Chess is used to asses the methodology of blunders. A fascinating article. The core question is why in certain “skill anomalous positions" higher rated players make more blunders than lower rated adversaries. What are these skill anomalous position you ask?
Here are the positions taken from the research. In the first three, the 1800+ is less likely to make a blunder than lower rated players. The final three are the skill anomalous positions in which 1800+ player made blunders more frequently than lower elo rated opponents. 8/1k6/8/1PK5/8/8/8/8−0 2k5/8/1K6/2P5/8/8/8/8−1 1k6/8/K7/1P6/8/8/8/8−1
Elo 1800+ players blunder more in these positions 2k5/8/1P6/2K5/8/8/8/8−1 1k6/8/2P5/1K6/8/8/8/8−1 7k/8/6P1/6K1/8/8/8/8−1
Have fun! The scholarly aticle can be found here arxiv.org/pdf/1606.04956v1.pdf
Interesting conclusion based on the statistical analysis:
The data turns out to be strongly consistent with the latter view: the empirical blunder rate is higher in aggregate for players who spend more time playing a move. We find that this property holds across the range of possible values for the time remaining and the blunder potential, as well as when we fix the specific position.
Wait: critical positions are more likely to elicit blunders. One is likely to spend more time in critical positions. So the conclusion verges on tautology: people blunder more in positions likely to elicit blunders.
Overthinking is indeed one reason for our blunders, but usually we’re not thinking enough.