- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Science of Chess: Can you tell an easy puzzle from a tough one?

Bro is finding answers to the questions we never thought about

Bro is finding answers to the questions we never thought about

Question about the Herugolf example shown in your post:
The move of the 3-ball seems to be invalid, as it crosses the water (grey). What am I missing?

Question about the Herugolf example shown in your post: The move of the 3-ball seems to be invalid, as it crosses the water (grey). What am I missing?

@klopstockus said in #3:

Question about the Herugolf example shown in your post:
The move of the 3-ball seems to be invalid, as it crosses the water (grey). What am I missing?

You're allowed to cross the grey squares, but you cannot end in them. The paper referenced in the text is at the link below, and they walk through the full solution nicely. One quick way to see that the path from the 3-ball must start this way is that the other option is definitely illegal as it would cross a hole and land in another on the first vertical move.

https://drops.dagstuhl.de/storage/00lipics/lipics-vol100-fun2018/LIPIcs.FUN.2018.24/LIPIcs.FUN.2018.24.pdf

@klopstockus said in #3: > Question about the Herugolf example shown in your post: > The move of the 3-ball seems to be invalid, as it crosses the water (grey). What am I missing? You're allowed to cross the grey squares, but you cannot end in them. The paper referenced in the text is at the link below, and they walk through the full solution nicely. One quick way to see that the path from the 3-ball must start this way is that the other option is definitely illegal as it would cross a hole and land in another on the first vertical move. https://drops.dagstuhl.de/storage/00lipics/lipics-vol100-fun2018/LIPIcs.FUN.2018.24/LIPIcs.FUN.2018.24.pdf

We don't solve chess puzzles to arrive at some deeper truth about the universe!

Perhaps not with intent.... but it may happen, given the simplicity of the target object of interest, and lack of misinformation about it, the language about it becomes more visible for its distance from the board reality, and the subjectivity of human interactions seeking to improve each other, becomes almost tangible.

it might emerge while doing it... that kind of thoughts..

understanding the problem domain of the puzzle

Musical terminology to my ears.... and also part of the puzzle itself while not an expert yet... What did the teacher want exactly, I can see so many possibilities... given the wording of the question... Is that only in the heads of divergent types? Well, in chess at least, over many games or many puzzles, there is hope that we don't need the words as truth but as hypotheses and they become subject to board experience adjustement that makes sense internally. So the board real information (at a glance or upon further deliberate in the foresight problem of it), ends up compensating for the above point of mine (language to reality distance). But for now it seems that it (the testing ground) works only for tactical (and even there we can find some traces of remaining subjectivity, but that is not bad, that is data, well I suggest that it might be, if we start by looking at it). Sorry.. Not my intent, derailing that way. I just love that sentence.

in relation to other blogs of yours where I thought that you were quick to not consider that this might be part of test challenges and experiemental protocol directive (room of interpretation) about how to solve such tasks (the E effect). I might have misunderstood then..

> We don't solve chess puzzles to arrive at some deeper truth about the universe! Perhaps not with intent.... but it may happen, given the simplicity of the target object of interest, and lack of misinformation about it, the language about it becomes more visible for its distance from the board reality, and the subjectivity of human interactions seeking to improve each other, becomes almost tangible. it might emerge while doing it... that kind of thoughts.. > understanding the problem domain of the puzzle Musical terminology to my ears.... and also part of the puzzle itself while not an expert yet... What did the teacher want exactly, I can see so many possibilities... given the wording of the question... Is that only in the heads of divergent types? Well, in chess at least, over many games or many puzzles, there is hope that we don't need the words as truth but as hypotheses and they become subject to board experience adjustement that makes sense internally. So the board real information (at a glance or upon further deliberate in the foresight problem of it), ends up compensating for the above point of mine (language to reality distance). But for now it seems that it (the testing ground) works only for tactical (and even there we can find some traces of remaining subjectivity, but that is not bad, that is data, well I suggest that it might be, if we start by looking at it). Sorry.. Not my intent, derailing that way. I just love that sentence. in relation to other blogs of yours where I thought that you were quick to not consider that this might be part of test challenges and experiemental protocol directive (room of interpretation) about how to solve such tasks (the E effect). I might have misunderstood then..

If I can solve it, its easy... :(

If I can solve it, its easy... :(

yes, and when not and seeing it, why did I not think of it...

but about the art of problem composition, is there not a moving target creator problem (and its defining aspects, or even the problem of defining those aspects, beyond the uninformative rating).

As in writing comments or blog on the internet, even on lichess, about the audience....? how wide to aim, when you say satisfying or to that effect? (possible that reading further you answer, but my reading process is not there yet, and I need this back and forth, selfish of mine possibly).

yes, and when not and seeing it, why did I not think of it... but about the art of problem composition, is there not a moving target creator problem (and its defining aspects, or even the problem of defining those aspects, beyond the uninformative rating). As in writing comments or blog on the internet, even on lichess, about the audience....? how wide to aim, when you say satisfying or to that effect? (possible that reading further you answer, but my reading process is not there yet, and I need this back and forth, selfish of mine possibly).

I also wonder if there is not some assumption of learning scope about the activity of puzzles (or chess in general). The attitude of learning intent given a single unit exercise... versus having a long haul study strategy, say even our games are seen as such in dosage higher than performance reward seeking from external reference (such a social status in tribe or population, as projected tribe). I find ELO as maximal domain of psycho-metric parameter of study here to be not very ambitious about the question. if that is all there is.

sorry for the injection of non-chess here. but it applies.. chess just makes it clearer... reduce the complexity of the psychological substrate.. and you can see more things otherwise buried in that floating boundary of the psychological question. This is poetic prose as shortcut. that or ramblings.. if it makes sense great, otherwise just dismiss it as pretentious blabber. It makes sense to me in a compact way.. (first step of sharing thoughts).

But that is just a question arch of mine that just popped up and might guide and motivate further reading.

I also wonder if there is not some assumption of learning scope about the activity of puzzles (or chess in general). The attitude of learning intent given a single unit exercise... versus having a long haul study strategy, say even our games are seen as such in dosage higher than performance reward seeking from external reference (such a social status in tribe or population, as projected tribe). I find ELO as maximal domain of psycho-metric parameter of study here to be not very ambitious about the question. if that is all there is. sorry for the injection of non-chess here. but it applies.. chess just makes it clearer... reduce the complexity of the psychological substrate.. and you can see more things otherwise buried in that floating boundary of the psychological question. This is poetic prose as shortcut. that or ramblings.. if it makes sense great, otherwise just dismiss it as pretentious blabber. It makes sense to me in a compact way.. (first step of sharing thoughts). But that is just a question arch of mine that just popped up and might guide and motivate further reading.

Exasperation but not personal. with all this mental restricion, i would expect the word science would be more courageous.. or ambitious.

Once again, chess turns out to be a very useful proxy for expertise considered more broadly, making it possible to address a specific question about cognition precisely.

This is like Pasteur. before Pasteur, there was the idea of spontaneous microbe generation. Here we have a world of scienitifc discourse that limits the cogintive question to the spontaneous existence of expert.

Chess is a lot more than that.. It takes a sizeable life-span to become experts. Are we going to keep limiting science to only one end-point for ever. I agree with you, but find the extent of that statement to be a dud. No offense, I think you are constrained these days, and in this culture of chess "medias". damn, I sound bad.

Exasperation but not personal. with all this mental restricion, i would expect the word science would be more courageous.. or ambitious. > Once again, chess turns out to be a very useful proxy for expertise considered more broadly, making it possible to address a specific question about cognition precisely. This is like Pasteur. before Pasteur, there was the idea of spontaneous microbe generation. Here we have a world of scienitifc discourse that limits the cogintive question to the spontaneous existence of expert. Chess is a lot more than that.. It takes a sizeable life-span to become experts. Are we going to keep limiting science to only one end-point for ever. I agree with you, but find the extent of that statement to be a dud. No offense, I think you are constrained these days, and in this culture of chess "medias". damn, I sound bad.

Thank you! This was very useful for me to solve puzzles!!!

Thank you! This was very useful for me to solve puzzles!!!