This study references a class of chess positions where, it claims, strong players are more likely to make bad decisions (i.e., blunders) than weaker players. My first reaction, is “say, what?”. Anybody have any insight into these positions? I’m guessing the positions are of the sort where there’s a typical combination available, but that combination is flawed, after a few moves clarifying in the opponent’s favor. The weaker player simply doesn’t see the combination and doesn’t get sucked in.
This sounds like a Tal tale.
That is so on topic that I’m not really sure whether or not you are joking.
I’d anticipate they are the type of positions where a stronger player realizes there “should” be something there while a weak player doesn’t recognize them at all and proceeds simply. I’ve gone over a number of games where an expert will look at complex but crushing sacrifices, declaring the game won, and I’d then point out that there were resources in the particular position that make the sacrifice unsound.
I’d figure that each skill level has a different set of positions where that is true.
A 1000 will see tactics that a 700 totally overlooks, but the tactic fails in 15% of the positions the 1000 thinks they work in. Thus the 1000 wins the 85% where the tactics work (versus 40-45% for the 700) and loses 10-15% where the tactics don’t work (while the 700 would win 5-10%).
A 1300 will see tactics that a 1000 totally overlooks, but the tactic fails in 10% of the positions the 1300 thinks they work in. Thus the 1300 wins the 90% where the tactics work (versus 40-50% for the 1000) and loses 10% where the tactics don’t work (while the 1000 would win 5%).
etc.
Some of this probably goes back to work done by Adrian de Groot on memory and chess. Strong players recognize typical patterns and make decisions based on the patterns. Less skilled players struggle to find solutions unless the patterns they recognize are apparent. If the pieces are place randomly, with no pattern or “hook” that can be discerned, then weaker players are no worse than strong players in remembering the placement of pieces. de Groot did memory experiments to see the degree to which stronger and weaker players remembered positions. Chaotic or random positions challenged all of the players to remember what they had just seen. It was not clear how much time elapsed between the first sighting of the pieces and remembering their placement.
The article does not clearly define what the researchers determined as “skill anomalous” positions. Complex decision-making in the real world draws on a web of information coming from many fields. There are many more variables, assumptions, and intellectual approaches. Both rational and irrational thinking play roles in the development of a decision. It is significantly different than decision-making in chess which has more finite and discrete information available. Time pressure in chess is also different than time variables in real world decisions. In chess, we would love to have weeks or months to make an important decision. Instead we operate in an environment where good decisions have to be taken in minutes or seconds. The stakes in chess are artificially high. A chess decision does not have the catastrophic implications of a high stakes decision in business, government, or nuclear war.