Where Chess stops being Computer Science and becomes a Sport
Ever since DeepBlue’s win over Garry Kasparov, chess was deemed to be a landmark for the supremacy of artificial intelligence over the human mind. The game is even called “The drosophila of reasoning” due to its contribution as a model to research in the field of AI and cognition. However, chess as a game played by humans has many aspects that differ from the purely objective game played by computers. I would like to stress the subjective and practical aspects of the game that makes it intriguing in so many ways.
Generally speaking, chess masters tend to know what they’re doing. Severe mistakes seldom occur spontaneously in high-level chess. Therefore, we need to focus on creating the right conditions for our opponent to err. Things are getting interesting when the process of creating those opportunities for mistakes are not objectively correct (what a supercomputer would play). Let’s see some examples of ways to create those conditions.
The burden of multiple options - It is hard to make decisions. It is even harder to make decisions the more options are available to us. When chess players are faced with a position where they have only two reasonable moves to choose from, it is easier for them than if they have four decent possibilities. As our national hero, Prof. Dan Ariely, explains in his TED talk, even quite bad and irrelevant possibilities may affect our decision process. The practical approach to chess would be to “ask your opponent’s the toughest questions”
Humans have feelings - Unlike computers, humans’ decision-process tends to be affected by their emotional state. Evoking negative feelings in your competitors like anger, frustration, and fear usually increases the chances for them to commit a mistake. Research in which anger was induced in subjects, saw that they took more risks afterward. An example of how we use that comes from the known method of “Cat and Mouse”. The concept was first described in 1981 in the book “Endgame Strategy” by Shershevsky. The idea is handy in specific situations where your rival doesn’t have much to do… In those cases, we start being a little bit sadistic and try to lengthen all our actions. If you can do something in one move, try to do it in three. The idea is based on humans’ inner desire to act. People tend to find it hard to be stand-still and be passive — and we aim to exploit it. We are trying to frustrate our opponents by their inaction and by that causing them to go for an impulsive act.
Arouse their self-confidence - Good feelings can also be harmful. In some cases, you may actually want your opponents to feel optimistic about their chances. This may cause them to evaluate their position in a way that is incompatible with reality. We may feel occasionally that our opponent plays very solidly and we struggle to find winning chances. An experienced player may offer a draw in such a case. It may seem like a dubious decision at first. If the opponent plays solidly and it seems that he wants a draw, why would we offer him a draw if we want to win? The thing is that by offering a draw we lower ourselves, for him to increase his self-confidence. The decision he has to make now is “Do I have any winning chances or will I agree to a draw?”. Suddenly he looks differently on his position, it feels to him as if the draw is already is in his pocket and he may give it a try for playing for a win.
All those ideas are just a taste for the psychological concepts that separate chess as computer science from chess as a sport between individuals.
All those concepts are quite common knowledge in high-level chess, but do all players understand them in this same emotional way? In my next article, I’ll discuss the interesting link between chess and autism. I’ll be very glad if you will follow me to get notified when a new article comes out.
