Smith e d_mfinal_3_29_21

1
Talking Chess: A Phenomenological Study of Strategy and Social Reasoning in Chess Players
Dissertation Manuscript
Submitted to Northcentral University
School of Social and Behavioral Sciences
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PSYCHOLOGY
by
ERIC SMITH
La Jolla, California
March 2021

2
Abstract
In this qualitative phenomenology study 9 chess players participated in semi-structured
interviews to discern their thematic descriptions of how social cognition operates to form
strategy. The Problem addressed in this study was the gap in understanding how chess players
experience cognitive processes that reference social reasoning traits related to interpersonal
strategy decision-making (Guntz et al., 2018; Powell et. al, 2017). The theoretical foundation
for this phenomenological design was Theory of Mind. The main themes were Cognitive
Empathy as a Mechanism for Choosing Chess Strategy, Memory Recall as a Primary Mechanism
for Choosing Chess Strategy, and Pattern Awareness, Intuition, Spatial Calculation, and/or
Cognitive Empathy Can Function Independently or Interdependently as Cognitive Chess
Strategies. There are implications related to the definition of the term “empathy”. That the
theme of cognitive empathy was well defined by chess player participants as a cognitive process
used to discern strategy was strong indication that cognitive empathy, as a ToM quality, was
prominent in chess play. Memory, intuition, and spatial calculations were also affirmed as
strong functions in deciding chess strategy. Recommendation include extending research into
how the temporo-parietal junction affects strategy, applications of empathy to artificial
intelligence, and how this research can help chess coaching.
Keywords: Cognitive empathy, chess, strategic decision-making, social reasoning, theory
of mind

3
Acknowledgements
Dr. Ackerman, Dr. Tanksale, Dr. Verace, Jing Juan, and all the professors who helped me along
the way.

4
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement .................................................................................................................. 10
Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………………………………11
Theoretical Framework………………….………………………………………………...…12
Nature of the Study................................................................................................................. 17
Research Questions................................................................................................................. 19
Significance of the Study........................................................................................................ 20
Defintion of Key Terms……………………………………………………………………...21
Summary................................................................................................................................. 23
Chapter 2: Literature Review........................................................................................................ 24
Theoretical Framework........................................................................................................... 25
Theory could Reveal Strategic Processes ............................................................................... 39
How to Recognize a Cognitive Strategy................................................................................. 43
Geometric Considerations on Cognitive Strategy................................................................... 48
Role of Intuition in Strategy ................................................................................................... 51
Personality Correlates with Strategy....................................................................................... 54
Limits of What can be Known Strategically ........................................................................... 58
Cognitive Capacities for Strategy and its Perceptions ............................................................ 61
Spatial Relationships and Memory Effect Strategy ................................................................ 63
Some Chemical Maps of Cognitive Strategy.......................................................................... 68
Cognitive Mechanisms and Strategy………………………………………………………...71
Consciousness Affects/Effects Cognitive Strategy and Neural Mapping............................... 75
Language, Space, and Chess................................................................................................... 78
Perspective Taking in Chess and Strategy .............................................................................. 86
Summary................................................................................................................................. 87
Chapter 3: Research Method......................................................................................................... 90
Research Methodology and Design ........................................................................................ 91

5
Population and Sample ........................................................................................................... 97
Materials/Instrumentation..................................................................................................... 100
Study Procedures................................................................................................................... 101
Data Collection and Analysis................................................................................................ 104
Assumptions.......................................................................................................................... 115
Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 115
Delimitations......................................................................................................................... 119
Chapter 4: Findings……………………………………………………………………………..126
Trustworthiness of the Data………………………………………………………………...126
Triangulation………………………………………………………………………………..130
Coding and Recoding…………………………………………………………………….…130
Discerning Collected Data and Prior Literature………………………………………….....131
Study Planning……………………………………………………………………………...132
Analysis and Recording Method…………..….………………………………………….…132
Bias and Coding………………………………...…………………………………………..134
Results…………………………………………...………………………………………….135
Evaluation…………………………………………...…………………………………...…165
Summary……………………………………………..………………………………….....171
Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions………………………………...175
Implications………………………………………………………………………….……..177
Further Implications of Theory………………………………………………………….…200
Recommendations for Practice……………………………………………………………..205
Recommendations for Future Research………………………………………………….…208
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………...….212
References......................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix A: Recruitment Flyer.................................................................................................. 234
Appendix B: Screening/Demographic Questionnaire................................................................. 236
Appendix C: Screening Questions .............................................................................................. 241

6
Appendix D: Site Permission.........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix E: Informed Consent Form......................................................................................... 242

1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Theory of Mind (ToM) explains how it is understood that through social reasoning
then social emotions of others are interpreted and comprehended (Artinger, Exadakylos,
Koppel, & Sa”a”ksvuori, 2014). According to ToM, decision-makers construct an
understanding of other’s mental states and make inferences about other’s emotions, intentions
and beliefs (Artinger et al., 2014). The game of chess has been well studied through
experimental design due to its convenient format for discerning potential decision-making
processes and strategies (Guntz, Balzarini, Vaufreydaz, & Crowley, 2018; Rocha, Ribeiro Da
Silva, Goncalves Cesar, Giraldi, & Thomaz, 2017). Chess offers unique applications to the
study of ToM since chess both relies on predicting opponent’s sense of game conception and
strategy. It as well as well relies on ascertaining the value and sequencing of choices made by
opponents related to their confidence in controlling outcomes (Grabner, 2013; Powell et al.,
2017). In 1893, Alfred Binet set out to map the cognitive virtuosity of a chess player’s
decision-making processes and concluded (1966):
If one could see what goes on in a chess player’s head, one would find a stirring world
of sensations, images, movements, passions and an ever-changing panorama of states
of consciousness. By comparison with these our most attentive descriptions are but
grossly simplified schemata.
Chess, sometimes called The Royal Game, has its origins in India, and is perhaps
derivative of other Asiatic games (Fine, 2015). It can be considered a war game. It is now
played in every Western society as well. In the Middle Ages chess was the most popular
game of the leisure classes. First documentation of chess occurred around 1500 years ago. In

2
2010 the United States Chess Federation (USCF) (2019) had approximately 80,000 members.
It has been stated that there are 40 million chess players in the United States and perhaps 700
million players worldwide (Shenk, 2007). There is a universal system accepted to rate
competitive chess players call Elo scoring (Albers & De Vries, 2001).
Chess is male dominated, and the participation of women declines with age (Fine,
2015). In elementary school 40% of the players are girls, while there is only one top one
hundred adult player who is female in the United States. Chess is by and large a middle-class
mind sport. It has little bias toward age as competitive level players can be found from age
four to one hundred, though cognitive diminishment has its negative affect. Magnus Carlsen,
current World Chess Champion, said that one way to tell an experienced player from a novice
is their insistence on perfectly arranging their pieces to be balanced in the center of their
positional “square” (Karolyi, T., 2018). Further expertise in chess will be quickly discerned
from players who move their pieces effectively to enact strategic combinations, in turn-based
play, that maneuver their contingents of low (pawns) and high (rooks, knights, bishops and
the Queen) pieces to trap the single King of their opponent (Shenk, 2007). A win, called a
checkmate, occurs, when the opponent’s King can no longer move in any direction without
being taken (Silman, 1998). Taking opposing pieces is simply done by landing on their
square with any piece of one’s own during turn play.
Chess has a constrained task environment with higher ecological validity as
contrasted with other domains (Conner & Campitelli, 2014). Like chess, domains such as
firefighting, football, or assembly lines require decisions based on spatial relations toward
objects, but these environments would be difficult to study. Chess is stochastic, heuristic,

3
strategic, rule-based, played in a small-scale environment, has multitudes of pattern
formations, has a player rating system, as well as reliance on executive and long-term memory
functions of the brain. Thus, there is a large amount of quantitative research data involving
chess expertise. Conner and Campitelli (2014) did find, in one of the few qualitative studies
of chess, that chess experts qualitatively conceptualize representations of space different from
novice players. Hence though quantitative analysis dominates chess studies there has been
few effective cross-over studies that evaluate gameplay with qualitative methodologies.
Chess also adheres to the rule of form (Grivas, 2017). It is a mentally demanding game of
both memory and logical thought processes applied to vast variations. After a mere four-
piece series of movements between opponents there are 288+ billion possible tactical piece
positionings that both players can choose from to proceed (Grivas, 2017).
Cognitive empathy (CE) is a key aspect of ToM related to comprehending another’s
internal reality through accurate perception of their beliefs and intentions (Ciaramelli, Bernardi,
& Moscovitch, 2013). CE has been measured to be a cognitive process involving specific
brain functions (Przybyszewki & Polkowski, 2017). This materialistic discernment into
another’s conceptual and feeling world, and subsequent comparison to one’s own inner world,
can be the basis for tactical and strategic decision-making during chess. It is a function,
biologically structured, that easily could have many ecological validities in many domains of
human effort and endeavor.
Guntz, Balzarini, Vaufreydaz, and Crowley (2018) used quantitative designs to explore
if awareness of opponent’s eye-gaze, body posture, aspects of self-touching, and emotion are
utilized by chess players to solve difficult strategic problems. It was determined that
situational understanding, and expert knowledge applied toward strategic gameplay decisions

4
could be discerned through accurate perception of an opponent’s variation in facial emotions
and increases in self touching. Otherwise, Buhren and Frank (2012) determined through their
quantitative study that chess players are not more rational, in a game theoretic sense, than
participants in other domains, but rather possess a particular combination of skills specific to
chess that explains their expertise. Chess itself can be divided in analysis in several ways, one
being tactical versus positional strategies and as well by levels of aggression and trickery
utilized during gameplay (Silman, 1998). Qualitative study of chess player’s cognitive
processes could lead to domain specific utilization of various cognitive processes that
correspond to various strategic situations and conceptions. In turn, linguistic interpretation
from phenomenological interviewing of cognitive awareness during gameplay could assist
further quantitative studies.
Still, Buhren and Frank (2012) determined rationality in chess does not necessarily
mean rationality in other domains. These researchers gained data from over 6000 chess
players who ranged in formal ranking from amateur to world class grandmasters. They found
that when tasked with evaluating a beauty contest these chess players, essentially considered
strongly rationally minded individuals while playing chess, were no more rational in their
decision-making process than other novices, who did not play chess, when judging a beauty
contest. Chess and beauty contests are both constant-sum games in that the sum of the
payoffs does not depend on the outcome of the game. One can win a series of moves in chess,
or portions of a beauty contest, and still lose overall. Both chess and beauty contests as well
can hardly be solved for advantage based on backward-induction due to the large number of
possible outcomes.

5
Indeed, Buhren and Frank (2012) determined that chess experts, while playing chess,
do not realize that making non-equilibrium moves likely affects their opponent’s summation
of their rationality and would often cause the opponent to mimic the initial non-equilibrium
move with rational equivalence. Non-equilibrium is when one player in a game makes a
move not knowing, or believing, the move of the other player, or that the game is “tied” in
equilibrium at that point (Kline, 2017). Thus, it can be an upsetting move, because it breaks
the convention of choosing an optimal move due to the belief, or fact, that the game is in
equilibrium, balanced and unwinnable, because both players know each optimal move. In
equilibrium neither player may want to move, but since chess enforces moves until one player
concedes, or their King no longer can move, then to avoid a draw, one player must make a
move. That move disturbs the perceived equilibrium of the game to shuffle the pattern
outcome of choices in the hope of an unforeseen winning positioning, or further progression
toward a draw. This choice move at times could be called a gut choice, an instinct or
intuition, made at a specific time of perceived advantage by going into unpredictable non-
equilibrium. This could be considered a counter-intuitive, or a move that ignores an obvious
immediate, or even strategically conceived, advantage, in the hopes that it shuffles the
outcome through subsequent strategic decisions of the opponent. This can be so because a
draw allows for the possibility of a later win in a series of game. One way to consider this is a
player who makes a bad move in order to fool the opponent into making a worse move, or at
least a move that does not follow typical outcome patterns as memorized by players and often
followed in gameplay, so in a sense the whole game is in unknown, freed territory.
Nonetheless, Buhren and Frank (2012) cite that chess masters score higher on intuition
than logic in personality assessments. Sigirtmac (2016) found that children with chess

6
training had statistically significant higher scores in both creative thinking and Theory of
Mind (ToM) than those without chess training. Further they found that ToM and creativity
development have a positive relationship. Additionally, chess training was found to enhance
children’s understanding of spatial concepts.
Atashpendar, Schilling and Voigtmann (2016) note that there is such a great amount of
potential spatial relationships in chess that strategy can be based in size of the state space, size
of the legal move decision tree, and as well considerations about how actual and potential
spaces are connected. Again, this could indicate that finding one or more cognitive processes
utilized in chess could be both reflective of one type of framework of strategic gameplay, and
available to accurate generalizations of those cognitive processes in other domains. This
while the same, or other cognitive processes in gameplay, depending on how one or both
players are applying spatial conceptions, may not be effective or able to be generalized. It
would seem any study would have to demonstrate specific routes from cognitive process to
outcome, while specifically defining the conceptual frameworks that were active for the sets
of data collected from specific spatial aspects of games and player cognitive types. Further
experimental research as well could tie these thought processes to brain circuit systems. One
way to conceive of spatial difference in gameplay is that one player may value positioning
strategy based on using two less powerful pieces, a rook and a knight, in combination while
sacrificing the more powerful Queen piece. This while another player may rely on strategy
that utilizes the Queen in conjunction with several of the least powerful pieces, the pawns,
who move less in space per turn, while the Queen can move the greatest in space of any piece
on the gameboard. This of course reflects on time of strategy implementation and
countermanding moves by opponents in turn-based play. There is the additional factor that

7
the object of both strategies, the cornering of the King piece, is made unpredictable because
the King moves as well, albeit one square at a time. In special first move conditions, the
King, can move two squares at a time (called a Castle). This is one of two extraordinary
moves in the game of chess. The other involves pawns taking pawns in special first move
circumstances. Adding to complication of strategy formulation, the King, in fact any chess
piece, can be defended by multiple pieces in various spatial formations that are both direct
and indirect (Silman, 1998). Hence chess gameplay includes for the four categories of spatial
relations; topological, directional, distance relations and relations by class (Stockdale &
Possin, 1998). Technically, the Knight piece transcends the two-dimensional game space as it
is the only game piece that can “jump” over other chess pieces to move, or even take an
opponent’s piece by landing on it after “jumping” one of its own or an opponent’s piece in
one of several L pattern movements (Silman, 1998).
Predominately, chess has been considered, and analyzed, as a game of memory (Postal,
2012). Postal’s (2012) experimental design found that chess experts do not need to inhibit
irrelevant information to increase performance but do rely on superior automatic and parallel
assessment of information than novice players. These chunks of pattern recognition from
memory form conceptual templates that predict outcomes from various spatial configurations
of chess pieces during gameplay. Postal (2012) cites that there is a larger visual span for
chess-related visual patterns. It is worth noting that chunking generally involves focus on one
set of one’s own chess pieces for tactics and strategy to the exclusion of other, inactive or
distracting, sets of one’s own pieces.
Powell, Grossi, Corcoran, Gobet, and Garcia-fin Ana (2017) studies demonstrated that
chess and ToM have much overlap in neural networks, brain circuit patterns, which inhibit

8
one’s own experience when evaluating the mental state of others and for visual evaluation of
action. These authors cite that memory of chess patterns is supported by “complex visual
processing out of conscious awareness” when decisions of game strategy are made. They
found that stress during complex chess gameplay creates sympathetic nervous system
reactions, psychophysiological responses, that reduces heartrate variability in both novice and
expert players. Artinger et al. (2014) assert that issues of game theory closely relate to
conceptualization of strategic interaction in ToM. Interestingly, psychometric ToM measures
are not able to capture the cues that chess opponents respond to in each other during play, but
an accuracy in a chess player’s belief of their opponents perceived strategy of future decisions
has been measured as effective to making superior piece movements during gameplay (Powell
et al., 2017).
Chess is a game that humans play, and as such concepts of game theory, lack of
omniscience in knowledge of possible game moves, and uncertainty about absolute outcomes
apply (Slezak, Sigma, and Cecchi, 2018). Slezak et al. (2018) acknowledge that in chess
players do not exhaustively search all alternatives. At some point they make a decision to
move a piece on limited knowledge and ability to plan ahead. This dynamic of choice was
often found to accompany smaller, rather than broad, sets of projections into various strategic
decision trees. How this decision is ultimately made is unanswered and remains a relevant
question to researchers. Classic Dividend Discount Model (DDM) cannot identify reaction
time (RT) distributions, as related to remember-know responses along confidence levels,
created by chess play. Reigning World Champion and former child chess prodigy, Magnus
Carlsen, states that he most always knows his exact move by a quick surmising of the chess

9
pieces, but then takes up to 30 minutes verifying the actual move by presumably working out
decision tree patterns (Karolyi, 2018).
Coates (2013) discusses how chess players need intuition to access the positional and
strategic advantage at all points in gameplay. Indeed, chess players do find, or create for the
first time, original chess combinations of moves that make for superior play. Perception can
be interpreted as a sensory mode of the intentional state, or as a distinct component of
sensing. Perhaps conceptual and biological, cognitive and otherwise as heartrate variability is
associated with amygdala reactions and vagus nerve functions (Muppidi & Migles, 2017),
engaged at differing sequences, frequencies, durations change how players engage the game,
and correspondingly provoke, or do not, similar processes activated for gameplay decisions by
their opponents. Or possibly some overall pattern recognition is sparked by spatial
cognizance of that quality mentioned as outside the conscious mind by Powell et al. (2017).
Or it may be some combination of these two, or otherwise processes. As Coates (2013) states
in any way experience involves both intentional content and some feature that is distinctive of
perception as in an awareness of phenomena qualities. These qualities are as well connected
in some manner to external objects, perhaps the intuition or emotions of other players and
their intentions, as perceived and not as a part of any mental or concrete representation.
ToM’s cognitive empathy could account for this. Even cognitive choice that is based on
strategic memory of prior play is participant to the opponent’s originality of choice, strategy,
and unpredictable movement of pieces in chess as players respond in turn sequence to each
and every chess move. Each chess game is unique in structure, concept, awareness and
interpretation. Both players intentions form the direction of the game. Coates (2013) notes
that players, even at the highest levels, most often place strong emotional significance on

10
chess pieces respectively. Each loss of a piece can create strong emotional resonance for both
the victor and loser of that piece.
Problem Statement
The problem addressed in this study was the gap in understanding how chess players
experience cognitive processes that reference social reasoning traits related to interpersonal
strategy decision-making (Guntz et al., 2018; Powell et. al, 2017). For instance, cognitive
empathy has been found to reveal accurate perception of other’s states of mind (Przybyszewki
& Polkowski, 2017). If chess players rely on cognitive empathy to pick strategy, then
descriptive narratives may address at what point in strategic decision making these systems
activate or the individual is aware of their activation and influence. Cognitive empathy has
been found to give competitive advantage in chess games (Przybyszewki & Polkowski, 2017).
Researchers have investigated chess players use of Theory of Mind, or awareness of an
opponent’s body, thoughts, or emotions, and how these may lead to influence over game
move choices, while some found ToM traits are a form of perspective taking based on
imitation (Guntz et al., 2018; Laghi et al., 2016). If chess players could describe how they
learn from other players, this could be an indication to further theory.
Sigirtmac (2016) demonstrated how aspects of ToM influence modulations between
cognitive and affective memory. Further language on how memory of other chess players
feelings or impressions gained from social reasoning, such as cognitive empathy, in previous
games might be more informative than first believed in strategic choice making during a
current game for players. Guntz, Balzarini, Vaufreydaz, and Crowley (2018) demonstrated
complex systems of phenomenology that cannot be separated from the specific experience or
reduced by study of specific cognitive mechanisms. These vague, yet active concepts could

11
be initially revealed through qualitative interviews of chess players. Atashpendar, Schilling
and Voigtmann (2016) did research on how chess players interpret and represent space. Space
can be a abstract, or at least multi-dimensional fact of construct, and again data from chess
player interviews could give further indications of the differing elements, or conceptions, of
space active in chess strategy. The gap is how language might reveal connections between
spatial assessment and affective assessment might correspond. The lack of effective
understanding in the research of primary, yet vague, mechanisms of strategic choice like
intuition, or empathy, leaves research handicapped from a complete perspective of active
dynamics in strategy formation (Powell et. al., 2017).
Purpose of the Study
The Purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to investigate the gap in
descriptive narratives of chess players as to their perceptions of what influences tactical and
strategic moves. This phenomenological study collected data in approximately one hour long,
one-on-one semi structured interviews with up to twenty (1-20) chess players (Abayomi,
2017). Players were recruited from open online chess forums, through Facebook, and data
collection took place by the researcher until saturation was effectively achieved with 9
participants (Guest et. al., 2006). Saturation allowed for descriptive validity and confirmation
of how chess players experience the game of chess. Higher ranked chess players have been
found to give richer descriptive detail, have more cognitive memory pattern awareness and
apply unquantifiable qualities of intuition for effective strategy (Coates, 2013; Nippold, 2009;
Powell, 2017).
Strict criteria were included as the study sought adult participants who have played
chess monthly, once or more, and for at least the last three months. After flyer distribution,

12
on open chess forums in Facebook, then snowball method recruitment was to be allowed, but
ultimately was not used as sufficient participants contacted the researcher individually from
the Facebook posts (Emerson, 2015). Interviews with chess players were done remotely by
ZOOM by the researcher and recorded in private. These recordings were later transcribed by
computer program then edited by the researcher (Grivas, 2017).
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2012) is a
well-used framework for discerning how people describe meaning in events and phenomenon.
Repeated and thorough deep reading of the data, Nvivo 12 analysis, as well as earnest
bracketing of personal preconceptions, allowed for revelation of distinct and holistic themes
(Holroyd, 2001). Nvivo 12 aides the researcher in ensuing words is not missed that accurately
group and define potential themes that match the research questions.
IPA finds and defines the particulars of phenomenon. Any statements derived from
contrast and comparison within this method had sufficient instances of similar coding as to
ensure that participants are speaking, or not, of the same quality of phenomenon (Pietkiewicz &
Smith, 2012). Clustering themes that have alternatively been sorted from emic and etic
perspectives revealed new understanding as applied to the research questions. Such research
assisted in the development of higher-level theory (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2012).
Theoretical Framework
The basic definition of Theory of Mind (ToM) is that of a process of mind that allows
one to understand the thoughts and intentions of others (Colle et al., 2019; Preckel et al., 2018).
A primary conception of ToM is that it includes cognitive processes that discerns, interprets, and
enhances self-other distinctions (Hajduk et al., 2018). The more one realizes the nuances in
difference between one’s own thoughts and intentions and those of others then the more

13
accurately one’s understanding of the reality between individuals becomes. Cognitive Empathy
(CE) is a key cognitive process of ToM. CE is defined as one being able to comprehend
another’s internal reality through accurate perception of their beliefs and intentions (Powell et
al., 2017). Theoretically individuals have differing levels of understanding various aspects of
difference between themselves and others. If so, then individuals also could understand the
participative differences within another more than that person understands those participative
differences within themselves. This could be a great strategic advantage in any game. In the
game of chess minimal superiority of knowledge in one context can outperform superior
knowledge in diverse contexts within any given game (de Bruin, Riker, & Schmidt, 2007). For
example, in chess one player can encircle an opponent with superior positioning, having taken
more key pieces, and still the player in the weaker position can suddenly exploit something
unseen, and then this is spontaneously discovered by both players, that then in turn secures
immediate or eventual victory for the player who seemingly was at disadvantage (de Bruin,
Riker, & Schmidt, 2007).
Researchers have proposed chess players use a variety of methods to pick tactics and
strategy such as instinct, analysis, intuition, logic, feeling, tactic, envisioning, pattern
recognition, reasoning and problem solving (Lane & Chang, 2018; Powell et. al, 2017). Through
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis some of these terms as defined in language by
participant interview may reflect uses of ToM’s cognitive empathy during chess gameplay
(Larkin, Watts, & Clifton, 2006). Certainly, there are differences in style of play, and possible
differences in the scope of player’s access to dimensions of awareness. There are also
differences in scale of opponent’s conception of any given game and chess in general (Laws,
2014). Indeed, recent studies demonstrate that ToM has task functions for knowing that are

14
automatic and unconscious and that operate without direct verbal measures or instructions
(Brock, Kim, & Kelly, 2017). This suggests something akin to intuition, mindreading, or
empathy can be used for decision making (Montero & Evans, 2011). That these ToM processes
are automatic and do not need prompting to be utilized may as well fit some conventional and
theoretical definitions of an instinct (Kulke, Johannsen, & Rakoczy, 2019). For concepts such as
empathy, intuition, and instinct there has not been conclusive science that illustrates how and
when these cognitive formats operate between various routes of necessity, perception and
physical mechanism (Duan et. al, 2012; Edwards, Beale, & Edwards, 2012). ToM is proposing
that there are superior and active senses of awareness that allow individuals to ascertain
accurately the inner workings of another’s thinking and belief processes (Artinger, Exadaktylos,
Koppel, & Saaksvuori, 2014). These are said to be able to be active, without dialogue, originate
from deep within the individual’s unconscious ability, know a truth (unconscious or otherwise)
about a person separate from oneself, and may or may not be able to be perfectly identified or
even consciously developed (Andrews, 2001).
ToM includes for interactive behavioral tasks that utilize a great deal of anticipatory
looking and facial emotion recognition (Zwick & Wolkenstein, 2017). Colle et al. (2018)
suggests when ToM is used it reflects qualities of what has been called mindreading. There is
interest in knowing how players will, when given time, describe how they knew the beliefs of
their opponent’s decision making and strategy (Haladjian & Montemayor, 2016; Leite et al.,
2014).
A study of chess players’ descriptions of strategy choices revealed some of their
utilization of ToM processes and possibly could have applications to Game Theory (GM)
(Fuentes-Garcia, 2019). GM compliments ToM in the study of decision-making through chess

15
as it relies on complex mathematics for its structural underpinnings that calculates choice for
greatest utility, and not necessarily from the furthest point of comprehended logic, hence
decisions can be called intuitive (Chakravarty, Manipushpak, & Sarkar, 2015; Young, Peyton, &
Zamir, 2015). Where ToM uses a sense like cognitive empathy to comprehend another’s internal
reality through accurate perception of their beliefs and intentions, GM conceives the totality of
an interactive process then assigns a cost-benefit analysis of the best choice, to be implemented
strategically at any exact moment and point, for ending up in a superior position to one’s
opponent (Bosco, Berardinelli, & Parola, 2019; Guth, Huck, & Rapoport, 1998). There is
interest in knowing how chess players belief that they have an understanding of an opponent’s
process, scope and/or intention, and also believing they know how the combined dueling
strategies of two opponents will intersect at multiple points to influence gameplay outcome that
is operational and operationalized (Haladjian & Montemayor, 2016; Leite et al., 2014). There
may be complimentary methods for predicting the sequenced outcome of tactical choices and
ways of stating time, matter, motion, direction and space as to infer intersecting future points
through a logical, yet ultimately unquantifiable process (Haladjian & Montemayor, 2016; Leite
et al., 2014).
Like ToM, GM does rely on a process of comparing player’s underlying structure of
knowledge, belief and skills (Linhares, Freitas, Mendes, & Silva, 2012). In any game of two
players there exists amassed conceptions and accessible memory of prior game experience
(specific or generalized), and GM offers a framework of how the steps of choosing a game
decision is based on those conceptions, sometimes using a process called discounting that relies
on incomplete information that does remind one of the concepts of intuition (Linhares, Freitas,
Mendes, & Silva, 2012). Discount choices, sub-game moves that are less than perfect as to be

16
non-equilibria, are made when the likelihood of deciding from one’s less than the total game
conception (and logical prediction of win/loss) - less logical outcome predicting - has perceived
higher benefit due to complex, various, uncontrollable, or random factors of mutual game play
(Buhren & Frank, 2012). This is especially relevant in chess where the combinations of
consequences are vast, while the game play is fluid and dynamic. One can never fully know how
their opponent will gamble, calculate, perceive, react, create error, or originate failing or
succeeding sequences of game moves. As well since choices are turn based all such calculations
have extended probabilities from each choice point of either player (Grabner, 2014).
While ToM theorists might have interest in narrative descriptions of cognitive empathy
during chess play, GM theorist do have interest in narrative descriptions of how and when
discount game play choices were made (Marchisotto, 2019). There is much interest in spatial
conception and analyzing of descriptions between scope and circumstance of chess players’
game conception across time and spatial dimensions that has theoretical merit (Leone, Slezak,
Cecchi, & Sigman, 2014). Inherent in ToM and GM is that at times logic no longer suffices as
the sole means of advantageous decision making (Crawford, Costa-Gomes, & Iriberri, 2012;
Ong, Zaki, & Goodman, 2018). Chess players do discuss visceral feelings of varying intensities
as moves instinctively indicate sudden shifts in player advantage (Slezak & Sigman, 2012). GM
defines simultaneous games, where players make their decisions at the same time instead of in
turn, as distinct from sequential games (Pozzulo, Reed, Pettalia, & Dempsey, 2016). Theoretical
overlap occurred in that as cognitive empathy was being described as utilized by both players
simultaneously, it seemed to indicate that such turn-based mind games, such as chess, are in fact
both turn based and simultaneous. Ultimately, the skill of cognitive empathy to comprehend

17
another’s internal reality through accurate perception of their beliefs and intentions might
accurately be defined as the ability to predict the future choices of another (Powell et al., 2017).
Nature of the Study
An interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was utilized due to its efficacy for
examining a topic deeply and on its own terms (Eatough & Smith, 2017; Larkin, Watts, &
Clifton, 2006). This method had strength in gleaning meaning from particular participative
states and personal accounts. IPA offered research flexibility and applicability within a
rigorous framework that allows for interpretation of nuance and complexity.
A benefit of IPA was that it took both the researcher’s and participants interpretations
into account. The feature of epistemological reflexivity allows for defining the possible scope
of the research questions, how the study construction affects analysis, and exploring how
differing aspects of study affected the investigated phenomenon (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2012).
With IPA the researcher was able to interpret what the participant was attempting to say at any
given moment including unintended meanings. Since concepts like cognitive empathy,
mindreading, and intuition are elusive, and IPA’s allowance for interpreting meaning from direct
statements is especially useful. Intuition has been numerously, yet vaguely, assigned as a quality
of superlative chess players tactical and strategic decision game move choices (Buhren & Frank,
2012; Coates, 2013). IPA techniques seemed to reveal if chess players have a hidden talent that
even they themselves have not well defined or accepted awareness of. At the same time IPA lets
phenomenon speak for itself from appearance, substance, or participatively.
Chess does provoke great mental exertion and produces conditions for a variety of mental
states of awareness in scope, depth, diversity of game conception, opponent assessment and
gameplay choice. IPA was useful in categorizing distinct processes that occur during differing

18
times, and scopes of reflection, of game play. If not asked, players might not have been aware of
the variety of processes they apply to game move choices.
Participants were recruited from open chess forums online, through Facebook, and
actively playing at least once per month for the last three months. There were no restrictions
on gender or ethnicity. As players were found from one source, that was deemed acceptable,
and noted. Essentially participants were recruited by snowball sampling (Emerson, 2015)
arising from posts on open chess forums on Facebook.
The transcripts of recorded participant interviews were coded and compared as to
discern thematic analysis from player to player by the researcher and by using Nvivo 12
computer software (2020). Nvivo 12 offered easy integration of multi-media, affordable
pricing, user-friendly learning curve, easy file sharing in real time, and training support.
Coding annotations were completed for insights that reveal participants’ perspectives
describing any distinct perception of cognitive processes during chess play. Primary and
subordinate themes were discerned and documented paying particular attention to phrasing
indicating awareness of cognitive processes. Sources suggested saturation would be satisfied at
12 participant interviews, but essentially it was satisfied with 9 thorough interviews that began
repeating most themes early (Guest et al., 2006).
Saturation was justified when no new emergent themes or perspectives revealed
themselves (Abayomi, 2017). Data was continually analyzed as it is gathered to insure thus.
Repeated and thorough deep reading of the data, Nvivo 12 analysis, as well as earnest
bracketing of personal preconceptions, allowed for revelation of distinct and holistic themes
(Holroyd, 2001). This was the first form of triangulation (Arksey & Knight, 1999). A profile
of meaning-statements (Bartholomew et al., 2019) was best used to analyze if experience

19
contributed to theory in relation of chess players reports of cognitive processes as defined by
ToM. Referents (Richards, 2015) were extracted to be compiled as evidence of specific
aspects of cognitive processes being reported by participants. Finally, a synthesis was
obtained from the analysis of extended descriptions.
Trustworthiness was established through prolonged engagement, persistent
observation, triangulation, and referential adequacy (Glasser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). Each participant was asked the same set of questions. Participants were
allowed to review data collected, member-checking, and its interpretation. The essence of this
study was transferability in that chess was used to explore established theories of cognitive
processes and consciousness, simply because thought and being are involved in chess and no
one had yet asked these exact questions of perceptions of cognitive process shifts from chess
players themselves. This though experimental studies vastly indicate such cognitive shifts
exist in brainwave changes during play (Powell, Grossi, Corcoran, Gobet, & Garcia-fin Ana,
2017).
Any game or experience can be investigated as to its relation to cognitive processes.
Reliability was assured in that data will not be generalized beyond the sample. All criteria
were intensely, attentively and tentatively, recorded as to how category decisions arrive.
Overlaps and alterations were guarded against, while previously unobserved categories were
distinguished.
ResearchQuestions
1. What was the experience of cognitive empathy for chess players during game play?
2. How did chess players experience various cognitive processes such as Theory of
Mind, spatial assessment, and memory to formulate strategy during game play?

20
3. How did chess players experience pattern awareness as a separate construct from
intuition, spatial calculating, or cognitive empathy, to make decisions about piece
movements and strategy during game play?
Significance of the Study
A descriptive expansion of chess players’ conceptions of cognitive processes during
gameplay contributed to how these processes apply to any form of game between opponents.
For instance, as cognitive empathy (CE), a key aspect of ToM, was found being used in chess to
any significant degree, it seemed likely to be used in other competitive venues and domains with
greater frequency, and/or accuracy than traditionally perceived. Researchers do have interest in
examples and elaborations of CE as an effective and relied upon method of perception
(Przybyszewki & Polkowski, 2017). A descriptive analysis is a strong approach to begin to
define new theoretical and practical space where cognitive processes may be used. Then new
experimental methods generated for that expanded conceptual space. There seemed to be
cognitive processes and structures that relied on ill defined, unconscious or automatic biological
processes (Przybyszewki & Polkowski, 2017) and these seemed to be revealed through
descriptive narrations. Researchers do have interest in examples and elaborations of CE as an
effective and relied upon method of perception (Przybyszewki & Polkowski, 2017). Themes
revealed through narrations seemed to indicate vague awareness’s of unexplored cognitive
processes by the chess players themselves. This was generalized to other games and domains of
strategic competition. Defined terms, proportions, and perceptual standards of various cognitive
processes were greater elucidated with a qualitative analysis of chess, which involved significant
sequential decision making that has been greatly studied quantitatively but has had few
phenomenological interviews.

21
IPA techniques helped this research determine many chess decisions processes that until
now have been ambiguously filed under the general heading of intuition. It seemed to be found
that in chess cognitive empathy may be more specific than intuition to strategic decision making
(Ciaramelli et al., 2013). Cognitive empathy, unlike intuition, is attached to the established,
pervasive and pertinent Theory of Mind (ToM). Evidence gained from a phenomenology study
of chess opponents was expanded into arguments of larger scale, scope, and social consequence.
All transactions and competitions were viewed through the lens of how competing agents
are playing game moves with each other. Chess is a simple game, in the sense of having an
understandable and researchable format, that has complex processes. Chess allowed for
interpretation of these processes that are worthy of expanded application to all levels of
transactions and competitions that have significant social, economic, and political consequence.
As decisions of significance are being made in any game based on non-rational, unconscious
cognitive processes then research then this research is justified as having an interest in defining
these qualities.
Definitions of Key Terms
Chess. Chess is a two-player game where principals are applied to checkmate an
opponent’s highest-ranking game piece represented as a king (de Bruin, Rikers, & Schmidt,
2006)
Cognitive empathy. Cognitive empathy is the ability to comprehend another’s internal
reality through accurate perception of their beliefs and intentions (Powell et al., 2017)
Intuition. Intuition is a rational ascertainment of information that could give strategic
advantage in the game of chess (Montero & Evans, 2011)

22
Chess Tactic. Chess tactic is trying to figure out what is happening in the game during
the moment when chess piece positions do not conform to any known typical pattern of play and
strategic advantage (Montero & Evans, 2011)
Chess Strategy. Chess strategy is game choice is determined by applying reason, or
some cognitive perception, possibly from past game knowledge and pattern recognition of most
likely predictable sequences of chess piece moves to gain advantage (Montero & Evans, 2011)
Sequential Game. Sequential games are games where the player with the first move
generally gains advantage, or payoff, in turn-based game systems. The second player generally
responds with optimal move to the next worst payoff (Menon, Sasidevan, & Sinha, 2018)
Simultaneous Game. Simultaneous games are games where players implement game
moves by synchronous update (Menon, Sasidevan, & Sinha, 2018)
Game Discount. Game discount is a point in a game when if strategy is followed there is
no definitive cost in one strategy move over another, hence as player can choose from more than
one strategy without risking advantage to the second player in their typical strategic payoff. A
point in reducing expectations of benefit outcome and forcing a settlement to tactical strategies
that seem to offer the best expectation for strategic advantage. An intuition of the expected value
of a game move as anticipating strategic response and payoff of opponent to one’s own
calculated game move. Over time a player in a game can choose a sub-optimal move, a discount,
if later this sets in motion strategic advantage. This can involve alternating the perception of
game time in relation to traditional strategies by choosing an unpredictable, apparently lower
value game moves (Gransmark, 2012; Matros, 2018)

23
Summary
Essential points of this study included utilizing phenomenological interviews with chess
players to gain data on their qualitative experiences of internal cognitive processes during
gameplay. Chess offered a suitable mechanism of study to apply coded themes from
phenomenological methods to identify and develop any common awareness or usage of various
cognitive processes during gameplay. Similarly, other intuitive processes, said to be common in
chess (Buhren & Frank, 2012), seemed to reveal other predictive methods of strategic game
choices that speculated on incomplete, or inferred knowledge, like GM theory discount choices,
mindreading, intuition, and empathy as used, but ill-defined methods of game play decisions that
produce variance in outcomes. IPA, alongside Nvivo 12 application, provided a strong method
for gathering and interpreting data. Traditional IPA criteria like saturation and trustworthiness
(Glasser & Strauss, 1967; Guest, et al., 2006; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) were applied to the
analysis of the data. It was expected that if specific cognitive processes are described by chess
players then IPA would discern and be able to allow for elaboration of these themes. There was
a significant gap in the current research of any qualitative interviewing of chess players hence if
significant unreported, unclassified, cognitive phenomenon was occurring in tactical or strategic
decision making then this study had reasonable expectation of defining such occurrences and
their potential descriptions.

24
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The topic of this study was the gap between experimental, quantitative designs and
qualitative designs that provide participant interviews of the intensely researched field of
cognitive processes that occurred during chess gameplay. While immense data has been
collected on measuring chess players physiological processes during gameplay, very few
researchers have endeavored to interview chess players to record how these processes are
experienced during gameplay, in the chess players own words (Guntz, Balzarini, Vaufreydaz, &
Crowley, 2018; Rocha, Ribeiro Da Silva, Goncalves Cesar, Giraldi, & Thomaz, 2017). While
certain cognitive-physiological processes have been definitively demonstrated to occur during
chess gameplay, many perceptions, such as intuition, that chess experts claim are essential to
chess gameplay have not been studied in depth (Coates, 2013). This paper endeavored to
qualitatively categorize the thematic language chess players may use to describe the
physiological processes that have been immensely studied quantitatively.
All searches for this dissertation study were initiated in Roadrunner of the Northcentral
University online library. A literature search was initiated using key search terms including:
“Phenomenological Methods”, “Chess”, “Theory of Mind”, “Cognitive Empathy”, “Strategy and
Cognition”, and “Intuition and Chess”, individually and combining these key words in different
combination. Generally, search limiters were not applied, though occasionally “full text” was
applied. This method was found to set wider search parameters on adjoining and subsequent
thematic fits for theoretical compiling and analysis.

25
Theoretical Framework
Theory of Mind (ToM) states there is a perceptual, cognitive framework that allows
individuals to attribute mental state such as beliefs, intents, desires, and knowledge to oneself
and others (Premack & Woodruff, 1978). It proposes one can know the interior self or dialogue
of the other through referencing differences between self and other, or cognitively registering
attributes of other whether different or the same as self. Further it allows for one to acknowledge
that others have belief, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from their own. It
is considered a crucial daily skill to be used when socializing, evaluating, transacting, and
judging interactions with fellow human beings. It is considered to confer the ability to infer
through other’s behavior their beliefs, intents, desires, and knowledge. It is considered a proven
cognitive mechanism that has been mapped extensively by way of neurological circuits and
scientifically verified (Premack & Woodruff, 1978). Deficit in ToM abilities are noted in some
disabled groups such as autism, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and
consequence from some substance addictions (Korkmaz, 2011). Chess itself has often be
associated closely with obsessive personalities such as Marcel Duchamp and Bobby Fischer
(Taylor, 2011).
When considering a Theory of Mind (ToM) one can make the assumption that mind does
not exist, but one cannot prove that awareness of oneself and others does not exist, hence ToM is
considered a valid existential proposition (Baron-Cohen, 1991). One, considered by society to
be in their right mind, knows when another has acted an intent or desire through behavior onto
themselves. One knows when arguing over a tangible object, like a meal, with another that the
outcome maybe one, or both eat or do not eat. Empathy is often a related concept with ToM, as
in the ability to “walk in another’s shoes” or “put oneself in another’s frame of mind” (de Waal,

26
2007). Empathy in consideration to ToM is thought of as cognitive instead of affective. It is not
the ability to feel another person’s feeling, but simply to know what those feelings are and place
them in relevant context. Raphael (2011) in his senior Honors Thesis argues that chess is a
technical resource able to analyze social dimensions of human affairs. This concept was useful
and seemed to parallel the idea of chess as a tool for analyzing ToM.
Theory of Mind (ToM) has its origins from the time of Descartes when philosophy was
considered a science of the mind (Premack & Woodruff, 1991). Currently debate centers
between theory-theory and simulation theory, where in the first ToM abilities are innate and
automatic within the sustained environment of human interactions. Theory-theory represents the
intention of the shared world and other’s presumed needs (Carruthers, 1996; Dennett, 1987). In
essence it is first perceptions and is reality. This line of thinking could sustain an underlying
framework of ToM as significantly revealed through chess game play. Simulation theory posits
all experience and perception as social and historical constructs that are operant in a context.
This definition aligns well with Raphael’s (2011) thinking where all elements of identity are
constructed on learned identities. With either perspective, ToM seemed to be able to allow for
identifying differences of thinking between self and other.
The history of ToM is deep and wide, if not historically long. Ontogeny, phylogeny, and
study of infants in social setting indicated early forms of ToM (Meltzoff, 1995). Developmental
psychology currently indicates that infant’s imitate others through ToM, perspective-taking, and
empathy (Laghi et al., 2016). These are considered social-cognitive achievements. ToM
develops through the years as the prefrontal cortex, planning and decision-making neural space
as well develops. Two theories on language and ToM conjecture differing conceptualizations.

27
Conversations within families maybe creating ToM qualities (this through differentiating the
roles and desires of various family members), while another (Moore, Pure, & Furrow, 1990) is
that children learn to develop skills and perceptions when they are told or hear the words, and
accompanying concepts, emotions, etc. – as related to “think” and “believe”. The
temporoparietal junction (TPJ) (Saxe, 2003) involves in language acquisition and contains
specialization in facial and voice recognition as well as biological motion, in addition to
maintaining functions of ToM. TPJ as well contains aspects of spatial understanding (all of
which are addressed independently as significant factors in the research of strategy and chess)
(Saxe, 2003). This area of the brain has been found active when taking in data through inferring
other’s beliefs through reading or images, but TPJ is not active while observing physical control
stimuli (Saxe, 2003).
Culture may affect ToM abilities, the order they are acquired, or the strength of
precedence (Etel & Yagmurlu, 2015). Researchers have proposed five key aspects of ToM that
develop between ages 3 and 5, and they are diverse desires, diverse beliefs, knowledge access,
false beliefs, and hidden emotions (Shahaeian et al., 2011: Wellman, 2006). Collectivism or
Individualism of the society where the child grows up is considered to affect this ordering. It is
interesting to consider how in chess all five likely come into relevance. If one is using empathy
to predict another’s strategy, then strong ability to hide emotions is an advantage. Chess players
invariably choose to implement variations of one of numerously diverse opening strategies and
subsequent play into the middle and end portions of gameplay. This in turn at times seemed to
conflict with the player who has the deepest, or fastest, knowledge access to counterstrategies.
False beliefs about gambits in chess can be disastrous blunders or errors, both blunder and error
being official chess terms for rating mistakes. Blunder being the worst mistake one could make.

28
An interesting feature of ToM is that regardless if a situation is real, or pretend like in a child’s
game, discerning other’s intents and beliefs can equally be active and sharp, including when
someone is being deceptive, or something is false. It would be interesting to consider if games,
likes chess, are real or pretend. Rapheal (2011) leans toward the game being a “reality”, if
metaphoric.
Theory of Mind (ToM) has many cognitive and affective nuances, many of which are
experimentally linked to specific bio-chemical brain processes (Ciaramelli, Bernardi, &
Moscovtich, 2013; Powell, Grossi, Corcoran, Gobet, & Garcia-fin Ana, 2017). Powell et al.
(2017) found that cortical regions, when examined with magnetic resonance imaging in
twelve healthy male novice level chess players, were identified as associated with ToM,
chess, and empathizing. Functional neuroimaging studies have also found that brain regions
that support ToM do overlap with strong significance to those that underlie episodic memory
(Ciaramelli, Bernardi, and Moscovtich, 2013). The temporoparietal junction (TPJ) is
responsible for processing affective sharing, self-awareness, and self-other distinctions (all
ToM tasks) as well as being an important cognitive region for spatial processing skills
(Powell et al., 2017). As Ciaramelli et al. (2013) state that ToM allows for retrieving
experiences of the past and applies them to current strategy with flexibility that increases
probability of accuracy in perception of outcome. It was considered possible, as research
further described may suggest (Pathman, Couglin, & Ghetti, 2018; Salvaggio, 2018), that
ToM was selectively interpreting fragments of emotional memory (from various cumulative
timeframes or specific ones). Or these could be interpretations of memories, by utilization of
current cognitive perceptions that are then formed into beliefs. These beliefs then, in a game
like chess, are what strategic decisions are based upon. The beliefs themselves were most

29
likely, as the participant was queried, were put into words. Rapheal (2011) notes the slew of
famous philosophers who have used chess as verbal metaphor for their worldviews such as
Charles S. Pierce, Edmund Hurserl, Ferdinand de Saussure, Ludwig Wittgenstein, E.J.
Brouwer, Paul Grice, and Jurgen Habermas.
Chess does possess the general theme of strategy (Sillman, 1998). Experimental
science has observed and linked several distinct cognitive processes to the decision-making
structure of chess (Hangii et al., 2014). Experimental science has even identified when
aspects of ToM are active in the brain, during chess play, and otherwise (Ciaramelli, Bernardi,
& Moscovtich, 2013; Powell, Grossi, Corcoran, Gobet, & Garcia-fin Ana, 2017). The themes
seemed to develop and are the feelings, emotions, and thoughts that chess players experienced
while playing chess and how they felt these various processes were active and shift in
between themselves. These thematic accounts ranged from a diary of vast moods to a
chronology of precise thoughts, or likely some combinations of both, and for some seemed to
a roller-coaster ride between shifting cognitive states, much like what Binet (1966) earlier
hypothesized.
Since ToM has been demonstrated to work with specific areas of the brain,
experimental design of activities, like chess, are effective for measuring when these brain
regions are active (Hangii et al., 2014). Study of active brain regions during chess and
evident alterations during gameplay has generally focused on what is occurring in the present.
Even more recent, survey style research (Powell et al., 2017) has not studied how ToM and
chess perceptions have changed over long durations of chess training. There seemed as well
maybe natural and spontaneous processes of cognitive empathy that automatically activated in

30
any competitive situation no matter the prior experience with that form of competition. In this
regard, the experimental study of ToM during chess play does not draw many connections
between the theoretical development of ToM, which includes for much analysis of childhood
development of ToM skills (Baron-Cohen, 1991; Call, 1998; Etel & Yagmurlu, 2015;
Gagliardi et al., 1995; Meltzoff, 2003) and ToM development specific to chess. Powell et al.
(2017) did extensive research in regard to connections between cognitive empathy, ToM, and
chess. The neuropsychological protocols included participants completing an imposing
memory task (IMT). This allowed a measurement of participant’s ability to infer mental
states of others. Participants were asked questions that reveal their understanding of the
intentions and facts of each situation. fMRI activation tasks were then studied experimentally
where three images are presented to the participants and then measured for ToM and empathy.
Interestingly as participants were asked to imagine spatial moves that would be most
beneficial, from looking at chess images, MRI data collected indicated brain area activation
matching for all three categories: Empathy, ToM, and general chess strategic thinking with
significant overlap (Powell et al., 2017). This seemed to indicate imagining spatial problems
triggers brain processes that also activates empathy. This data seemed to synthesize with
what is known about the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) as responsible for processing
affective sharing, self-awareness, and self-other distinctions (all ToM tasks) as well as being
an important cognitive region for spatial processing skills (Powell et al., 2017). Results
further indicated that chess and ToM have much overlap in neural networks that inhibit one’s
own experience when evaluating the mental state of others and for visual evaluation of action.
Hence, ToM achieves its goals when one’s self awareness is reduced and awareness of the
other, an opponent, is enhanced. This again being confirmed in increased activation of the

31
temporoparietal junction (TPJ). Indeed, visual evaluation of action seemed to rely on the
same suppression of self-awareness. Research is demonstrating (Atashpendar, Schilling, &
Voigtmann, 2016; Powell et al., 2017) that the relation of a sense, or accuracy of perception,
of knowing what one’s opponent is planning, or feeling about plans, is pertinent to cognitive
strategic thinking. This sense self then knows how to gauge, incorporate, and evaluate space
(and its relations to strategy) as specifically existing in relationship to the opponent (and the
game). The thematic type of language one might expect from chess players when describing
some of these processes sounded like some of the early philosophical arguments of existence,
origin, and nature of ToM itself (Carruthers, 1996; Dennett, 1987; Fox, 2014). They also
sounded like reading body language, intuition, and perhaps even calculating another’s
limitations to conceive multiplicities of spatial relationships from the static present to the
dynamic future.
Further, cognitive emotional evaluations and spatial recognition processes seemed to
be more connected, or interdependent in strategic choice making than realized. This allowed
for play language to develop themes of where scientifically, specifically neural networks
might be indicated as experienced differently, or at differing time junctures or transitions.
This in combinations of experienced overlap, or reaction delays from when the neural network
is active in the brain, but felt by the chess player, or decided upon by the chess player for
strategic initiation of action. A defensive neural network in Player 1’s reaction might activate
from Player 2’s moves three turns earlier, but then the memory of that experience does not
activate a countermove choice until three turns later by Player 1. Player 2 might make the
next current strategic move based on his own memory of cognitive empathy from Player 1’s
initial neural defense network activation, these six moves earlier! Goffman, Lemert, and

32
Branaman (1997) suggest some players may repress strategic thinking for rule-based thinking,
while Kuhn (1962) suggests game players may think outside the box, which suggests ideas of
ToM, empathy reading, and intuitive leaps. Durkheim and Lukes (1982) suggests games
contain aspects of social facts, sacredness, and profanity. Recall all pieces can potentially be
removed by any other piece within the game rules and they are labelled with names like
bishop, knight, pawn, queen, and king. Leading to the next section considering alternative
theories and subsequent sub-themes it is interesting to be reminded that De Saussure
frequently claimed that the language of chess is perfect for elucidating contrast between the
essentialisms of synchronic and diachronic relationships as well as between langue and parole
(Greenberg, 1971).
Alternative Theories
Game Theory (GM) was considered a strong alternate theory for phenomenological
interview design. GM would complement ToM in study of decision-making in chess as it relies
on complex mathematics that calculates for choices based on greatest utility. GM as well does
not attempt to calculate the furthest point of comprehended logic, hence decisions based on it can
be called intuitive (Chakravarty et al., 2015; Young, Peyton, & Zamir, 2015). Since chess cannot
be calculated to its endpoint, even by the most powerful computers such backward induction is
not possible, and due to so many possible choice combinations GM is especially relevant in
chess where the combinations of consequences are vast. Chess play is fluid and dynamic
between opponents, hence knowing how one’s opponent conceives, feels, gambles, calculates,
perceives, and many other modalities of knowing the given gameplay options, and even how
what opponent know or think they know of their opponent’s own beliefs, conception, feelings,

33
calculation, etc. of the game’s strategic possibilities is paramount. Aspects of GM are also
similar to ToM in that they do make such overall assumptions about intentions of opponents.
Game Theory (GM) includes sequential games where at each point of the decision-tree
there are various payoffs, and each point has its own equilibrium that can be optimized for
benefit of one player over another to percentage or degree based on games of deception, bluff,
randomness, accident, or calculation. GM also defines simultaneous games, where players make
their decisions at the same time instead of in turn, as distinct from sequential games. Chess
could be considered both a sequential and simultaneous game in that strategy is constantly
forming in neutral points in between moves. Further definition of sequential games could be a
game where the player with the first move generally gains advantage, or payoff, in turn-based
game systems. The second player generally responds with optimal move to the next worst
payoff (Menon, Sasidevan, & Sinha, 2018). Further definition of simultaneous games could be
games where players implement game moves by synchronous update (Menon et al., 2018).
Buhren and Frank (2012) determined that chess experts do not realize that making
non-equilibrium moves likely affects their opponent’s summation of their rationality and
would often cause the opponent to mimic the initial non-equilibrium move with rational
equivalence. Non-equilibrium is when one player in a game makes a move not knowing the
move of the other player or believing that the game is “tied” in equilibrium at that point
(Kline, 2017). Thus, it can be an upsetting move, because it breaks convention of choosing an
optimal move due to the belief, or fact, that the game is in equilibrium, balanced and
unwinnable, because both players know each optimal move. In equilibrium neither player
may want to move, but since chess enforces moves until one player concedes, or their King no
longer can move, then to avoid a draw one player may make a move that disturbs the

34
perceived equilibrium of the game to shuffle the pattern outcome of choices in the hope of an
unforeseen winning positioning. This could be called a gut choice, an instinct or intuition,
made at a specific time of perceived advantage by going into unpredictable non-equilibrium.
Often players concede without making such a choice, perhaps as to not appear foolish.
Chess does seem to use intuition somehow. In fact, Buhren and Frank (2012) cite that
chess masters score higher on intuition than logic in personality assessments. Sigirtmac
(2016) found that children with chess training had statistically significant higher scores in
both creative thinking and ToM than those without chess training. Further they found that
ToM and creativity development have a positive relationship. Additionally, chess training
was found to enhance children’s understanding of spatial concepts. Atashpendar, Schilling
and Voigtmann (2016) note that there is such a great amount of potential spatial relationships
in chess that strategy can be based in size of the state space, size of the legal move decision
tree, and as well considerations about how actual and potential spaces are connected. These
concepts have overlap with both GM and ToM. Aspects of brain interactions related to these
qualities also have neural overlap (Powell et al., 2017).
There are other advantages of using GM to study empathy and/or choice in chess. If
expertise can be enhanced by effective use of intuition, and chess is a strong zero-sum context
game, then defining this process and quality has research and practical validity. Creativity
has again been linked to ToM (Sigirtmac, 2016) and Game Theory (GM) has been linked to
ToM (Artinger, Exadaktylos, Koppel, & Saaksvuori, 2014). Like ToM, GM does rely on a
process of comparing player’s underlying structure of knowledge, belief and skills, the two
players amassed conceptions and accessible memory prior game experience. GM often adds the
steps of choosing a game decision based on those conceptions, sometimes using a process called

35
discounting that relies on incomplete information in a process that sounds like intuition
(Linhares, Freitas, Mendes, & Silva, 2012). Discount choices, sub-game moves that are less than
perfect as to be non-equilibria, are made when the likelihood of deciding from one’s less than the
total game conception, one’s with less logical outcome predicting, has perceived higher benefit
due to complex, various, uncontrollable, or random factors of mutual game play (Buhren &
Frank, 2012). This is especially relevant in chess where the combinations of consequences are
vast, while the game play is fluid and dynamic.
One can never fully know how their opponent will gamble, calculate, perceive, react, or
originate failing or succeeding sequences of game moves. As well since choices are turn based
all such calculations have extended probabilities from each succeeding choice point of either
player (Grabner, 2013). Further definition of discounting could be a point in a game when if
strategy is followed there is no definitive cost in one strategy move over another, hence as a
player can choose from more than one strategy without risking advantage to the second player in
their typical strategic payoff. There can be a point in reducing expectations of benefit outcome
and forcing a settlement to tactical strategies that seem to offer the best expectation for strategic
advantage. An intuition of the expected value of a game move as anticipating strategic response
and payoff of the opponent to one’s own calculated game move. Over time a player in a game
can choose a sub-optimal move, a discount, if later this sets in motion strategic advantage. This
can involve alternating the perception of game time in relation to traditional strategies by
choosing an unpredictable, apparently lower value game move (Gransmark, 2012; Matros,
2018).

36
Chess is a game that humans play, and as such concepts of game theory, lack of
omniscience in knowledge of possible game moves, and uncertainty about absolute outcomes
apply (Slezak et al., 2018). Slezak et al. (2018) acknowledge that in chess players do not
exhaustively search all alternatives. At some point they make a decision to move a piece on
limited knowledge and ability to plan ahead. This dynamic of choice was often found to
accompany smaller, rather than broad, sets of projections into various strategic decision trees.
How this decision is ultimately made is unanswered and remains a relevant question to
researchers. Classic Dividend Discount Model (DDM) cannot identify reaction time (RT)
distributions, as related to remember-know responses along confidence levels, created by
chess play. Reigning World Champion and former child chess prodigy, Carl Magnusson,
states that he most always knows his exact move by a quick surmising of the chess pieces, but
then takes up to 30 minutes verifying the actual move by working out decision tree patterns
(Thayqua, 2018). Coates (2013) discusses how chess players need intuition to access the
positional and strategic advantage at all points in gameplay. Thus, sense for where the
balance of power resides currently and toward future outcomes has many values. These are
the sorts of values that have use in politics, economics, and interpersonal relations.
Chess must create itself on some level if there are so many probabilities as of yet not
played. In chess players do find, or create for the first time, original chess combinations of
moves that make for superior play (Coates, 2013). Perception can be interpreted as a sensory
mode of the intentional state, or as a distinct component of sensing. As Coates (2013) states
either way experience involves both intentional content and some feature that is distinctive of
perception as in an awareness of phenomena qualities. These qualities seemed as well
connected in some manner to external objects, perhaps the intuition or emotions of other

37
players and their intentions, as perceived and not a part of any mental or concrete
representation. Even cognitive choice that is based on strategic memory of prior play is
participant to the opponent’s originality of choice, strategy, and unpredictable movement of
pieces in chess as players respond in turn sequence to each and every chess move (Larson,
2018). Each chess game is unique in structure, concept, awareness and interpretation (Matros,
2018). Both players’ intentions form the direction of the game. Coates (2013) notes that
players, even at the highest levels, most often place strong emotional significance on chess
pieces respectively. Each loss of a piece can create strong emotional resonance for both the
victor and loser of that piece. GM theory would have generally challenged emotional values
of individual pieces over utilitarian values but can as well account for illogical decision
making.
A study of chess players’ descriptions of strategy choices could have revealed their
utilization of ToM processes and possibly could have applications to GM (Fuentes-Garcia,
2019). Where ToM uses a sense like cognitive empathy to comprehend another’s internal reality
through accurate perception of their beliefs and intentions, GM conceives the totality of an
interactive process then assigns a cost-benefit analysis of the best choice, to be implemented
strategically at an exact moment and point, for ending up in a superior position to one’s opponent
(Bosco, Berardinelli, & Parola, 2019; Guth, Huck, & Rapoport, 1998). There is interest in
knowing how chess players believe they have an understanding of an opponent’s process, scope
and/or intention. This can be a belief based on combined dueling strategies of two opponents
and the one who predicts the outcome of multiple points of future strategic outcome. Research
has identified complimentary methods for predicting the sequenced outcome of tactical choices.
This includes for ways of stating time, matter, motion, direction and space that can be inferred at

38
intersecting future points through a logical, yet ultimately unquantifiable process (Haladjian &
Montemayor, 2016; Leite et al., 2014). GM at times already labels these choice points with
descriptions that sound much like intuition, or possibly cognitive empathy (Garcia-Pola, Iriberri.
& Kovarik, 2017).
While ToM theorists might have interest in narrative descriptions of cognitive empathy
during chess play, GM theorist do have interest in narrative descriptions of how and when
discount game play choices were made (Marchisotto, 2019). There is much interest in spatial
conception and analyzing descriptions between scope and circumstance of chess players’ game
conception across time and space dimensions that has theoretical merit (Leone, Slezak, Cecchi,
& Sigman, 2014). Inherent in ToM and GM is that at times logic no longer suffices as the sole
means of advantageous decision making (Crawford, Costa-Gomes, & Iriberri, 2012; Ong, Zaki,
& Goodman, 2018). Again, chess players do discuss visceral feelings of varying intensities as
moves instinctively indicate sudden shifts in player advantage (Slezak & Sigman, 2012). GM
defines simultaneous games, where players make their decisions at the same time instead of in
turn, as distinct from sequential games (Pozzulo, Reed, Pettalia, & Dempsey, 2016). Theoretical
overlap could occur if cognitive empathy, being utilized by both players simultaneously,
indicates that such turn-based mind games, such as chess, as in fact both turn based and
simultaneous. Ultimately, the skill of cognitive empathy to comprehend another’s internal
reality through accurate perception of their beliefs and intentions might as accurately be defined
as the ability to predict the future choices of another (Powell et al., 2017).
A descriptive analysis was considered a strong approach to begin to define new
theoretical and practical space where CE is used and then can develop new experimental
methods for that expanded space (Montero & Evans, 2011). Hence, theories like GM and

39
Chunking Theory that do not have to rely on ToM and cognitive empathy to explain strategic
choices could be most substantial since they relate to conscious awareness more than
unconscious awareness. Or if there are more unconscious structures, like cognitive empathy
choosing points of discount, in chess play then the unconscious processes might have played a
role of greater significance in many games and competitions that require decision making,
strategic thinking, and speculative knowing (Menon, Saisdeven, & Sinha, 2018). Defined terms,
proportions, and perceptual standards of CE were considered to offer greater elucidation with a
qualitative analysis of chess, which involved significant sequential decision making that has been
greatly studied quantitatively but has had few phenomenological interviews (Seyfarth & Cheney,
2013).
Theory could Reveal Strategic Processes
Which approach one used to study conscious and unconscious aspects of chess decision
making could have revealed which theory most incorporates strategic processes in chess. IPA
techniques helped research determine many chess decisions processes, that have been called
excellent and necessary, that until now have been ambiguously filed under the general heading of
intuition. CE is more specific than intuition (Bosco, Berardinelli, & Parola, 2019; Guth, Huck,
& Rapoport, 1998) and may be what chess experts mean by intuition, and CE is attached to
established, pervasive and pertinent Theory of Mind. Evidence gained from a phenomenology
study of chess opponents seemed to expand into arguments of larger scale, scope, and social
consequence. All transactions and competitions were viewed through the lens of how competing
agents are playing game moves with each other (Glykas, 2013; Mihailov & Savulescu, 2018).
Chess is a simple game in the sense of being an understandable and researchable format which
has complexities that make processes and interpretation of these processes worthy of expanded

40
application to all levels of transactions and competitions that have significant social, economic,
and political consequence (Matros, 2018). If decisions of significance are being made in any
game based on non-rational, unconscious processes research has an interest in defining these
qualities (Andersen, 2014). What is transporting a game forward, like chess, that has several
dimensional considerations intersecting in complexity and sophistication at all times has wider
applications on many possible decision-making constructs (Taillan, Dufau, & Lemaire, 2015).
Similarly, other intuitive processes, said to be common in chess (Coates, 2013), seemed
to reveal other predictive methods of strategic game choices that speculate on incomplete, or
inferred knowledge. Such theoretical concepts such as GM theory discount choices,
mindreading, intuition, and affective empathy; all as possibly indicated as often used, but ill-
defined methods of game play decision-making practices that produced variance in outcomes.
IPA, and Nvivo 12 application, provided a strong method for gathering and interpreting such
data. Traditional IPA criteria like saturation and trustworthiness (Rodham, Fox, & Doran, 2015)
were applied to the analysis of the data. It was expected that if unconscious processes of CE and
GM were applied to chess by players then IPA discerned these themes and began a significant
mapping of the language that describes them. There is a significant gap in the current research of
any quantitative interviewing of chess players (Nippold, 2009; Balata et al., 2015), hence if
significant unreported, unclassified, phenomenon was occurring in tactical or strategic decision
making than this study has reasonable expectation of defining new occurrences and their
descriptions.
Once again, application of any intersections or complimentary processing of CE with
choices made through Theory of Mind has wide potential in adding to the psychology of both
political and physical sciences (Feher & Huck, 2016; Linhares et al., 2012). For instance, in the

41
psychology of environmentalism, one can imagine majority agreement on several prominent
paths of bio-planetary life destruction or preservation paths. GM would as well include for a
discount decision point where, though ultimate conclusions and timeframes cannot be completely
known, if there were a planet wide political agreement to discount the game and vastly reduce
certain types of technological expansion then longevity of sustainable bio-planetary life would
increase (Garcia-Pola, Iriberri, & Kovarik, 2017).
In essence any understanding of finite and infinite choice games, with random factoring
or not, was considered to benefit from defining choice points between the knowledge of a full
game to its end. This could as well be examined from a freeze frame understanding of as much
of the totality of the game by either player at any given point in process. This being the earlier
expanded definition of sequential and simultaneous games. All possibly having universal aspect
in the physical sciences as at the quantum level, for now applying the Uncertainty Principal, it is
known only a position (simultaneous game/cognitive empathy/intuitive leap with or without
known conclusion, i.e., Schrodinger’s Cat (Halpern, 2015) or a momentum (sequential
game/pattern recognition/logic outcome with or without known conclusion) of a particle can be
known at any given point in time (Mureika, 2019). This again may be considered to open
doorways to applying human mechanisms to artificial intelligences in ways surpasses binary
decision processes.
Originally this study was to include both Theory of Mind (ToM) and Game Theory
(GM). Ultimately, GM was eliminated from primary considerations because ToM offers more
direct evaluation of potential Cognitive Empathy (CE) through qualitative feedback. CE is a
significant variable to this research in that it contains components of memory and cognition
related to strategic decision-making. IPA was considered best to discern cognitive empathy at

42
the rudimentary level by categorizing player language into themes that may suggests its use in
strategic decision making. Since there are many aspects of conscious and unconscious process
suggested in both chess game play and strategic choice, a rudimentary approach was considered
prudent as to begin to build a new structural base of analysis that research can add to as to better
solidify theoretical positions and constructionist arguments. ToM is developed in quantitative
design, but not strongly developed in qualitative design regarding chess strategic decision-
making processes.
Chunking Memory
Chunking Theory is often experimentally associated with cognitive processes of chess
play (Lane & Chang, 2018). Chunking Theory is the learning through memory of models and
patterns that can be recognized and reacted to in strategic play (Gobet, Lane, & Lloyd-Kelly,
2015; Simon & Gilmartin, 1973). This theory has been demonstrated to work to explain large
aspects of chess play (Hanggi et al., 2014). Still, it does not have application in the sense of
affecting the opponent’s intentions as does Theory of Mind (ToM) (Kulke, Johannsen, &
Rakoczy, 2019). Chunking accounts for degrees that information is grouped into explicit
categories of distinct valence (Wegener, 2001). Such a process compresses large, but finite
datasets into meaning (Bor, 2012). This data is specifically conscious as its structure relates
to existing knowledge (Bor, 2012). A ToM process, such as cognitive empathy, was
considered able to be studied in chess players distinctly from chunking in that it is an
instantaneous realization of strategic intentions of an opponent and not an accessing of one’s
own memory to choose a strategic pattern of implementation. Though primitive inputs maybe
accessed in both chunking and cognitive empathy, cognitive empathy seemed not to require
sophisticated levels of abstract thinking as would chunking. Chunking most reasonably seems

43
linked to Preservationism (Salavaggio, 2018), theory of memory, since it implies accessing
accurate components of memory. Still, since chess study is cumulative, chunking theory
maybe resembles Reconstructive, memory theory, in that it is processes memory over time
(Salavaggio, 2018).
How to Recognize a Cognitive Strategy
There are many ways of knowing that correlate specifically to activation in certain
regions of the brain (Schaigorodsky, Perotti, & Billoni, 2014). Schaigorodsky et al. (2014), in
research that may already be outdated or misapplied as to duration and operational exactitude
of how memory works (Salvaggio, 2018), found that expert chess players have stronger long-
range memory correlations. This would indicate that they match strategic pattern information
from the present to accurate information from the past. This indicating that memory of how
prior games resulted from current strategy based on chess pieces locating the same, or similar,
spaces on the gameboard. The research might indicate how many processes and how long
they can be held in memory. Salvaggio’s (2018) research does not necessarily suggest any
ToM, or empathetic quality, to strategic decision making in chess. Such a process as
empathetic knowing informing strategy might indicate a sense in the moment of comparing
sensed emotional resonances from the present to sense of what self, or opponents, were
feeling before strategic choices in prior games. This being Kuhn’s (1962) proverbial thinking
outside the box. To the inexperienced this could seem like mindreading in a sense but
reflecting on the theoretical development of ToM one can imagine its properties are long
term, and long lasting in recall and affect (Premack & Woodruff, 1978).
As far as how memory works in chess strategy, a more productive direction of inquiry
may have been pursued by Eredita and Ferro (2015) in identifying a generalization process of

44
thinking which could more accurately define how chess players come to strategic decisions.
This means that accumulated knowledge in study and experience create configural concepts
where geometric patterns and logical expected developments coexist. This idea as well
seemed at times to stand alone and to exclude for empathy as a discerning factor in strategic
choice. Then again, the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) is responsible for processing affective
sharing, self-awareness, and self-other distinctions (all ToM tasks) as well as being an
important cognitive region for spatial processing skills (Powell et al., 2017). It could also
mean that episodic memory (Ciaramelli et al., 2013) is being scanned for neural overlap that
activates pattern recognition cognitive processes, spatial strategic processes, or correlating
emotional resonances indicated by empathy, through body movement interpretation or
otherwise, and predicting strategy. Nevertheless, strategic choice in chess consistently
activates ToM, spatial, and empathy cognitive processes (Powell et al., 2017). Participants
with even intermediate descriptive skills seemed to be indicating these processes in language
that approximated these thematic categories.
Chess adheres to convenient general principles that allow for multiple perspectives or
processes of cognitive awareness that could be happening in sequence or all at once. Eredita
and Ferro (2015) claim chess strongly adheres to aspects of generalization, abduction, and
configural concepts. Abduction is when a chess player recognizes a situation they are in
during gameplay and is able to overlay it into a known class. Generalization is the predicting
of outcomes based on how that class is known to behave. The construction and
deconstruction of configural concepts, they suggest, are sensuous mental operations brought
into reality by continued generalizations. These sensuous mental operation seemed to at times
align with Brock, Kim, and Kelly’s (2017) demonstrated ToM task that are automatic and

45
unconscious and that operated without direct verbal measures or instructions (Andrews, 2001)
and to ToM definitions which stated as active, without dialogue, and originating from deep
within the individual’s unconscious ability, knowing a truth (unconscious or otherwise) about a
person separate from oneself, and may or may not have been able to be perfectly identified or
even consciously developed. These cognitive processes and structures are said to exist, but rely
on ill defined, unconscious or automatic biological processes (Przybyszewki & Polkowski,
2017). Shenk (2007) suggests chess origins are mythic as either Pythagoras used it for solving
math problems or Palamedes, a Greek military officer, used it for battle strategy practice.
Further implications of abstractions as a concept were investigated.
Several methods and processes have been designed to assess the qualities of ToM.
Powell et al.’s (2017) quantitative study includes for ToM and empathy. They define a chief
characteristic of ToM as accuracy in knowing the thoughts and intentions of others. Even
further ToM is defined as cognitive processes that discern for patterns of belief and thought
rooted in cultural matrixes and that this discernment is based on social instinct within context
(Cohen, Sasaki, & German, 2015). How chess is conceived of as a construct may divide
among cultural demographics. A chess player’s belief in generalizations, and how flexibility
is required to predict success due to complexity, may or may not align with simultaneous
cognitive processes that are registering beliefs formed and interpreted by ToM applications to
gameplay. Many chess players may not have words for concepts that they regularly use but
may be able to create a language when inquired upon with interview language. Chess players
generally like to solve problems and might be engaged to accurately describe strategy they
have experienced often, but never been asked about specifically. Ability for spatial awareness
and calculation maybe a social instinct that some possess to greater degree than others. So

46
too, could empathy have great variation in chess strategy. The TPJ seemed to be modulating
both processes interdependently or independently, alongside other known or unknown
cognitive brain mechanisms or not. Further, and detailed, study is required. For concepts
such as empathy, intuition, and instinct there has not been extensive research on how and when
these cognitive formats operate between various routes of necessity, perception, and physical
mechanism, as would be the demands if they are used during chess strategy decision making
(Duan et. al, 2012; Edwards, Beale, & Edwards, 2012).
Intuition is frequently cited by chess experts as the most important quality to strong
chess play (Buhren & Frank, 2012; Coates, 2013; Powell, 2017). Still, intuition needs to be
studied further, both quantitatively and qualitatively, in regard to chess and strategic decision
making. Intuition has similarly defined qualities to ToM, cognitive empathy, and affective
empathy, in that intuition seems to have an innate and immediate understanding of a situation
inclusive of other’s thoughts, intentions, and possibly emotions. An identification of intuition
during chess-play and corresponding neural pathways was considered to be useful.
Personality type, such a Myers-Briggs or others, was considered interesting additional
dimensional scale, alongside cultural demographics, to analyze chess players in relation to
how much ToM qualities, or spatial memory calculations, they utilized during play (Myers,
2016). Intuition is said to need to pull from all relevant sets of memory processes and
perceptions of the immediate environment (Betsch & Glockner, 2010). In chess, a game where
body language is evident due to the proximity of players to each other, ToM skills that include
for interactive behavioral tasks that utilize a great deal of anticipatory looking and facial emotion
recognition (Zwick, 2017) was considered to possible indicate connections between intuition and
reading body reactions. Some individuals according to Myers-Briggs possess more intuition, and

Smith e d_mfinal_3_29_21

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Smith e d_mfinal_3_29_21

Similar to Smith e d_mfinal_3_29_21 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Smith e d_mfinal_3_29_21