I wanted to follow up on that chess game L and I played last week — because it might reveal something interesting about how we think.
(We in general, but also L and me in particular.)
Let’s start with the top-level analysis:
I made 17 blue/green moves, and L made 20.
I made 15 red/orange moves, and L made 12.
That in itself was enough to determine how the game went — but let’s look at how those moves were clustered.
L didn’t move poorly until after I had moved poorly.
I didn’t move poorly until after L had moved poorly.
In both cases, less-than-optimal moves prompted less-than-optimal moves.
Even though L has a few points on me in terms of chess ability, we both have the ability to affect each other’s skill.
Or maybe cognition.
Or maybe decision-making.
Or maybe it’s a pattern recognition thing, since bad moves don’t match the patterns (or programs?) we’ve previously stored. This leads to confusion, guessing, second-guessing, failure loops, and so on.
I’d have to analyze a few more chess games to see if this theory holds — and although I could probably do the work by running a bunch of grandmaster games through Chess Dot Com, it would be much more fun to play the chess myself.
Which means it’s time for me and L to start another game. ❤️
p.s. you already know the real question is whether this theory holds for life as well as chess
p.p.s. you already know the answer