Is top-level bullet chess more about intuition than calculation?
Sort:
5 days ago
0
#2
Who actually calculates in bullet or blitz. Even in rapid most of the time I play without calculation
2 days ago
0
#3
Ineffaceable wrote:
Who actually calculates in bullet or blitz. Even in rapid most of the time I play without calculation
your right win the mark @
Here you get the answer - by the The Royal Institution
I would say in bullet wins the guy that can manipulate the clock by a cheating tool. the quickest possible time format is blitz 5 minutes per site. everything less is no chess anymore.
19 hrs ago
0
#5
Raymond_Parker wrote:
After watching Magnus Carlsen play bullet, I find myself wondering how he cognitively processes the chessboard.
His decisions often seem to be made with virtually no visible thinking time.It seems unlikely that his perception is focused on individual pieces or isolated positions. Rather, he may be recognizing complex relationships between pieces—such as coverage, connections, tension, and potential threats—as structured patterns that can be accessed immediately.
This raises the question of to what extent these processes are based on learned pattern recognition, and how much they rely on automated, intuitive processing as opposed to conscious calculation of variations.
I would be interested in a more rigorous explanation, particularly from the perspective of cognitive science or chess expertise.
His automatic/intuitive knowledge is much higher than normal and can instantly understand what normal people would need to spend a lot of time thinking, and hence his conscious mind is working on strategies much deeper than what you'd think since the less deep stuff he already knows subconsciously.
After watching Magnus Carlsen play bullet, I find myself wondering how he cognitively processes the chessboard.
His decisions often seem to be made with virtually no visible thinking time.It seems unlikely that his perception is focused on individual pieces or isolated positions. Rather, he may be recognizing complex relationships between pieces—such as coverage, connections, tension, and potential threats—as structured patterns that can be accessed immediately.
This raises the question of to what extent these processes are based on learned pattern recognition, and how much they rely on automated, intuitive processing as opposed to conscious calculation of variations.
I would be interested in a more rigorous explanation, particularly from the perspective of cognitive science or chess expertise.