The Science of Chess
Chess, that most eminently logical of games, without any element of chance (unless the player makes random decisions), may actually require the same kind of thinking as science; learning to think in chess, then, can lead to a better understanding of scientific thought. According to a study presented in Nature Magazine, the thought process of chess grand masters resembles that of “falsification,” as described by famed philosopher Karl Popper.
In a game of chess, any player will consider his or her next move by examining how it threatens the player’s opponent, and how it leaves the player open to threats from the opponent. Essentially, choosing a chess move seems to be a risk/reward exercise, in which one considers whether the danger of the move is worth the perceived advantage. The new study, however, points out that most novice players in a game of chess have an unfortunate tendency to overestimate the advantages and underestimate the risks of any given move. Such a chess player would tend to ignore the possibilities that would most “falsify” the “hypothesis” of the considered move. Grand masters of chess, however, instead purposely seek to falsify their hypotheses, considering the moves of their opponents that would most take advantage of the weaknesses in the move they are examining. Put in another way, novice chess players have an unfortunate tendency to convince themselves that a given move will be worthwhile and effective, while grand masters instead examine their considered moves very carefully, and are much more critical.
In a game of chess, the player takes on a role very similar to that of a scientist. A scientist approaches as problem by proposing a hypothesis for its solution, and then testing that hypothesis. But as Karl Popper stated, one can never “logically verify” a hypothesis; one can only accumulate evidence with which to support that hypothesis. A scientist, and a chess player, can, however, falsify any hypothesis, by proving it to be incorrect, incapable of solving the problem. The scientist’s approach, then, is not one of attempting to prove their hypothesis; it is instead one of attempting to disprove the hypothesis. This is falsification, and understanding how it works can lead to a much better understanding of the successful thought processes of chess.
If you consider a chess move and try to prove its worth, then you will likely end up convincing yourself that the best way to win the game of chess is with that move, even though that may not be true. If you instead try to prove to yourself why the given move is not optimal, then you would likely be much better able to find that move which is best, or, least bad, for the game of chess that you are playing. So if you want to achieve greater success in chess, then perhaps the solution lies not in learning tremendous and complex strategies, but instead lies in simply assuming a new, strong, scientific style of thought. Furthermore, learning to think about chess in this way will likely help you in thinking about science, leading to a better understanding of the world around you. A game of chess may pave the path for your own intellectual improvement, in all aspects of your life.