< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 15 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-20-05 | | Orbitkind: Chess IS mathematics. It's a mathematical game. I became introduced to chess through maths, reaslising that it could be an interesting game for someone who likes maths. I'm currently doing a maths degree. I actually did a project related to chess this year and got a first for it ;D. |
|
Jan-20-05 | | Granite: I certainly wouldn't call chess math, since chess has nothing to do with abstractions or definitions of logically presise objects. On the other hand I'll concede that they have a lot in common, main in that they're deductive systems with defined rules of conduct that must be strictly adhered to like any other ordered system. I should point out that one strong skill Tal must have had as a world champion were strong visualization skills, which is the same skill you'd use to multiply large numbers in your head quickly and accurately. With a bit of practice, most people can do 3 or 4 digit numbers in their heads once they get the nack of making the picture in their head. |
|
Jan-20-05 | | Orbitkind: Chess is a tiny piece of mathematics Granite, whether you like it or not. Simple axioms are given and certain combinations are forced and hence correct mathematics. |
|
Jan-31-05 | | jperr75108: chess is not mathematics |
|
Jan-31-05 | | jperr75108: the thinking behind a move may be something like mathematical thinking, but in no way is it directly linked. |
|
Jan-31-05 | | jperr75108: i am in 10th grade, take geometry, and totally suck at it. I am uscf around 2100 |
|
Jan-31-05 | | Mating Net: Many endgame positions are reduced to precise mathematical certainty. Mathematics can tell you if many positions are winning or only drawn. However, the relationship between mathematical ability and chess ability is NOT linear in any way, shape, or form. |
|
Feb-01-05 | | WillC21: While it is true that some chess positions are mathematically certain, like a mate in 3 moves, that does not mean that chess is approached from a mathematical sense by human beings. In fact, I can provide an interesting link showing a couple studies that concluded that the areas of the brain that are heightened and "in use" are quite different during the performance of a mathematical problem versus a chess game. The creative part of the brain is heightened during chess, while the mathematical and problem solving section is virtually turned off. Whether or not chess is mathematics is another story, but it is clear that humans do not use the mathematical part of their brains to play a game of chess, even grandmasters. The conclusion to be drawn is the brain "decides" to approach chess through pattern recognition, memory, creativity, and geometrical balance and imbalances. |
|
Feb-15-05 | | refutor: any word of a second edition of NCO being released? will any of us ever see a new MCO or NCO in our lifetimes with information so available on sites like this? |
|
Mar-12-05 | | rochade18: <WillC21> your post is very interesting. I absolutely believe that chess is pure mathematics though we use other parts of our brain in order to play chess. |
|
Mar-12-05 | | Orbitkind: <Mating Net: Many endgame positions are reduced to precise mathematical certainty. Mathematics can tell you if many positions are winning or only drawn.
However, the relationship between mathematical ability and chess ability is NOT linear in any way, shape, or form.>
Of course mathematical ability and chess ability are correlated somehow. This is because thing in chess that are mathematical in nature like endgame and tactics are very important and constantly exercised. Also, chess is a game. It is stochastic because there is no certainty about what move a player will make, and this chaotic behavour is continually injected into the game as a human makes a move on each turn. Basically, chess is game that is not easily determined analytically even by powerful computers and therefore certainly not by humans, and we use this medium to challenge other humans. But it isn't all totally random and many stages of competence can be reached, as there is a lot that can be learnt, and thinking hard makes a difference, and also the brain becomes better at a task by experience in the past. It's really just a tool which allows humans a sensible way of trying to outwit one another, and it is well designed for humans in this sense. If it were a 100x100 board then it would probably be more or less random, but chess has been designed for the tactics to generally be possible to evaluate with some motivation, so that other factors like positional skill also come into account. When we let two computers play chess, that is mathematics. It is two algorithms working on a problem against each other. Two humans playing chess is not mathematics I guess. Even a mate in 1 is not necessarily mathematics with 2 humans playing as the human may not see this mate in 1. So with humans, chess is a game. A human versus a computer is bizarre though; it's a person against an algorithm. The strongest chess playing entity that humans could produce would probably be a version of hydra working on the world's fastest supercomputer together with come kind of council of the greatest players. |
|
Mar-12-05 | | familyguy: anyone know the latest information on the riemann hypothesis
and my favorite mathematician has to be ramanjuan although i barely understand the beauty of his mathematics |
|
Mar-12-05 | | Orbitkind: The Riemann Hypothesis is still unsolved. I also think Ramanujan is cool. My favourite mathematician is Euler though. He found the proof to a theorem in the same kind of way a Bobby Fischer might find an ingenius win. Ingenius but part of the mathematical truth, (and only so beautiful because it is part of nature and fortunately a human mind has noticed it). |
|
Mar-14-05 | | bobo7up: For more on Ramanujan try the book "The man who knew infinity" by Robert Kanigel. |
|
Mar-14-05 | | familyguy: yeah i read it, ramanujan actually had his notebooks published and these alone have devoted many mathematicians' minds they are very technical though |
|
Mar-20-05 | | pubs r us: I read somewhere that Nunn played a game where he left his knight en prise for 13 consecutive moves. Does anybody know of this game? |
|
Mar-21-05 | | Orbitkind: Chessgames, I cannot believe you haven't mentioned in Nunn's biography that he is the current (2004) world problem solving champion. |
|
Mar-21-05 | | Orbitkind: What was all the controvery about an algebraic version of Fischer's 60 memorable games which Nunn was responsible for apparantly? This is the only negative thing I've heard about Nunn really, so can someone explain what happened. |
|
Mar-21-05 | | WMD: It's a long story. |
|
Apr-25-05 | | aw1988: Happy birthday! |
|
Apr-25-05 | | you vs yourself: Happy 50th birthday, doc! |
|
Apr-28-05 | | Orbitkind: I noticed that Nigel Short wasn't at John Nunn's birthday blitz party, and in the speech they mentioned not mentioning him. Has Short done something to offend Nunn or something? I guess Short has offended most people, included the bad-sportsmanship article on Adams claiming to be a greater player than Adams, (and Adams is well known for his quietness and sportsmanship). I wouldn't call anyone doc unless they were a medical doctor; it doesn't sound right with a mathematics doctor - there isn't any guarantee of being in touch with humanity implied from researching pure maths for 3 years (perhaps even the opposite); I'd call my GP doc but I don't call PhD's doc. I bet there are many chess players that have a PhD. |
|
Apr-28-05 | | Orbitkind: Anyway, there's a kind of evil look in Nunn's eyes that I don't like. Of course chess players have to be very competitive, but I can sense something not nice there. |
|
May-13-05 | | paiyot: highly acclaimed author has a new book, "Grandmaster Chess Move by Move: John Nunn Applies the Move by Move Approach to His Best Games". to be released Sept 15, 2005. Gambit, 240 pages. |
|
Jun-07-05 | | cade3: read chessbase.com. Dr. Nunn has a proposal concerning the world chess championship. |
|
 |
 |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 15 ·
Later Kibitzing> |