Predicting Problem Difficulty in Chess

2021 ◽  
pp. 487-504
Author(s):  
Ivan Bratko ◽  
Dayana Hristova ◽  
Matej Guid

We investigate the question of automatic prediction of task difficulty for humans, of problems that are typically solved through informed search. Our experimental domain is the game of chess. We analyse experimental data from human chess players solving tactical chess problems. The players also estimated the difficulty of these problems. We carried out an experiment with an approach to automatically estimate the difficulty of problems in this domain. The idea of this approach is to use the properties of a “meaningful search tree” to learn to estimate the difficulty of example problems. The construct of a meaningful search tree is an attempt at approximating problem solving by human experts. The learned difficulty classifier was applied to our experimental problems, and the resulting difficulty estimates matched well with the measured difficulties on the Chess Tempo website, and also with the average difficulty perceived by the players.

1973 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard B. May ◽  
Pam Duncan

The relation between changes in problem difficulty and performance was extended from discrimination studies to a speeded skill task. Children were given repeated trials with easy and hard puzzle blocks. An intermediate number of changes in difficulty facilitated performance more than trial-to-trial change or no change. It was suggested that an optimal amount of change may vary with the type of task considered and that further work with various difficulty sequences and tasks seems warranted.


1997 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marjorie Montague

The purpose of this article is to discuss student perception of mathematical problem solving. Findings from five studies measuring attitude toward mathematics, perception of performance, perception of the importance of mathematical problem solving, and perception of problem difficulty are presented and discussed. Additionally, the interaction of affect and cognition and the implications of this interaction for assessing and teaching mathematical problem solving to students with learning disabilities are discussed.


2014 ◽  
Vol 106 (3) ◽  
pp. 608-626 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Goldhammer ◽  
Johannes Naumann ◽  
Annette Stelter ◽  
Krisztina Tóth ◽  
Heiko Rölke ◽  
...  

1971 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 495-505 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glynn D. Coates ◽  
Earl A. Alluisi ◽  
Ben B. Morgan

Descriptions of the 12 problem-solving tasks developed since the last review (Ray, 1955) of chis topic indicate that the newer tasks are more sophisticated in design and provide for better experimental control than those used prior to 1953. Validity, reliability, sensitivity, trainability, problem structure, and problem difficulty are discussed as criteria for the selection of tasks to be used in studies of skilled problem-solving performance.


2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 823-830 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. Houtz ◽  
Haifa Matos ◽  
Min-Kyung S. Park ◽  
Jennifer Scheinholtz ◽  
Edwin Selby

52 Master's-level female graduate students completed VIEW: An Assessment of Problem Solving Style and provided attributions for their successes and failures according to several categories of reasons. Attributions were in the form of percentages to the categories of skill or ability, effort devoted to the task, task difficulty, chance, or other factors, after Weiner's theory of motivation. Women scoring as more Developer than Explorer on VIEW attributed a greater percentage of their failures to uncontrollable factors (chance and task difficulty). These results are consistent with the theory that individuals with a Developer style are more organized, deliberate, “planful,” and precise in their work efforts. Thus, such individuals would more likely attribute failure to factors they had not foreseen.


2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 221-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander J. de Voogt

Cognitive experimental research on experts has been dominated by research on Chess masters. De Groot’s work on Chess masters ( de Groot 1946/1965 ) started a tradition of Chess research concentrating on perception, memory and problem-solving expertise (e.g. Chase & Simon, 1973 ; de Groot & Gobet, 1996 ; Newell & Simon, 1972 ). In later years, this research was replicated by research on board games other than Chess. Experiments on players of Gomoku, Go ( Eisenstadt & Kareev, 1977 ; Reitman, 1976 ) and Othello ( Billman & Shaman, 1990 ; Wolff, Mitchell, & Frey, 1984 ) largely confirmed the findings on Chess masters. In board games research the effect of “cultural” variables has not been studied or even considered. Despite the presence of Japanese, Russian, Dutch and recently African players or games, the results of the experiments have been compared as if there is one “board game culture”. As long as the results of the experiments do not upset the results of Chess research, one could claim that this cultural background is irrelevant and that cognitive experiments on experts concern a level of thinking which is universal in humans. However, recent research on Bao experts - a board game played in East Africa - contradicted some of the results in Chess ( de Voogt, 1995 ). In this instance, the role of “culture” became an issue in two ways. Is the difference between Bao and Chess players related to the differences in playing context or are the experiments designed for Chess not comparable or not applicable to Bao?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document