I like your driving in bad weather analogy. Is it still using system 1 only, or is it a mix of both systems? That's not simple to figure out. System 1 is the fast part of Thinking Fast and Slow, and you need to think fast, but you're still giving conscious attention to what you're doing. Interesting. You might be interested in Lex Fridman's interview of Magnus. Magnus says he's very good at short calculation, about 4 moves deep, and relies on intuition after that. He thinks his intuition is better than anyone else's but admits he's not very good at deep calculation.

@@bluefin.64 I saw Lex's interview with Magnus, thanks. That's a nice point. The literature on this is tortured. Think about the difference between Activities of Daily Living (ADL) - things like toothbrushing or making breakfast - and playing a musical instrument. People used to think that ADLs were motor schema. But that can't be right for two reasons. First, the world is constantly changing. And second, we all make mistakes, called action slips. Normally we catch them. An example is when you have a box of cereal in your hand when you get milk from the refrigerator. Sometimes you take the milk out and go to put the cereal in. So even ADLs are better thought of as planning in action. Most ADL plans don't have to be perfect, and aren't worth the cognitive resources to even try. Even if you could, which you can't. In music, eventually you do develop motor schemas. Sometimes you can play a song without knowing exactly what you're doing. And sometimes you are seeking "perfection." But sometimes, the blues on guitar for example, you're assembling riffs as you improvise. Often the riffs are schemas, but the where and when require knowledge and thought. And situational awareness. Riffs seem similar to tactical motifs. But even then, contra Kotov in Think Like a Grandmaster, you can't calculate in some optimally efficient way, if that means only visiting each node of the tree once. You backtrack, when you notice something in one line that you missed in another line. What makes this different from music and driving is that it's all in the head. Even though driving, chess, and improvisation are all forms of decision making under uncertainty. And they all have "opponents" who get a say. Unlike playing a piano sonata or golf. But all of these examples somehow code experience into intuition and/or declarative or procedural knowledge. What if engines had existed when Nimzowitch and Reti were developing the hypermodern style. Would classical players have thought they were cheating because their strange intuitions matched the "engines." What makes chess and great players special is when surprises work. Intuition can both find them and hide them. When doing a math problem we know how to do it - the procedure - but we just need time. Intuition works well in a relatively stable situation where you have great experience. Especially if "good enough" is sufficient because perfection is not attainable. But at my level, and even for GMs, there are times where both intuition and procedure seems insufficient because you don't know what's going on. Which is why being told who's better can be like a road sign that warns you of driving difficult. What Kahneman shows is that "framing" matters a great deal for many decisions. Most experts flip when identical data is framed differently. Our intuition is strong, but most of us contradict ourselves. In some sense, good decision in chess requires knowing when accuracy or perfection matters.

@@mikem668 I'm not surprised the literature is tortured on this subject. Even without the too common motivated reasoning that affects interpretation, this would be a difficult subject. It's trying to make sense of what were only partly aware of, and I'd guess there are probably many even 'objective' angles to tackle it from. I know that framing is a huge problem in the sciences and other fields, and I've read or watched stories involving it or about it that are shocking. If I understand it properly, it's certainly been a problem for Hans Niemann. My favorite action slip, as it appears to be called, is throwing the fruit in the garbage and being left with the peel in my hand. :-)

Very interesting comment. Some things to think about.

That sounds about right. Study is mostly about using system 2 to move knowledge to the part of your brain where system 1 lives.

well said haha

Too soon😂

Probably not that simple, search for "left right brain divide myth".