- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Chess & Perception: How visual crowding can hide what's right in front of you.

thanks you for sharing your knowledge and explaining that to us, toward its application to chess cognition.
I am still reading... as usual did a fast scan, after one paragraph, to see if my concern was adressed later. It might in the text, but I was wondering about how online 2D board maximized piece icon signature profile, and the visual 3D occlusion that happens in online 3D and in physical OTB. That 3D viewing angle could amount to some different kind of crowding shape characteristics (i looked at papers cited in the wiki links, their abstract, i have abstract chunk optimized reading pattern it seems).

My naive experience, is that I love playing 2D. I even reduce the zoom to 50% to reduce my need for shifting visual focus around, so less parts of the board in my peripheral retina, one might say. I see it as some sort of OTB where my head would be above the board (yes the pieces might not be presenting in their most mutually distant profiles). This is impossible or the chess game would also be about head punching, a new sport maybe...

so 2D versus 3D.

thanks you for sharing your knowledge and explaining that to us, toward its application to chess cognition. I am still reading... as usual did a fast scan, after one paragraph, to see if my concern was adressed later. It might in the text, but I was wondering about how online 2D board maximized piece icon signature profile, and the visual 3D occlusion that happens in online 3D and in physical OTB. That 3D viewing angle could amount to some different kind of crowding shape characteristics (i looked at papers cited in the wiki links, their abstract, i have abstract chunk optimized reading pattern it seems). My naive experience, is that I love playing 2D. I even reduce the zoom to 50% to reduce my need for shifting visual focus around, so less parts of the board in my peripheral retina, one might say. I see it as some sort of OTB where my head would be above the board (yes the pieces might not be presenting in their most mutually distant profiles). This is impossible or the chess game would also be about head punching, a new sport maybe... so 2D versus 3D.

At left, a photograph of a scene - at right, the same scene rendered to approximate the acuity and contrast sensitivity limits of peripheral vision.

FYI. the figure for this legend seems not to render at all (we see broken image icon, and the alt. text giving source credit). I will delete this later.

> At left, a photograph of a scene - at right, the same scene rendered to approximate the acuity and contrast sensitivity limits of peripheral vision. FYI. the figure for this legend seems not to render at all (we see broken image icon, and the alt. text giving source credit). I will delete this later.

In some ways, perhaps training mind eye might not have same problems? This might help differentiate if crowding is a near retina property or deeper cortex layer effect (or where does it stop, visual properties that involve recognition....?).

Acuity seems to be at retina level (me guessing that retina cell density is first input layer bottleneck of information, receptor types proportions included).

If training over many games to update our internal view of what the board should be at each move, then it might have enough distorsions to make each move a distinct new thing, while many games standard initial placements very compact (some kind of clutter), would have had the time to have sufficient internal vision separation. something like that. are there formalized concept equivalent to such imagery or guess of mine (based on some old knowledge about basic neurobio, and freedom of word choices).

So, it might be an incentive or explanation that blindfold training might directly help not just for planning vision but actual better perception of current position, making real eye vision a complementary updating mechanism, if the internal thing can impose itself to the real input.... asking while guessing.

is there such a thing as internal vision, or mind's eye.. where does imagination happen...? can it be conscioulsy superimposed to real visual input.... (closing eyes makes it easier to conceive, but then... open eyes...?).

In some ways, perhaps training mind eye might not have same problems? This might help differentiate if crowding is a near retina property or deeper cortex layer effect (or where does it stop, visual properties that involve recognition....?). Acuity seems to be at retina level (me guessing that retina cell density is first input layer bottleneck of information, receptor types proportions included). If training over many games to update our internal view of what the board should be at each move, then it might have enough distorsions to make each move a distinct new thing, while many games standard initial placements very compact (some kind of clutter), would have had the time to have sufficient internal vision separation. something like that. are there formalized concept equivalent to such imagery or guess of mine (based on some old knowledge about basic neurobio, and freedom of word choices). So, it might be an incentive or explanation that blindfold training might directly help not just for planning vision but actual better perception of current position, making real eye vision a complementary updating mechanism, if the internal thing can impose itself to the real input.... asking while guessing. is there such a thing as internal vision, or mind's eye.. where does imagination happen...? can it be conscioulsy superimposed to real visual input.... (closing eyes makes it easier to conceive, but then... open eyes...?).

board features are the object of a lot of the positional chess theory.
It is sometimestangled with evaluation, or decision consequences having some effect, and might have difficult to discerns overlaps in definitions (often example based definition, when one is not sure what is being point out about the position by the new words being introduced, but with many distinguishable example still with same intended pattern, one could infer pretty close to intended by the feature conceptor(s). Position perfect information preconditions may be hard to cern and discern just from the shared wording, and might need filtering through experience.

But even without words, the features must have prexisted, before authors would start sharing them, trying to coin words that would carry enough meaning to perist to this day as chess theory..

board features are the object of a lot of the positional chess theory. It is sometimestangled with evaluation, or decision consequences having some effect, and might have difficult to discerns overlaps in definitions (often example based definition, when one is not sure what is being point out about the position by the new words being introduced, but with many distinguishable example still with same intended pattern, one could infer pretty close to intended by the feature conceptor(s). Position perfect information preconditions may be hard to cern and discern just from the shared wording, and might need filtering through experience. But even without words, the features must have prexisted, before authors would start sharing them, trying to coin words that would carry enough meaning to perist to this day as chess theory..

My question earlier (previous post-blog discussion) about how much of the linguistic inspired chunk theory can be transferred to chess, and whether there were psychometric that could test the estimations from those first chess chunking estimates (and later template hypotheses). It seemed to me, that those paper were about making hypotheses, and transferring linguistic measured abilities to propose hypotheses for chess.

These estimates have been shared since then in the community as pretty much known facts.. I guess they are good starting points. But linguistic chunk and static / dynamic visuo-spatial patterns or chunks or templates might not be of same nature, and might not associate with the same neurobiology constraints..

Visual pattern can be instantaneous and have spatial dynamics interna l models (like when we see movie, we might have some internal physics models at play that are not being recomputed from newton's equations....).

so how many word concepts or chunks can a human carry, may not be even of same magnitude as how many chess position or sequence of positions patterns.

Am i right to assume such a difference.. It might depend on how close to sensory layers such things are implemented in the cortex (visual region language region, or somewhere else)...

language can also not be alphabetic in nature.. but often word are going to be elements to put in some sequential structure for whole concept transmission. pardon my unusual words. I hope they do transmit. best i can do.

My question earlier (previous post-blog discussion) about how much of the linguistic inspired chunk theory can be transferred to chess, and whether there were psychometric that could test the estimations from those first chess chunking estimates (and later template hypotheses). It seemed to me, that those paper were about making hypotheses, and transferring linguistic measured abilities to propose hypotheses for chess. These estimates have been shared since then in the community as pretty much known facts.. I guess they are good starting points. But linguistic chunk and static / dynamic visuo-spatial patterns or chunks or templates might not be of same nature, and might not associate with the same neurobiology constraints.. Visual pattern can be instantaneous and have spatial dynamics interna l models (like when we see movie, we might have some internal physics models at play that are not being recomputed from newton's equations....). so how many word concepts or chunks can a human carry, may not be even of same magnitude as how many chess position or sequence of positions patterns. Am i right to assume such a difference.. It might depend on how close to sensory layers such things are implemented in the cortex (visual region language region, or somewhere else)... language can also not be alphabetic in nature.. but often word are going to be elements to put in some sequential structure for whole concept transmission. pardon my unusual words. I hope they do transmit. best i can do.

almost forgot. You chessboard checkerd pattern has very weak contrast and mostly white. How is the checkerd board impacting notions of crowding. helping or not? or independent. I found some nice blurbs in your reference links. They give me a sense of where your field may have gone (and how it differs from what I once was exposed to, good that you give some outlook like that, many audiences can do with your blog).

almost forgot. You chessboard checkerd pattern has very weak contrast and mostly white. How is the checkerd board impacting notions of crowding. helping or not? or independent. I found some nice blurbs in your reference links. They give me a sense of where your field may have gone (and how it differs from what I once was exposed to, good that you give some outlook like that, many audiences can do with your blog).