Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

25263Reaction times, Fernandes, Santos, Antunes

Expand Messages
  • Joao Sousa
    May 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Stephen D' Aprano wrote:

      >
      >Does nerve transmission speed vary between individuals? I'd be surprised
      >if it doesn't, but you never know. Is it possible that "slow thinkers"
      >are slow because their brains run more slowly?
      >
      >My second question perhaps can't be answered in a brief email. Why is
      >speed of thinking considered more important than thoroughness, or
      >ability to pick away at a problem for days or weeks or months until you
      >have the answer? Perhaps this is a bad analogy, but it seems to me that
      >if IQ tests measured running ability, marathon runners would be
      >considered worse runners than sprinters. That certainly is true if you
      >are running a 50 metre race, but not if you need to run a marathon.
      >

      Of course, yours is a good question. Why should reasoning speed be very
      connected with ability to perform long-term intellectual work?

      In the following, please note that I'm not an IQ specialist. So, I just
      have to accept Dr. Rushton statement about a correlation between reaction
      time tests and other IQ tests. However, is this correlation high? And what
      is the correlation of this or of other IQ tests with the 'thoroughness' you
      mention (ability to study complex problems during months instead of
      seconds)? I'm not doubting that there may be some correlation, but my guess
      is that, if a person decides to study thoroughly complex problems that
      demand months or years, success in doing so is almost independent of his
      reaction times. Albert Einstein said he made his maths 'unwillingly and
      slowly'. Having been myself an official chessplayer, and knowing something
      about the kind of people who have success in chess (mine was at the level
      of getting international ELO-ranking, but not a title such as IM -
      International Master or IGM - International Grandmaster), I've always
      observed differences between players. Some achieved success through being
      incredibly rapid in phases of the game in which time is running out and one
      must calculate well in a few minutes or even seconds. Others play
      disastrously the time shortage phases but are good in 'correspondence
      chess' - a variant of the game played by correspondence (nowadays via
      email) in which a player can think in a single move for days.

      Now I will describe three players, all of them my friends, and their
      proclivities.

      António Fernandes - He is astonishingly rapid and precise in time shortage
      phases. He didn't achieve a very great 'cultural' knowledge of chess
      theory, namely openings (however he is not really bad in this respect; just
      less good than the other two below). The typical Fernandes' game is as
      follows: during the first 20 moves of a game he thinks a lot, spending a
      lot of time, and getting into trouble (perhaps because of his not very good
      theoretical preparation). During the last 20 moves before control (a
      typical game had a relexion time of 2 hours for 40 moves) he was typically
      in very difficult positions, and with just some minutes (!) to the last 20
      moves. This situation is usually hopeless for most players but not for
      him. Astonishingly, he was capable of performing the remaining 20 moves
      very well in some minutes, without commiting a fatal error (very difficult,
      since the opponent had much more time left and was trying to trap him in
      many ways), and arriving to the control (40th move) in a won position. It
      was this incredible precision in such phases that made him a champion.
      Fernandes learned to play when he was 5 years old. He is not fond of
      theory, nor does he write about the game. He doesn't appreciate artistic
      aspects (like written chess problems), he is all practical. Some say chess
      is just like a 'maternal tongue' for him (alluding to his early age of
      learning the game). Others used to say: 'Fernandes doesn't really
      understand chess; he just wins games compulsively'... (of course the last
      two statements are metaphoric!).

      Luís Santos - The opposite of Fernandes, perhaps. He knows a lot about
      openings (opening theory is gigantic and knowledge of it is very important
      to a player), he collaborates in publications, he was a very good
      correspondence player: he achieved the title of IGM (International
      Grandmaster) in correspondence chess, and was one of the 16 best players in
      the world sometime in the middle 80s. Despite his great command of theory,
      his abundant reading, his mastership in correspondence chess, he was a
      TOTAL DISASTER in 'in vivo' games in the phase of time shortage. If he
      arrived to such a situation in a in vivo game, he would most likely lose,
      even against an inferior player, let alone against a Fernandes. In such
      situations, I've seen his hand trembling, about to move a piece, and the
      clock running out, incapable of clear thinking. This hand trembling was a
      clear signal that he was some seconds or minutes away from making a fatal
      error that would cost him the game. However he was a great theorist and IGM
      in correspondence chess! I've been entire nights with him and other
      players, in which he described, to our common astonishment, the fantastic
      complexity and beauty of his analyses concerning a correspondence game he
      was playing; the analysis of the possible continuations after a move he was
      about to play via mail (Internet didn't exist at that time) was a tree with
      thousands of viable branches; after showing us, around a table, some
      hundreds of these branches, he concluded: 'But I'm not sure about this
      move; I must analyse it more in the next two weeks, and then I will decide
      whether to play it or not'. Conclusion: a great theorist and analyser, but
      slow thinker in 'in vivo' games.

      António Antunes - The best of the lot. Antunes is better than the other two
      because he joins virtuously the qualities of them. He is not as rapid as
      Fernandes in phases of time shortage - in fact I've seen him lose against
      Fernandes in these phases, when both had few minutes left. But he was, in
      this respect (speed), still very good, much better than Santos. And he
      studied a lot and became an openings expert, as much as Santos. He
      accumulated a great 'cultural' and theoretical knowledge of the game, in
      all three phases - opening, middle-game, and ending, that contributed for
      him to know, at virtually any position, what to do next. So, he plays fast
      in the first 20 moves of the game, not because of reasoning speed, but
      because he *knows* more about openings and middle-game plans. This virtuous
      conjunction of not too bad speed, and very good 'cultural' knowledge
      allowed him to get the title of IGM (in in vivo games; Santos was just IGM
      in correspondence; it is more valued to be IGM in in vivo games).
      I must add also that Antunes has another very important quality: LOW FEAR.
      Fear is a tremendous handicap in chess, because one overreacts too
      defensively to the opponents' attacks, real or imaginary (this was one of
      my problems).

      Conclusion: Antunes and Santos are great theorists, they studied a lot,
      more than Fernandes. In speed of reasoning, they can't match Fernandes.
      Fernandes likely wins against any of the two (easily against Santos, not
      easily against Antunes) in a real game in a situation of time shortage.
      Santos is *very slow* but is the best in the more analytical and slow
      version of chess - correspondence chess. Antunes got the best title of the
      three: IGM in in vivo chess. Fernandes is not IGM.

      I suspect most IGMs of the world (you can see a list of them in the FIDE
      website, http://www.fide.com) are more like Antunes: they have a good speed
      of reasoning, but not necessarily amongst the highest; and they studied and
      played a lot (8 hours a day, during 10 years or more) to get cultural
      knowledge (myriads of opening variations and middle-game plans and
      strategies, that ressemble scientific research in the sense that there are
      also theories that come and go, disproved or not by 'facts' - practical
      results).

      I could add dozens of other players I know that fit more or less in these
      three variants, which means the pattern I describe (the quickest guy is not
      the best) is not confined to this example.

      Hope this post contributes a little to understanding the realtionship
      between reaction times and cultural achievement. Among these 3 guys, the
      quicker one got a lower title than the other two (and this in an activity
      where reasoning speed clearly matters; in science it likely matters much
      less, and in arts even less).
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic