Today, I visited the Research Center at Columbia University Medical Center (Department of Radiology and Psychology – Center for Neurology and Behavior) in New York. I met with Dr. Joy Hirsch (Professor of Psychology and Functional Neuroradiology and Director of fMRI Research Center).
She spent several hours conducting and analyzing various fMRI tests with my brain using state of the art technology. The finding was fascinating! The results clearly showed that when I analyze chess positions, both my right and left brain were functioning in full force. This finding decisively confirms that chess as an activity connects the right and left side of the brain.
Every step was documented. The full results and video will be included in the major film for National Geographic next year. This will be an amazing film for chess!
[Event “Neurology and Behavior Research”]
[Site “New York”]
[Date “2006.10.26”]
[Round “1”]
[White “Polgar, Susan”]
[Black “Shallow fRMI”]
[Result “1-0”]
[WhiteElo “2441”]
[BlackElo “12”]
1. e4 resigns?!?
I was talking to a brain neurologist and he said …when a man gets excited about a woman his brain shuts off (all sides)
this explains what some men do on FULL MOON NIGHTS
As for my brain the chess analysing part must be as new
I’d like to know if the fMRI of an amateur player when playing chess looks different from a grandmaster’s fMRI.
This is huge for the non-chess playing population. But, in this case, science is only confirming that which we already know as chess players. Maybe this will help raise the level of respect for the game in places like America, where it is often ignored. Im amazed every day at how many people dont even know how to play!
That would be nice for chess tournaments! Not only a screen for the moves of the grandmasters, but a screen for their brain activity too!
The finding was fascinating! The results clearly showed that when I analyze chess positions, both my right and left brain were functioning in full force. This finding decisively confirms that chess as an activity connects the right and left side of the brain.
Which also clearly proves that the ability of playing high level chess is a genetically determined matter. Something I am saying for a long time.
Gabor
“Which also clearly proves that the ability of playing high level chess is a genetically determined matter. Something I am saying for a long time.”
Is the ability to construct non-sequiturs genetically determined as well?
Even though I do not know what the “scientific break through” is in this matter, it is surely nice to know that your brain is working while playing chess.
As far as “the ability of playing high level chess is a genetically determined matter.” is concerned, I disagree. I bet that even my brain works on both sides when I am analyzing chess positions.
Thank you though Susan, for doing so much for chess. Keep it up!
Alex
Dear Gabor,
I do not agree that high level chess players have “the ability of playing high level chess is a genetically determined matter.” First, are you defining “high level” as a GM? An IM? An NM? Master, Expert? Please go into further detail as I am quite intrigued by your idea.
I am a librarian and have scanned the literature (in the fields of psychology, biology, and medicine). I admit that it was a quick search coving about 15 years using various online full-text journal databases.
I found no major research putting forth your hypothesis. Thus, I can see no way to state with evidence that GM’s have a genetic basis for their chess skills.
One of the key psychological abilities that chess GM and IM’s have that a club player/amateur is not as good at is: Pattern recognition.
There are several studies that have determined there is no link between extremely high intelligence and being a chess GM. This was, at one time, what many thought. Yet, many geniuses (I’m thinking in such fields as physics with Einstein and Hawking, Philosophy with Bertrand Russell, and many other fields) were not good chess players…and it is not because they didn’t try.
I see no genetic predisposition that allows some to become GM’s. The key, I say, is starting as a small child and going through extensive training for many, many years. Pattern recognition comes with the continual repitition of playing chess.
I do think, however, that further study into your idea would be interesting.
I’m glad you posted your idea.
Sincerely,
Charlemagne
Interesting news. I’ve studied medicine and anatomy shows that there are visible physical differences (no surprise there) between the male and female brain. One advantage of the female brain is that the bridge connecting the right and left hemisphere of the brain is bigger than that of the male. The result of this is that the communication between the hemispheres is more efficient in the female brain than in the male.
The male brain has it’s own advantages (for instance spatial relations). Maybe the bigger brain-bridge is an advantage females have over males which is beneficial in the game of chess?
Then there is a case of some guy who was brain damaged as a result of an accident.(he blew the left side of his brain while playing the bagpipes when he accidentally inhaled)…
He ended up in mental institution and was unable to look after himself…he was almost vegetable like so to say …yet he played chess very well and hardly anyone could beat him
wow! This is huge Susan!
You’ll be encouraging more parents and even government to teach chess to children.
Seriously, is this thought to be a gender-neutral result? Or do ladies with beautiful dual-hemispherical multitasking minds have an advantage over us poor males with only one side of our brain working?
“he blew the left side of his brain while playing the bagpipes when he accidentally inhaled”
Have you any references for follow up?
dear Susan,
please compare the scientific breakthrough from yesterday to the “Nature” article
Nicelli, Paolo et al., Nature (1994) 369, pp. 191 ff. from 1994 :))
as outlined by Nicelli, Grafman and coworkers in 1994, the activity of the right brain hemisphere during the chess thinking – process might be due to pattern or “cluster” recognition purposes (lot’s of nice pics in the article …) – NO significant differences could be observed between well trained chess players and beginners – so …
chess involves both, knowledge AND imagination
chess is simply: GREAT
but as you can see:
“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” (not even scientific breakthroughs… ^^)
sincerly
A gust of wind went up his Kild started it all off
Ask Dr Gorden he might play the bagpipes he might know
I do not agree that high level chess players have “the ability of playing high level chess is a genetically determined matter.” First, are you defining “high level” as a GM? An IM? An NM? Master, Expert? Please go into further detail as I am quite intrigued by your idea.
I am a librarian and have scanned the literature (in the fields of psychology, biology, and medicine). I admit that it was a quick search coving about 15 years using various online full-text journal databases.
I found no major research putting forth your hypothesis.
Of course not. The entire idea-group, that anything related to intelligence (of any kind) is genetically based, is one of the biggest politically incorrect “no-no”. You are on your own, based on logic, common sense and very little actual research material (such as the one Susan posted).
There are several studies that have determined there is no link between extremely high intelligence and being a chess GM.
I don’t doubt that at all. It seems that general intelligence is not directly linked to great chess playing ability. My “theory” is that something else what is genetically transmitted, something like a visualization ability of some kind, which allows the person to take mental “snapshots” of things (such as a chessboard with pieces) and able to do that on multiple level. That combined with good logic and calculation. The idea of “ability of visualization, mental snapshots” originates from the observation that most great chessplayers can play blind chess, again with several people at the same time. Or if you observe simuls, the player just moves to the table, takes one glimpse and makes his/her move. Or blind simuls. That entire table just have to have somewhere in his/her brain already. The time can’t be enough to “run through the moves” based on traditional memory.
I see no genetic predisposition that allows some to become GM’s. The key, I say, is starting as a small child and going through extensive training for many, many years.
Think of the child talents in chess. What is the typical story? X.Y. learned chess at age 7 (for example), were noticed to cream all children and adults in his/her immediate surrounding, somebody noticed that, took the person to some trainer and………..and the talent usually started to defeat others, who he had “no right” to defeat based on just the exposure to chess. I seriously doubt that Bobby Fischer (for example) had enough time to learn so much between the time he learned how to move the pieces and the time he achieved notable victories (see the “game of the century”, when he was 13 years old).
It works the other way around too. Some people can spend their entire life studying much chess, yet they will never amount to anything beyond mediocre to semi-good. Therefore, it is almost an inevitable conclusion that the chess talents must be born with “something”. I don’t know what the “something” is, since chess is an artificial, human-invented activity, which obviously didn’t go into the genes. Something, which probably has nothing to do with chess itself, yet enables the person to excel in chess.
Gabor
well said Dr Gabor
Gabor,
Your comments are well thought out and you certainly bring up many good concepts. I think the brain is such a complex entity that science has not even scratched the surface in understanding what makes us “tick.”
On the surface, it might seem that some great chess GM’s, such as Fischer, had an exceptional ability that they were born with. Possibly.
However, there are other prodigies, in mathematics, for example, that do not display a great chess ability. I can provide a few examples of this which I find especially interesting as mathetmatical ability has often been correlated with chess ability.
Having an extraordinary memory is, I think, one ingredient that makes the difference between, say, a chess Expert and a chess GM (amongst many other things).
Now, a near-photograhic memory might have some type of genetic side to it. Think of chess legends like Pillsbury. He had an amazing photographic memory. I’ll not elaborate on his exploits as you can read them on the Internet sometime. It’s really interesting.
Charlemagne
thanks hoddy that’s very clear now.
Dr gabor,
Your conclusion that the ‘good’ player *must* have something is the only correct conclusion indeed.
I have always thought that the difference lies in the ability to learn.
Isn’t chess just a mix of Intelligence, Memory and the ability to learn (adapt).
@Dr. Gabor – i’m not a librarian – but an talented alien – and i intend to give you some brainteasers:
each chessplayer above 2500+ has the chess player talent gene!
each chess player above 2600+ has what?
each chessplayer above 2700+ has what?
each chessplayer between 2400 and 2500 has what?
… time passes
… time and phrases pass
…
each chess player between 600 and 700 has what?
does he / she lack the chess genius gene (a player 2500+ is not a chess genius in my eyes …) or the chess gene at all?
had the one – carrying the chess gene but did not manage to climb up to 2700´+, a bad childhood, and how to measure it?
BTW – is there a reason for – let’s say Ian Thorpe – the australian swimming genius – to be himself, or not beeing himself? did little Ian had a choice?
any human being has the ability to play chess, more or less
e.g. my lifetime best on 100m running was 12.9 sec – my lifetime best on 1000m running was 3min 56sec(i’m fat … ^^^) but my lifetime best in
shot-put was 12.55m – bavarian youth record at that time – and my lifetime best to swim 50m freestyle was 26.9 sec – i’m not a very talented swimmer … but the record was not so bad 30 years ago …)
what i want to say is:
talent is not everything – you need to develop it …
or – with Albert Einstein’s capture, asked about success:
“My formula is: 30% talent + 30% hard work + 30% leisure = 100 % success.
– ehh – and the lacking 10?
– it’s me, dear friend, me, Albert Einstein!”
sincerly
Charlemagne said…
However, there are other prodigies, in mathematics, for example, that do not display a great chess ability.
I never said that there is a direct correlation between math and chess.
Having an extraordinary memory is, I think, one ingredient that makes the difference between, say, a chess Expert and a chess GM (amongst many other things).
Quite possibly so. However, there are more than one kind of memory. Great chess probably requires a “special type”, which I can’t really define in any other way than some “visualization ability”. Such as storing the entire chessboard with all the pieces, but perhaps not as a picture, but in some “global way” out of which the person can store a whole bunch of different ones AND can correlate those at will.
It is a fascinating subject. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t claim to know what makes a great chess player, I am merely “thinking aloud” about it.
Gabor
Isn’t chess just a mix of Intelligence, Memory and the ability to learn (adapt).
Your guess is probably as good as mine. I still think that great chess players have some “extra something”, but maybe not.
Gabor
Das is gut….But does it work
Were not all the same and you can thank your father … for those wonderful moments his brain was shut off…
great comment Vohaul.
It is true that some people play chess better than other because of some inner capacity as a result of different talent and/or genes.
However I cannot really expect me to play like a GM, if I invest 1 hour in chess per week, while the GM invest 50 hours of intense studying per week.
Also I cannot expect me to play like a GM if I do not have a Tutor like the GMs have (had) them.
If all people had the same conditions and chances to learn chess, same amount of hours they play and study the game etc. then one can really begin to search for the reason why some are still so much better. I doubt that will be the case though.
“soliloquizing” is, according to Dante Aligheri, the foremost sign, that a person / persons / entity is / are prefixed to enter the first circle of hell – with all consequences … LOL
so, watch out, doc! (gabor, gandor, hoddy… ^^^)
so – @ hoddy – of course we aren’t all the same – but if my father turned of his brain whilst “making” me – i’m joined by about 6 – 7 billion other people (men and women) meandering on this old rotten earth … ^^ (a very mollifying idea … at least to me… ^^)
ja! wirklich gut – wir sind nicht allein lieber freund!
I would encourage all to read an article in November Scientific American ( I think it’s November’s, but not positive) called “An expert mind” where it explores what makes people good at something. There is an idea that chess great’s are born that way (Capablanca beating his dad when he was 4 years old.) and there IS probably something to that. However, saying this I do believe that if everyone of average intelligence engaged in “thoughtful, effortful” study of the game of chess most would probably be able to reach the level of the average GM now. Of course there still would be a “Top 100” and Super GM’s who rise to the top. Is it more “effortful” study that brings them to the top? Perhaps. Genetics MUST have something to do with it though. If your memory is just a little better than others and your internal “boardsite” is clearer than you certainly would have an advantage.
Hi Hoddy,
And I thought Australians didn’t have a sense of humour – your comments just crack me up! – how wrong I was. I need to let you into a secret though …… the bagpipes are not a musical instrument but a weapon of mass destruction – also, it’s true, blow the wrong way and your head blows off! Don’t try this at home kids! Scotsmen have a “bagpipe” gene which prevents the head blowing off thing. As you’ll know a Scottish Gentleman is someone who knows how to play the bagpipes …….. but doesn’t!
For my money Mendrys has it exactly right.
G. Lehany
Very interesting study.
The non-chess-playing parents/teachers also need be educated on the importance of a common-place chess theme — “fighting for the initiative.” This translates to “fire in the belly” in one’s business, and other endevours.
The agression over the board is something non-chess-playing people don’t often appreciate. They think the winner is somehow “smarter” — the will-to-win, or searching deep on the board and within yourself ina lost position to come up with a save is as much about energy and attitude.
A genuis gifted in any specific field such as Mozart in music, Einstein in physics, Fischer in chess, have the ability to create and develope ideas and understanding of important but also insignificant detail to strengthen a given concept which makes great breakthroughs that the ordinary mind would not realize.
Wow! My buddy Howard Stern says he only gets a low steady hum when his fMRIs is taken. He told me that it’s “urban-man soul,” but now I’m beginning to think that he made the whole thing up.
I had an EEG a long time ago and when I was shown a picture of the Polgar sisters playing chess, the needle went completely off the graph and the machine short-circuited!