Chess Players 'Are Paranoid Thrillseekers' 269
Tardigrade submitted a brief little article that claims that chess players are paranoid thrillseekers. It's a fairly amusing little piece and definitely
makes me wish that my high-school chess club would have got into epic
battles with the groups that were capable of stretching us into pretzel
shapes, if only for the thrill. Maybe I'm just being paranoid.
First Chess Player Paranoia Post! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:First Chess Player Paranoia Post! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:First Chess Player Paranoia Post! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:First Chess Player Paranoia Post! (Score:2)
And what hooligan on the street do you know who plays chess, i'd think street hooligans are too busy stealing cars, robbing people, and doing other stereotypical dumb stuff to have time to do something stereotypical of intelligent people like chess, or read books.
But thats stereotypes not reality. Class has nothing to do with intelligence level, more to do with how much $ you have.
Re:First Chess Player Paranoia Post! (Score:3, Funny)
"And what hooligan on the street do you know who plays chess"
The guys hanging out at the pawn-shop?
/me runs before the groans become too loud
Re:First Chess Player Paranoia Post! (Score:2)
People who hang out and play chess usually are playing for money.
Usually people who arent good enough to win national tournaments but who are too good to play for free.
Re:First Chess Player Paranoia Post! (Score:2)
Re:First Chess Player Paranoia Post! (Score:2)
I played chess, but chess didnt make me who I am.
Chess is just a game, however at the upper levels it becomes an art. Winning and Losing is part of the game, of course competitive people want to win all the time.
Chess is like any other sport, go talk to micheal jordan and find out hes a paraniod thrill seeker who wants to see every basket go in, win every championship and watch his testosterone levels rise when he dunks in shaqs face.
Really, anyone whos competitive, gets a trill from winning, thats why they are competitive.
To anyone whos interested in challenging me. (Score:2)
http://151.17.13.5/chessline/homepage.asp
ChessLine [cjb.net] Go there to experience what chess is all about.
Maybe we can take this to the chessboards instead of bragging about our abilities on this forum.
Re:First Chess Player Paranoia Post! (Score:3, Funny)
Never have lunch with a chess player (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not paranoid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm not paranoid (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'm not paranoid (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I'm not paranoid (Score:2)
A battle of wits eh? (Score:2, Funny)
Man in black: Let me explain...
Vizzini: There's nothing to explain. You're trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen.
Man in black: But if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse.
Vizzini: I'm afraid so. I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.
Man in black: You're that smart?
Vizzini: Let me put it this way: Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons!
Man in black: really! In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits.
Vizzini: For the pricness? To the death? I accept!
Re:I'm not paranoid (Score:2)
Chess is like any other sport, talk to tiger woods about how he feels when he wins a golf tournament, Talk to world champion boxer lennox lewis about how he feels when he beats the shit out of someone, or just talk to a scientist, ask the scientist how they feel when they make a discovery or solve an equation.
Everyone gets a trill out of what they do, this is what makes it an art, a sport, and life for these people, they want to be the best at what they do and want to win. I'm sure president Bush had a rush of testosterone when he edged out Al Gore in the US supreme court and became President of the USA.
Re:I'm not paranoid (Score:2)
Incidentally, Lennox Lewis is known for being a chess player. He's a thinking man's fighter, unlike someone like Mike Tyson, who'd just a thug.
Re:I'm not paranoid (Score:2)
I take it, then, that you don't play chess via the Internet? Kind of hard to see your opponent squirm when you can watch only their moves, not their pained facial ticks, hesitant gestures toward the board, frustrated expressions, etc. I've found playing on the Net can be fun for quick games, but it doesn't compete to playing face-to-face. There's an element of action there in a very sitting-quietly sort of way.
I'm sorry, this is news? (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I suck at chess, and even I know what an absorbing game chess is. It is a battle, and one does not forget that, especially if you consider yourself an intelligent person. It's a war of mind vs. mind, may the most intelligent (and least easily distracted) being win.
While it lacks the immediacy of video games, and the brutality of (mock?) physical combat, chess is a war waged in miniature, where one must consider logistics and the strength and position of both your forces and your opponent's in order to come to a victory. Even when your forces are decimated it is possible to achieve victory by the use of clever tactics.
But what really makes this not news is that any game can have this sense of immediacy. While realtime games have a little bit more of it, they work in generalities, where chess works in absolutes: You know exactly how the field will act, you know exactly what each piece is capable of. It's like fighting a war on a perfectly ordered (and symmetrical) battlefield with identical forces and perfect intelligence, a situation no one will ever be in, within the confines of reality. But if you focus, any game can become your reality - For a while.
Re:I'm sorry, this is news? (Score:3, Insightful)
So in other words, it's almost, but not completely unlike real war...
Chess is really more of a complex and somewhat variable logic puzzle -- closer to a Rubik's cube (where you let someone else take a crack at every other turn) than to war of any sort.
So maybe the whole chess/war comparison which seems so popular in this thread overcredits one and sells the other short, eh?
Re:I'm sorry, this is news? (Score:3, Insightful)
The two are obviously different in that one is 90% physcial, and the other is 100% mental, but the investment of the ego in both are quite similar.
Both chess and boxing are about setting up the opponent and taking them down. Chess in particular is quite cruel to the loser because there is no room for making excuses.
The comparison to Rubik's cube is a bit wrong since Rubik's has been solved. Chess has some definite patterns that are instantly recognizable, but it also deals in vague terms with space, time, lines that really can't be quantified but can be estimated.
But you're right, chess is not like war, except to those people reading about it in the papers every day...thing moves from place to place, destroys other thing...etc.
Re:I'm sorry, this is news? (Score:5, Funny)
You're right... in fact, they would make a fine pair for a new biathlon sport in the Olympics... the two competitors box for 9 rounds, then sit down for a chess match. I know I'd watch.
Re:I'm sorry, this is news? (Score:2)
Actually Boxing is about hitting a person more times than they hit you.
the strategy only comes into play when you box someone who hits harder and whos faster and better physically.
This is why people like holyfield knock out mike tyson, or out of shape buster douglas even.
This is also why old george forman would knock out any young boxer you through at him
Chess is the same, theres natural talent, some people are naturally talented at chess and kick peoples ass without knowing how, but theres also strategies, openings, and tricks, and no matter how much natural talent you have, if you dont know an opening, or a trick being pulled on you, you lose.
Chess is about memorizing openings, as it is about how many moves you can see ahead and plan for.
Re:I'm sorry, this is news? (Score:2)
I'd say you should stagger the rounds, but as a former boxer, I can tell you that untaping and retaping your wrist bindings is a giant pain in the ass and would take quite a long time. I suppose you could have pieces big enough to be moved by a boxer wearing gloves though- maybe that would be better for TV anyway.
Maybe comedy central will pick this idea up and run with it. "Beat the Geek" would take on a whole new meaning
Re:I'm sorry, this is news? (Score:2)
This is not a new revelation; many of us know... (Score:3, Funny)
Football Players... (Score:2, Interesting)
Challenge (Score:2, Funny)
oh yeah... (Score:2, Interesting)
This is Morphy's famous "Night at the Opera" game. I love this game because it illustrates many tactical themes as well as the process of attack. Paul Morphy was known as a master of attack and I study his games when I need inspiration for my attacking game! 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 Diagram
This is Philidor's Defense. Black tries to create a strongpoint at e5.3.d4 Attacking Black's center. 3...Bg4 Pinning the knight. This prevents the knight from taking on e5 after dxe5 dxe5 and now the knight can't take on e5 lest the checkmate on d1. 4.dxe5 Bxf3 [ Preventing 4...dxe5?! 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 preventing the king from castling. In this opening, this is often an advantage because now the king is stuck in the center, open to attack. 6.Nxe5] 5.Qxf3 dxe5 6.Bc4 Diagram
Threatening mate on f7.6...Nf6?! Blocking the mate. However, it allows White to take advantage of weaknesses in Black's structure. [ 6...Qd7 is necessary here.; or 6...Qe7 ] 7.Qb3 With a double attack on both b7 and f7. This is a common maneuver in king-pawn openings. Always look for weak points in the enemy's structure, and when there is more than one, try to attack both at the same time. Many times, the opponent won't be able to defend both in time. 7...Qe7 8.Nc3 As Grandmaster Larry Evans said in his comments to this game, "Development before Material!" I probably would have taken the pawn on b7, but Morphy, knowing he was much stronger than his opponent, wanted to demonstrate his attacking ability. 8...c6 Allowing the queen to protect the pawn at b7. However, Black is way behind in development. 9.Bg5 Diagram
Pinning the knight. Notice that White's back rank is empty besides the king and rooks. Now White can castle either way. Black still needs to move a piece to get the king to safety. Unfortunately, Morphy probably won't give him the chance.9...b5 Attacking the bishop. 10.Nxb5! Sacrificing the piece. White doesn't want to give up his superior development (by moving the bishop off the strong diagonal, White would let Black use another move to get his pieces out). When attacking, you must open lines, even if you must give up a little material. 10...cxb5 11.Bxb5+ Nbd7 12.0-0-0! Attacking the knight, which is protected only by queen and king (note that the f6 knight is pinned. 12...Rd8 Adding another defender. 13.Rxd7! Brilliant! For me and many other beginners, moves like this are hard to make, because we don't see the end result. Studying games like this should give us courage in our own games! 13...Rxd7 14.Rd1 Attacking the pinned piece. 14...Qe6 A futile attempt to get some breathing room. Now the knight is free to protect the rook, because it is not pinned. 15.Bxd7+ Nxd7 Diagram
Do you see Morphy's winning move?16.Qb8+!! Giving up yet another piece, however, it leads to immediate reward. 16...Nxb8 17.Rd8# Diagram
White mates Black's king with his final two pieces. Note the helpless queen standing by. Also remember this pattern of checkmating the king with bishop and rook, it is fairly common. For me, this game illustrates the importance of development and how to attack someone who has neglected development. 1-0 exhale sharply. oh yeah!!!
Re:oh yeah... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:oh yeah... (Score:2)
If that's how it seems to you then you don't understand chess very well. "Memorizing strats and gambits" may be useful, but it generally wont do you one bit of good once you hit mid-game against a semi-competent player.
There was a recent slashdot article about top chess prorgams. Sure, the programmers feed their programs huge libraries of openings - because it's easy and that's what computers excell at. It helps. But if you keep reading, you'll see that the real strength lies in the ability to evaluate a board position. "Is this going to be good for me or bad for me?". And in deciding what moves are worth looking at, and quickly deciding what moves you can ignore.
-
Re:oh yeah... (Score:2)
Re:oh yeah... (Score:2)
Please explain to me how:
"the game consists of memorizing a bunch of strats and gambits"
is exactly the same as:
"the magic spot of being able to accurately determine what to do next".
I'm sorry to break this to you, but there already exist computer programs that can beat you at most games, from monopoly to scrabble. Somehow I don't think everyone is going to stop playing all of them and switch to playing nothing but Go.
-
Re:oh yeah... (Score:2)
Re:oh yeah... (Score:2)
You own amazon.com post provides a wealth of references that chess is not memorization. Restricting myself to the first review of your first link, they're using terms such as ideas, concepts, theories, understanding, and themes. How does it help to memorize "willingness of modern players to accept backward pawns in return for dynamic play"? "Dynamic play" is not something you memorize. And judging the trade-off of dynamic play in exchange for bad pawn placement can't be memorized either.
The books list many games, but they are not there to be memorized. They are examples from which you are supposed to learn much more general principles.
You may not enjoy chess, fine. Different people like different kinds of games. But saying it's nothing but memorization is more than a bit inaccurate.
-
Re:oh yeah... (Score:2)
(A) player with an amazing level of opening memorization and somewhat below average play ability
(B) player with crap opening knowledge and somewhat above average play ability
The first time player B makes an "opening-book-error" it will be an an advantage for (A), but you have pretty much by definition left the realm of opening book memorization. The advantage is quite probably between a half point and three points. More than 4 points is pretty unlikely. (B)'s better midgame and endgame will generally crush (A).
It's most obvious with computer chess. Wipe out it's entire opening book knowledge and it will still play a strong game. Impair it's analysis routines and it doesn't matter how much opening book knowldge you give it, it will die horribly.
-
fischer random chess (Score:2)
If you, like a lot of other players, get fed up because because you don't know chess openings, check out fischerrandom chess. It's a variant of normal chess designed by bobby fischer (often thought of as the greatest chess player of all time (I disagree, but...)).
http://www.chessvariants.com/diffsetup.dir/fischer .html [chessvariants.com]
Since the game starts at a somewhat random position, pre-definied and known openings aren't an advantage.
regards,
garc
Re:fischer random chess (Score:2)
well, duh... (Score:1, Funny)
No, we're not ! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:No, we're not ! (Score:1)
Re:No, we're not ! (Score:1)
On the contrary, Chess players know that there's always someone trying to kill them, while Go players engage in an epic battle for more territory where neither side needs die. (But often does.)
not so (Score:1)
Basic (Score:2, Interesting)
When I play chess with my friends, I don't feel that much adrenaline rolling. What I mean is that the "Paranoic Thrillseeking" feeling is not related at all with chess. It's the enviroment that causes this. It's competition, risks of loss, the chance that what you have studied and fought might crumble.
Sort of Like Videogames? (Score:1)
Although, I have yet to see a study from the mass media making chess players mass murderers...
Usefulness of chess (Score:5, Interesting)
After a while, I began to understand that the way to win in chess was to become "fluent" in the patterns of chess itself, and that those patterns didn't really have any important analog elsewhere.
Once it appeared that putting a lot of effort into mastery of chess wasn't doing anything for me besides making me better at chess, I gave it up.
Shortly thereafter I replaced it with programming. Talk about "out of the frying pan, into the fire...."
Re:Usefulness of chess (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Usefulness of chess (Score:2)
But that's pretty much what I'm saying. What I decided was that those same abstract concepts could be found all over the place. There was nothing special about chess -- other than just chess itself.
If being great at chess is the prime objective, there's no better path than getting great at chess. If the goal is preparation for more important battles of wits, though -- things often likened to "a chess match" -- chess didn't appear (to me) to be more useful than a whole lotta other activities.
Re:Usefulness of chess (Score:2)
That's true, there are a lot of other example, but few as old and as well known as chess. Nor does anything else (other than GO) carries the association with intellectual prowess.
Re:Usefulness of chess (Score:2)
intellectual exercise (Score:2)
Re:intellectual exercise (Score:2)
Re:Usefulness of chess (Score:2, Interesting)
Pattern recognition... (Score:2)
What chess does do is train you to recognize chess patterns, which is not a skill applicable to anything other than chess, and to recognize more general patterns of generic competition, which a lot of other activities can teach you equally well.
Of course, this is all just based on what it seems like to me. Not very scientific, I'll have to admit.
Re:Usefulness of chess (Score:2)
I totally disagree. I think chess teaches many important lessons and skills that are quite generally applicable. For example:
Altogether, I think chess provides excellent "mental exercise" as others have said. Almost every day, I find myself using skills that I have learned at the chessboard, such as when I'm thinking "several moves ahead" in traffic or deciding how to respond to some bit of office-political nonsense. Sure, the minutiae of openings and pawn structure and light/dark square complexes don't translate directly into other endeavors, but neither do the precise motions of any physical sport or exercise translate directly into another. Nonetheless, increasing one's strength/endurance/agility in one activity can improve your performance in another, and that's just as true in the mental realm as the physical. Chess is like a health club for the mind; it might not be the real thing, but it prepares you for the real thing.
Re:exactly (Score:2)
However, if you are a chessplayer AND rich, well you'll most likely get any girl you want, however chess isnt going to make you rich, better off being a programmer.
Re:Usefulness of chess (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, except Chess uses all the memory to remember openings and strategies.
Re:Usefulness of chess (Score:2)
"The way to win in chess was to become "fluent" in the patterns of chess itself, and that those patterns didn't really have any important analog elsewhere."
The analogs are very coarse. Premature attack on a competent oponent doesn't work. At the finer granularity required to win, the analogies break down.
The value of chess, other than in its own right, is to learn to expect the patterns. Microsoft worms have a pattern, starting with Melissa. I think Microsoft is unable to defend itself.
As a chess player... (Score:3, Interesting)
What I dont agree with is the paranoid part... the article just seems to throw that in.
"More competitive chess players have been shown to score highly for unconventional thinking and paranoia, both of which have been shown to relate to sensation-seeking."
Unconventional thinking? what the hell is conventional thinking?
Also: this article seems to be about male players... what about female players...
Anyway its interesting that the same thing that enhances my sense during a rollercoaster (adrenaline+testosterone) also is probable released when I play chess.. I wonder when else this happens:
Sales deals
FPS Games (ever lead the document grab in RTCW theres some adrenaline for ya?
television perhaps too...
my point... this aint new news
Re:As a chess player... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd imagine that playing 6 hours a day, assuming that your opponent knows everything you are doing would help to develop the paranoid parts of the brain.
Re:As a chess player... (Score:2)
That is an example of unconventional thinking.
It's a lot like there's no such thing as common sense. Conventional wisdom says, there is.
1-900-CHESSXX (Score:5, Funny)
[Transcription of 1-900-CHESSXX.]
"...Dial 512 to accept these charges and continue"
[Beat. Beep-boop-bop.]
[Ring. Ring.]
<deep husky voice> "Hi there. I'm Edith."
<heavy breathing. audible swallow.>"...I'm Paul."
E. Mmmmm, Paul. I like that name. Wasn't Morphy's first name Paul.
P. Oh YES.
E. Tell me...how long have you played chess?
P. S-since I was eleven.
E. Want to tell me about your first time.
P. W-well, I don't know. It was with my father. He didn't play all that well. I started beating him not long after that.
E. Want to hear about my first time?
P. Oh yeah, tell me about your first time, Edith. How old were you?
E. My first time was at the tender age of fourteen.
P. Really?
E. Yessss. Before then, I hardly knew the names of the pieces.
P. How well do you play now?
E. Oh, better than you, probably.
P, excited. Really?
E. Yes, I'm a genius you know. Want to hear about my first time?
P. Yes, tell me about it.
E. My sister's friend was over. He was a Geek. Are you a geek, Paul?
P. Yes, yes, I am.
E. I love geeks. They excite me. My sister's friend was the first geek I met. He introduced me to Linux. He also taught me chess.
P. You use Linux?
E. Well, technically it's not Linux, I use my own kernel.
P. You kernel-hack?
E. I guess you could call it that...
P. What do you mean?
E. Well I don't bother with Torvaldis's source-tree.
P. Oh, Edith. Tell me what you do.
E. I mess with kernel directly.
P. mmmm.
E. Oh, it gets very messy. Straight assembly. Pur hex.
P. Oh-ooh. Tell me about your sister's friend.
E. He taught me chess. By the end of the first hour I was seeing three, four moves ahead of him. By the time I was seventeen, four years ago, I was placing in the nationals.
P. Oh, man. Are you really that good?
E. Want to try me?
P. <inhales deeply> e2?
E. e3 Paul.
[rest censored]
Re:1-900-CHESSXX (Score:1)
Oh, and to think I blew my last mod points a few minutes ago! Funny!!!! If only you weren't an AC!
My boss is a chess player (Score:3, Funny)
Paranoid Dad? (Score:1)
All I can say (Score:1)
The most paranoid thrillseeker in the world (Score:2)
scientific studies become tabloids (Score:2, Interesting)
Universal feeling? (Score:5, Interesting)
Surely this is the same for anyone who's any good at nearly anything? For example, re-writing as:
...makes exactly the same amount of sense. Aren't they just saying that to be good in most things you need to have a mind? Why should Chess be unique in this?
More competitive F1 drivers have been shown to score highly for unconventianal thinking and paranoia
Cheers,
Ian
Domination (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, the game is wrapped up fairly nicely in deep strategy and protocol, but when you get down to it, most people play because they like crushing the opposition.
Chess is really no different (on a pyschological level) from football. The goal is to intimidate, dominate, and force the other player into submission. Of course, that gives a fairly large 'rush', especially when the game is at a critical juncture.
I look at my school's chess team, and I see a bunch of kids who aren't (physically) the jock types, so how do they get the ego boost?
Chess. So next time some meathead makes fun of you for playing, just tell him it's like football =)
Re:Domination (Score:2)
That's mostly the attitude I encounter when playing A or B level players on ICC. These are the same people (guys, typically) who disconnect if they're losing a match.
Chess is also about cleverness, improvisation, cat-and-mouse games, and lots of study and preparation. Ever see some of Karpov's draws? They're beautiful. Most games end in a draw, actually.
At the higher levels, the distinction between determination, strength of will on the one hand and crushing egos and being a prick on the other becomes pronounced. Most of the testosterone driven, inflated (and therefore fragile) egos don't survive very well when there are hundreds players better than you, and you have to make many sacrifices to continue your chess career.
Deep Blue (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Deep Blue (Score:2)
What's so fun about chess anyway? (Score:1)
Nah chess is too lonely and quiet for me.
Re:What's so fun about chess anyway? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ahhh yes, the satisfaction of using other people for your own means!
Nah chess is too lonely and quiet for me.
Keep using people for your own means and you'll tasting loneliness soon enough...
Re:What's so fun about chess anyway? (Score:2)
Do you know the Ruy Lopez, English, Modern, Kings Indian? I bet you dont know any openings.
Do you know how the game works? Learn how it works, then play someone on an even level, every single move you make will be in anticipation of a move that you think they will make, the surprise is when they make the move you never expected, causing you to change your entire plan, or when they block your attempts to gain an advantage.
Chess does deal with people, You manipulate their peices on the board, if you are really good you can beat a person so bad that you pretty much can control where all their peices will be.
I beat a person in chess so bad once that I was telling them exactly where their peices would move before they moved it, and pretty much had all their peices locked up where they couldnt move anything but their king, then chased their king around with pawns toying with them even though i could have mated them, I eventually mated them with something like a pawn.
Its fun to beat someone and beat them in a way where they KNOW they cant compare to you however its also fun to barely beat a person knowing they are playing better than you but catching them.
Is that... (Score:1, Funny)
Definitely descriptive of tournament play. (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not actually that fond of tournament play, because of the excitement/stress/tension, whatever you like to call it. However, if you are interested in chess it is natural to attend tournaments, at least sometimes, to expose yourself to different ideas and players.
After a couple of rounds of losses, I managed to calm down enough and force myself to remain patient. My games improved. But the first time that I realized that I could make a draw, the adrenaline was back (not a win mind you--I just realized I wasn't going to lose). It was a total test of self-control not to blow the game on nerves.
The same was true the first time I won a game, so I am completely unsurprised that a scientist would observe an increase in testosterone after a win. I haven't gone to a tournament in about a year, but just thinking about being in a game and having the upper hand makes me feel aggressive, like I need to calm down.
For comparison, I enjoy other activities that might be considered "testosterone high" like Karate. By comparison to tournament chess, I would rate my typical experience in Karate as bland. Sure I want to improve my martial art, and I would like to perform well with/against my workout partners. By I tend to feel that I am learning WITH my martial arts partners. In chess, it is win or get beat--and it really taps into the survival instinct in a different way.
Re:Definitely descriptive of tournament play. (Score:2)
I'm currently under the belief that japanese-derived martial arts are inferior to chinese arts (Kung Fu, specifically). If you want an art that will actually make something of you, try a traditional-based kung fu art.
As for chess, and the same with a martial arts tournament, when it comes down to victory nothing is sweeter. You know you are better. It feels good. It's great mental discipline because if you think you have won and you haven't yet, you may very well lose. The thing between a martial arts tournament and a chess tournament, in martial arts, you can usually tell if the guy you are going up against is trained well and can overpower you.
Moderately OT, but about chess anyway... (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's when I gave up on Chess - when I realized that it was a completely constrained, artifical environment just like I was creating for myself in Real Life. The thing about chess is that its almost completely a game of recognizing previously-identified patterns of play, then countering them with a pre-selected strategy. Not until you get to beyond Grandmaster is there room for innovation. And even then, its constrained to a couple of moves in a 30-move match.
What I look for in my games nowdays is the element of outside interference - items not in the control of either player (or any player, in the case of MP games). That's where the real creativity and brilliance comes in - the capability and flexibility to cope with situations which could not be reasonably forseen (though adept planning will make coping much easier).
I wish we would have more games for kids in this manner - ones which not only met that "Creative Problem Solving" mantra, but also give their players a taste of what they'll need to really know: how to expect the unexpected (and unpredictable) and to cope with them.
Chess is fun, insofar as it teaches good pattern recognition and a disciplined mind. I would argue, though, that if you haven't move beyond it after a couple of years, you really are hurting yourself.
-Erik
Re:Moderately OT, but about chess anyway... (Score:2)
At some point it occurred to me that you only win because the opponent makes a mistake. Not because you're better, but because they are worse. If you both know it perfectly, you always end up with a stalemate. This was a bit depressing, if you agree that learning chess is not about learning new things, but getting rid of mistakes.
On the other hand, more realistic games have no such limitations. You can develop your thinking and innovate without limits, progressing further all the time. That's probably why I'm studying physics... :-)
Re:Moderately OT, but about chess anyway... (Score:2)
I once played a lot of games with someone who was actually good. I didn't play to win, but to go for complicated situations where my opponent would have to do some real work to assure victory. One game out of maybe 1000 I came out of a series of exchanges a rook ahead and won one.
A bit depressing
Re:Go AIs at 3dan + (Score:2)
JFYI:
Lowest Go rating is 20 kyu (in some countries they start from 30 kyu), next one is 19 kyu,
Math people... (Score:4, Interesting)
One book to read would be Paul Hoffman's _The Man Who Loved Only Numbers: The Story of Paul Erdos_. Erdos was a nomadic mathematician, wondering from university to university (and from math professor house to math professor house), working on mathematics. On average, he spent about 19 hours a day working just on math. The story is rather humorous, and a good read for math people and non-math people alike. Erdos survived until very late in his life, and commented that many of his fellow mathematicians had died or were going crazy.
I also read a short book on the life of Godel. Godel was such an example of a mathematician going crazy. He became so paranoid that he refused to eat, and ended up dying of starvation.
Sylvia Nasar's _A Beautiful Mind_, the biography of John Forbes Nash Jr. on which the movie is, apparently, very loosely based, is another such example. Nash was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia later in life.
One of the authors comments that it is possible that mathematicians are more likely to go crazy than other scientists is that, in math, there are no definite absolutes. Sure you can say that two parallel lines never meet, and prove things off of that, but then you can wonder "What happens if they do, eventually, meet?"
By Godel's second incompleteness theorem, we can't know that mathematics is consistent. Godel's theorem shows that there can't be any complete and consistent theories in mathematics. Imagine basing your view of the world on a system that you know cannot be complete or consistent.
Re:Math people... (Score:2)
In life nothing is absolute.
Also, you have a point, Stupid people are less likely to go crazy than intelligent people.
A person whos too ignorant to be aware, can never truely become paraniod.
However someone whos aware of everything is bound to be paraniod at some point however, paraniod to the level that they dont eat at all, usually thats a sign of unstability.
Its ok to be paraniod, its bad to be unstable and paraniod to the point where you harm yourself or others.
Re:Math people... (Score:2)
Um, doesn't anyone survive until very late in their life
Re:Math people... (Score:2, Interesting)
I have known both professional mathematicians and professional chess players, and if I have noticed that some mathematicians become asocial when they get to concerned by the problem they are studying and pretty much lose all social ego, the chess players are all dealing with the pressure of tournament where they all have very good training and techniques and a lot boils down to convincing yourself that 'your brain is better than other people's brains'. Modest chess players do not make it, and hyperinflated ego naturally drift toward paranoia.
Re:Math people... (Score:2)
Things to make you go crazy are a continuous image of unit interval into 2-space that occupies area, trying to well-order the reals. There are plenty of others.
The article is taken out of context. (Score:2)
if they think chess players are crazy... (Score:2, Funny)
missing the point (Score:2)
At times in my life I've played lots of chess like this, played in clubs every week, lots of weekend tournaments, internet chess every day. You get to know the players who gather at tournaments and clubs. In contrast to the romantic image that some people have that chess makes kids smart, [uschess.org] I found that most chess players are of fairly average intelligence, and many focus on chess to the exclusion of other pursuits, like many hackers do. I found that many chess players were more interested than other people, in gambling - betting on football games or bridge or cribbage or whatever, and their satisfaction in tournament play was all about winning money prizes rather than about the aesthetics of the game. Players might be ingenious over the board, but otherwise utterly lacking in insight, knowledge, intelligence, or refinement.
I do think that teaching children to play chess can help sharpen their thinking skills. Then again, the findings of this study don't surprise me at all, but I don't think it's talking about casual chess players.
Chess and public perception around the world (Score:3, Interesting)
It is eternally amusing to me to see Americans immediately start several chessplayers=geek threads the first thing the game is mentioned. I generalize, but they inevitably turn out to be Americans since it is about the only place in the world where such a view prevails. Even so it is a remarkable contradiction since in no other culture is chess so consistently used as a positive metaphor. Dozens of commercials use chess and chess imagery to symbolize intelligence and strategic planning. Every Hollywood movie and TV show that wants to not-so-subtly demonstrate that a character is brilliant and cultured slaps a chessboard - usually set up wrong - in his den or has him playing.
The 'chess is for geeks' model in the US is then most easily explained by envy and fear, much the way people who don't know anything about computers denigrate those who do. The old 'scribble scribble scribble' method of squeezing sour grapes. But in general most people I meet in the US are impressed and/or fascinated by the fact that I work for Garry Kasparov and am a master level player myself. No, I didn't get beat up in school for starting a chess club in my California high school. (At 1.95m that wasn't much of an issue.)
In Europe and South America chess and other 'brain games' receive both attention as sports and respect from the public. In the US - a country that has oxymoronic basketball scholarships - on the other hand, there is a tendency to want to believe that any sport worth the name must involve blood loss. (They conveniently ignore the various tubs of lard who play first base.)
The incredible level of concentration reached by Grandmasters is on par with that needed for any peak performer in any sport or art and the same goes for the amount of energy expended, although it is not as quantifiable in drops of sweat. Take a good look at a player before and after a week or two of professional chess and you'll see what I mean. Weight loss of ten kilos is not unusual and physical conditioning is critical for top performance. Most players begin to decline on the rating list by the time they pass 32 years of age, similar to professional sports like football. (There is only one player in the top 10 over that age and only one in the top 20 over 40 years old.)
As touched upon in the article that started the thread, chess is in many ways a thrilling and even violent game. Much like boxing, it is purely mano a mano; there are no teammates to blame, no wind that wasn't blowing your way, nothing but your ego on the line. Losing can be absolutely crushing, and to excel you must build up an ego on par with those possessed by other pro athletes. (Yes, they even refer to themselves in the third person sometimes.)
It can take months or even a lifetime to recover from a bad result. Even an amateur can have a missed chance or bad loss stick in their brain for years. You don't hear too many people going on about some pickup basketball game they lost 10 years ago, but this is common in chess. The psychological elements are extremely powerful, and the history of damaged individuals in chess do not only illustrate the attraction of chess for introverts and others with everything from quirks to acne to serious psychoses. These anecdotes also show the power of the game to affect people who were quite stable to begin with.
In short, chess ain't for sissies. Those who insult chessplayers are usually those who don't have suffient self-confidence to play it themselves. (Apart from people who just have no interest in it, of course.) In a culture that says chess is for smart people you have to come up with some sort of reason to explain why you aren't good at it. "It's for nerds," isn't a good one, but it appears to still be around.
I know lots of top chess players who wouldn't strike you as particularly intelligent otherwise. While chess employs many faculties that make up the amorphous term 'thinking,' there are also chessplayers who fail their math classes, don't like to read, and vote Republican.
Saludos, Mig
KasparovChess.com [kasparovchess.com]
Chess for the Really Paranoid (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Chess for the Really Paranoid (Score:2)
What are you, CRAZY or something?
NO WAY I'M EVER GOING TO PLAY THERE!
Every move has your IP address logged!
Everyone can see who you are!
THEY CAN TRACK YOU DOWN!
Stop looking at me!
LEAVE ME ALONE!
-
Chess and beauty (Score:2, Insightful)
Some might say if I kept playing that way, I wouldn't ever become a good chess player. To them I reply I got my 'expert' title from my chess federation anyway and I did it while having fun
But I don't have the drive to become a master; it takes serious effort and time that I cannot afford. I'll always continue to play, but regular tourney play is not something I'll be doing anymore.
No no no... (Score:2)
I'm sure this is true for every game (Score:2)
The article tries to make us think there is something special about chess, but they give absolutely no evidence at all. It would be a much less interesting story if it were found that games in general, when played competitively and at the highest levels, cause similar reactions. But I'm pretty sure that this less interesting conclusion is the correct one, that there is nothing hormonally different about a victory in chess and, say, in bowling.
Am I alone in this? (Score:2)
could stretch the chess players into human
pretzels, but it seems my school's administration
is unique in making it damn clear to us jocks
that this would not be tolerated. You know
the whole sportsmanship ethic thing? There's
the idea that it's not sportsmanlike to
roughhouse with someone who does not want to.
It got drilled into us, and made for a better
environment for all.
Re:high school is four years... (Score:2)