McKenna wrote: And, Mr Coates' lecture may shed some light on the wider aspects of chess even if it doesn't restore the KID from its theoretical 'sickbed' to full health.

Expressing my point in a different way, I was asking whether the lecturer is reporting first hand experience of how a chess master thinks, or second hand experience of how chess masters have reported that they think. Or is it a lecture comparing how an average player thinks to that of a computer?

I think things have changed in the computer world as well. Up to perhaps five years ago, you didn't think that a computer engine required much knowledge provided it could calculate long variations quickly. The Fruit/Rybka/Houdini etc. families of programs have now demonstrated that "knowledge" remains important and can outperform engines that use a brute force approach.

Yes, all interesting questions about the content of the lecture. Only thing is it is in a philosophical context so may not go exactly where one might hope.
For instance will he deal with questions regarding a re-evaluation of Kotov's Think Like a GM via Think Like a Computer to Think a Bit Like a Knowledged-Based Human Computer? I doubt it.

I can only speculate that the lecture describes another universe in which chess pieces constructed from intelligent materials vibrate spontaneously when they detect a good move.

I note Heather Reid will give a talk called 'Olympic Sacrifice: a modern look at an ancient tradition' on Friday 24 February at 5.45 at 14 Gordon Square, London WC1.
at least Mr Coates is giving his talk at a more civilised time.

Did anyone attend last Friday's talk by Mr Coates?

Yes. It was more about chess as a window onto perceptual understanding than imaginative chess, as you might expect from a professor of philosophy.

Thank you for that interesting info.

Can I just ask if any chess positions or games were used or was chess only referred to in a general sense?

Paul Coates offered several positions and discussed their cognitive characteristics. The one which I found most fascinating was the following by the young Romanian composer Mihai Neghină. This was his first ever endgame study which he called Constrictor. His idea was to come up with a puzzle which a computer would not be able to solve, but a human could.

3k4/2pq3p/pp5R/4P3/P6P/2PN4/1PN3K1/8

White to play and win.
Neghină (2009)

I'm guessing the solution is something like 1.Nd4 Qg7+ 2.Kh3 Qxh6 3.Nf4 with 4.Nde6 to follow, and the queen sits in a little box for ages while white works out how to break through.

You must be an IM to come up with the right concept straight away!

Stewart Reuben wrote:I note Heather Reid will give a talk called 'Olympic Sacrifice: a modern look at an ancient tradition' on Friday 24 February at 5.45 at 14 Gordon Square, London WC1.
at least Mr Coates is giving his talk at a more civilised time.

Though talking of time, 24 February was surely no longer in the future when Stewart posted on 25 February,