It seems clear to me that there must be a statistical bias in the move selection of master level games in relation to the natural "hand" of the move, right or left.
Let me explain. For the sake of argument let's select the population of master level chess players who are right handed, and consider blitz games played by these players. In each position, the vector of each legal move has a more-or-less clockwise or counterclockwise orientation with respect to the center of the board. Yet for purely anatomical and biological reasons, clockwise moves may be easier to execute on the physical board as it is placed before the players. Given a players hand literally hovering over a board searching for a move, there must be a bias in which more easily executed moves are preferred over less anatomically natural ones.
Is there any evidence of this sort of geometrical bias in move selection, beyond that expected from the actual theoretical value of the moves themselves?
There might be many statistical imbalances: towards advancing or retreating moves, towards kingside or queenside directed moves, and possibly towards clockwise or counter-clockwise flowing moves, as I mentioned above.
Edit: The key phrase here is 'actual theoretical value'. I wish to compare human play against perfect play and suggest that the discrepancies which arise might indicate more than a deficit of mental chess ability but also because of the way the brain-body system and handedness might favor moves that are quicker to find with the hand.
