- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Observation Without Judgement

Very interesting. Also, great to hear about more about your past experiences!

For what it's worth, I'm not sure I entirely agree with JJ's view as presented here (I'm not sure whether this actually contradicts JJ, as it was a while ago I listened to the pod). When you anticipate a particular move from your opponent during their time and calculate some lines there, I find that calculation remains useful even if my opponent doesn't go for that move.

An example:

My opponent is able to trade pieces, let's say a knight for knight. I start calculating various lines where they start by trading these knights. They choose not to do it on their next move, but they may still have the option on their next move if I continue to allow it. By calculating I probably now understand better whether this trade is (strategically) desirable for my opponent, and more specifically, under what conditions it might be desirable for them. This then helps work out whether I should continue allowing them the option of making that trade on my next move.

Another consideration:

Say it's my opponent's move and they have a particular move which intuitively seems like the strongest move for them in the position. We hence think it's likely they agree and will play this move. We're both under time pressure. By starting to calculate the line now, I might get a crucial time advantage by saving the need to calculate as much on my own clock. Admittedly it's risky, as they may not play it. In this case I'll be hoping for some greater understanding of the position as a result of my calculation, as per the point above.

I totally agree that sometimes, when it's your opponent's move, simply observing the position is a great thing to do, or a great way to start. But I think also the benefits of calculating on the opponent's time are many, and not to be overlooked.

Very interesting. Also, great to hear about more about your past experiences! For what it's worth, I'm not sure I entirely agree with JJ's view as presented here (I'm not sure whether this actually contradicts JJ, as it was a while ago I listened to the pod). When you anticipate a particular move from your opponent during their time and calculate some lines there, I find that calculation remains useful even if my opponent doesn't go for that move. An example: My opponent is able to trade pieces, let's say a knight for knight. I start calculating various lines where they start by trading these knights. They choose not to do it on their next move, but they may still have the option on their next move if I continue to allow it. By calculating I probably now understand better whether this trade is (strategically) desirable for my opponent, and more specifically, under what conditions it might be desirable for them. This then helps work out whether I should continue allowing them the option of making that trade on my next move. Another consideration: Say it's my opponent's move and they have a particular move which intuitively seems like the strongest move for them in the position. We hence think it's likely they agree and will play this move. We're both under time pressure. By starting to calculate the line now, I might get a crucial time advantage by saving the need to calculate as much on my own clock. Admittedly it's risky, as they may not play it. In this case I'll be hoping for some greater understanding of the position as a result of my calculation, as per the point above. I totally agree that sometimes, when it's your opponent's move, simply observing the position is a great thing to do, or a great way to start. But I think also the benefits of calculating on the opponent's time are many, and not to be overlooked.

Perhaps the words you seek are "observation without prejudice" since eventually you are making judgments, just avoiding prematurely doing so. Similarly we've tasted or eaten enough rocks to know that rocks aren't food; at some responsible moment we do need to make decisions, it's just a question of when.

As for that "meta" theory applying to your chess games, perhaps also cite an authority such as Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" - regarding critical thinking he concisely says, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Perhaps the words you seek are "observation without prejudice" since eventually you are making judgments, just avoiding prematurely doing so. Similarly we've tasted or eaten enough rocks to know that rocks aren't food; at some responsible moment we do need to make decisions, it's just a question of when. As for that "meta" theory applying to your chess games, perhaps also cite an authority such as Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" - regarding critical thinking he concisely says, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

so in the wheel of science there should only be empirical evidence and no hypotheses. Or is the analogy with rocks about reconstituting history from hindsight observation? With all the possibly missing information.

I have a small brain, as some point i can't keep accumulating critters without making families based on some measurable/visible associations that one might call hypothetic, an abstraction of sort.

Is it not possible to help the gathering of evidence, while keeping the small brain size, limited volume (ok not talking about the head volume here...) with some associations be them of statistical order, or logical reasoning or both nature? at the price of possibly being wrong for yet unknown territory or different critters to oberve.

When do you start consolidating the observations. And what assumption of unrelatedness do you need to hold on to, to refrain from making stories to keep such disparate information in memory...

I think we need stories.. but with the fear that you mentioned, but not the remedy your concluded hastily. I have seen such philosophical stance in other scientific fields where there is a lot of critters to enumerate too. And old theories or paradigms having to be changed in light of an avalanche of new data, pouring in, forcing a change in the framework. The reflex is to drop all intent of making any hypothesis or explanation.. and just taking the complexity of the universe as one of those mysteries that we can only keep enumerating, because none of our stories are complex enough to reproduce it (did i slip here?)..

or maybe we don't want to explain every single critter. just find common mechanism that could indicate some structure behind some of the complexity..

I think the all or none reaction in such fields with respect to data and theory (real theory this time), might come not having yet developped a dialog of constant or frequent nature between theory and empirical evidence... so theories have a tendendcy to be held with some extra zeal, to compensate for some lack of reproducibility testing fast enough for one generation of scientist perhaps, and then when the evidence finally breaches or reaches some threshold which shows previous hypotheses to be lacking, the barrier of potential holding the hard to test theory, break flooding with incredulity, and I won't be taken with pants down again.

I come from physics. and went into mathematics to continue the physics poiint of view on nature, but in biology... That's the field i use up there to connect with your geologist epistemological reflexion. In physics. with the help of math. as a tool to transcibe and test hypotheses in a way that bridge stoies with controlable environment parameters the theory can dialog on fast enough and repreatable enough basis, for us to not have to hold on to an hypothesis more than needed, any doubt, could eventually be argued into an experimental design that would keep the wheel running. This is turns makes the generation of hypotheses less sinful scientifically, as the past has been kind in physics types of questions with hypotheses well formulated to bind directly with measure instruments (well calibrated). In some way, it might be because physics is restricting the questions it asks to what work s with such wheel.. The basic laws of "inert" nature that do not aim to describe the shape of every cloud, but is still able to explain lots of invariant dynamical things about all cloud behavior. Cutting short. made my caveat point to your reflexion. not contradicting it, but making precise the context of the possible analogy and extension to chess.

The difference with chess though. it that we know the rules than span the critters in the microscopic scale. In that sense it is a micro-cosm that share a lot of similarity with the way physics looks at the complexity of the univers... I am sorry if your blog went there alread. I stopped reading after the geology part, and entering the chess extension..

i lack stamina in reading even more than in writing and assumed the point with the title to be about making the analogy toward refraining from making abstractions based on curent evidence, and always assume any abstraction is going to make evidence invisible or tell the wrong story.. but that can be tested if the story language checks itself or has a way to dialog with data.. Data need to also be presented in a non-cryptic way.. Like hiding transpositions for example, by lack of representativity of the structure used, for a while.... with some success,but then... well ... to be pondered.....

so in the wheel of science there should only be empirical evidence and no hypotheses. Or is the analogy with rocks about reconstituting history from hindsight observation? With all the possibly missing information. I have a small brain, as some point i can't keep accumulating critters without making families based on some measurable/visible associations that one might call hypothetic, an abstraction of sort. Is it not possible to help the gathering of evidence, while keeping the small brain size, limited volume (ok not talking about the head volume here...) with some associations be them of statistical order, or logical reasoning or both nature? at the price of possibly being wrong for yet unknown territory or different critters to oberve. When do you start consolidating the observations. And what assumption of unrelatedness do you need to hold on to, to refrain from making stories to keep such disparate information in memory... I think we need stories.. but with the fear that you mentioned, but not the remedy your concluded hastily. I have seen such philosophical stance in other scientific fields where there is a lot of critters to enumerate too. And old theories or paradigms having to be changed in light of an avalanche of new data, pouring in, forcing a change in the framework. The reflex is to drop all intent of making any hypothesis or explanation.. and just taking the complexity of the universe as one of those mysteries that we can only keep enumerating, because none of our stories are complex enough to reproduce it (did i slip here?).. or maybe we don't want to explain every single critter. just find common mechanism that could indicate some structure behind some of the complexity.. I think the all or none reaction in such fields with respect to data and theory (real theory this time), might come not having yet developped a dialog of constant or frequent nature between theory and empirical evidence... so theories have a tendendcy to be held with some extra zeal, to compensate for some lack of reproducibility testing fast enough for one generation of scientist perhaps, and then when the evidence finally breaches or reaches some threshold which shows previous hypotheses to be lacking, the barrier of potential holding the hard to test theory, break flooding with incredulity, and I won't be taken with pants down again. I come from physics. and went into mathematics to continue the physics poiint of view on nature, but in biology... That's the field i use up there to connect with your geologist epistemological reflexion. In physics. with the help of math. as a tool to transcibe and test hypotheses in a way that bridge stoies with controlable environment parameters the theory can dialog on fast enough and repreatable enough basis, for us to not have to hold on to an hypothesis more than needed, any doubt, could eventually be argued into an experimental design that would keep the wheel running. This is turns makes the generation of hypotheses less sinful scientifically, as the past has been kind in physics types of questions with hypotheses well formulated to bind directly with measure instruments (well calibrated). In some way, it might be because physics is restricting the questions it asks to what work s with such wheel.. The basic laws of "inert" nature that do not aim to describe the shape of every cloud, but is still able to explain lots of invariant dynamical things about all cloud behavior. Cutting short. made my caveat point to your reflexion. not contradicting it, but making precise the context of the possible analogy and extension to chess. The difference with chess though. it that we know the rules than span the critters in the microscopic scale. In that sense it is a micro-cosm that share a lot of similarity with the way physics looks at the complexity of the univers... I am sorry if your blog went there alread. I stopped reading after the geology part, and entering the chess extension.. i lack stamina in reading even more than in writing and assumed the point with the title to be about making the analogy toward refraining from making abstractions based on curent evidence, and always assume any abstraction is going to make evidence invisible or tell the wrong story.. but that can be tested if the story language checks itself or has a way to dialog with data.. Data need to also be presented in a non-cryptic way.. Like hiding transpositions for example, by lack of representativity of the structure used, for a while.... with some success,but then... well ... to be pondered.....

Botvinnik reccomends that according to Kotov

Botvinnik reccomends that according to Kotov