Search

Chess experts tend to use type 1 processes of thinking (heuristic, intuitive, fast) in familiar chess positions and type 2 (deliberate, reflexive, slow) in less familiar chess positions. It is possible to explore such a tendency, in a broader context, by applying the cognitive reflection test (CRT) which measures one’s tendency to override intuitive responses and engage in a more reflexive cognitive process. Using heuristics in general and specific problem-solving might reveal the general nature of a (chess) experts' cognition. This study was based on the results from the broader research project on chess expertise. For this particular study, a correlation research design was deployed. The goal was to investigate the relationship between chess expertise and cognitive styles in solving general and domain-specific problems. It was hypothesised that chess players with a higher rating are more efficient in solving chess and CRT problems and that chess players’ problem-solving efficiency will positively correlate with their CRT efficiency in general. The participants’ (N=48, age M=30, 5 female) chess expertise was displayed on the chess national rating system scale (ranging from 1547 to 2270 Elo points). Chess problems were developed in collaboration with an independent group of chess experts, and they varied in difficulty and position motives. The participants solved 24 chess problems followed by CRT, both presented on a computer screen. They had three minutes per chess problem and no restriction time on the CRT (response time was measured by the last click on a problem). The accuracy and decision time in chess and CRT problems was measured and then analysed by Spearman’s rho correlation. The analysis revealed that chess players with a higher rating are more efficient in chess problem solving (solved problems - rho = .77, p

It has been confirmed that expert chess players solve chess positions in a matter of seconds thanks to their ability to match memorized patterns with positional patterns. This superiority usually manifests itself in a context of familiar chess positions and is reflected in speed and accuracy. Chess experts develop an intuitive approach that is occasionally incorrect, especially when it needs to be suppressed by a more analytical approach (e.g. Einstellung effect). This study investigates the intuitive and heuristic approach developed in chess experts, more specifically, it compares how they solve problems inside and outside their domain of expertise. This study was conducted in several chess clubs across Croatia, and participants were chess players with various levels of expertise. Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) was used to assess general problem solving ability, and specially developed chess problems were used for domain-specific problem solving. The results showed that chess players with greater expertise are more efficient in domain-specific tasks but this is unrelated with efficiency in general tasks. Also, participants more accurate in domain-specific tasks were less accurate in general tasks. Our results suggest that expert chess players might transfer their cognitive style in broader problem-solving domains where it is sometimes useless or even harmful.

International audience; In this paper we present the first results of a pilot experiment in the capture and interpretation of multimodal signals of human experts engaged in solving challenging chess problems. Our goal is to investigate the extent to which observations of eye-gaze, posture, emotion and other physiological signals can be used to model the cognitive state of subjects, and to explore the integration of multiple sensor modalities to improve the reliability of detection of human displays of awareness and emotion. We observed chess players engaged in problems of increasing difficulty while recording their behavior. Such recordings can be used to estimate a participant's awareness of the current situation and to predict ability to respond effectively to challenging situations. Results show that a multimodal approach is more accurate than a unimodal one. By combining body posture, visual attention and emotion, the multimodal approach can reach up to 93% of accuracy when determining player's chess expertise while unimodal approach reaches 86%. Finally this experiment validates the use of our equipment as a general and reproducible tool for the study of participants engaged in screen-based interaction and/or problem solving.