Concerning paper "Chess Masters’ Hypothesis Testing", M. Cowley, R.Byrne University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.

In my humble opinion the paper states that chessmasters are better at falification than novice players. The paper does not say that

1. Novice player has the capacity to deep-analyze a great number of move-sequences, so that falifisication-process can be performed.

2. Novice players should learn/perform a good falifisication-process. (No recommendation)

3. That falificication-process is an efficient way for novice players in general to improve skills.

It still seems like a good idea for novice players to learn a proper falifisication-process, and there might be other articles that actually is stating that. How that is not the scope of the referred paper.

“When you see a good move, look for a better one” (Emanuel Lasker)

I think this sounds like a good approach.  I think this is a nuanced and interesting way to think about Lasker's candidate moves.  If you think you have a good move, ask: Is there a better move.  He said that for every move we should have at least 2 other moves and weigh which is best.  This takes discipline and I often consider 2 candidates, not a total of 3   (Ref: "Teach yourself Visually: Chess-- Jon Edwards).  

It is all so confusing... My small mind does not compute this at all...

Dang someone beat me to the punch.  I was ready to go on a long tangent about Popper and the scientific method!

Thats what I do, so I guess I'm fine.  =)

Karl Popper would be proud!  Except that you can confirm that a move is a good one in certain cases.  For example, it may lead to a winning strategy (forced check mate).  Or you may be able to enumerate all possible replies your opponent can make, and find a good counter move to each.  Of course, now we get into circular logic -- how do you know that these counter moves are good?  Another aspect is that you may wish to falsify, rather than confirm, your opponent's replies.  That is, you choose a minimax solution (to minimize the maximum loss), but this loss is computed with your own limited ability to see into the future.  You may say that your move is a bad one because your opponent can reply with a move that results in a great loss to you.  But you may have missed a clever counter that would actually turn the tables, and so your move may be a good one after all.