Sure, playing chess needs intelligence, dedication, and good chess players are smarter than an average person. But it’s waaaay exaggerated in movies. I’m a math researcher, and in any movie, my department will be full of chess geniuses. But in reality, only about 10% of them even play chess.
ITT: I don’t play chess. I don’t like chess. Friend play chess, he dumb, I am smart. I agree. You hear of Rubik’s cube?
Your skill at chess is indeed very good at predicting one thing: your chess rating. I have been playing every day for almost 2 years and I take lessons, but I started as an adult after finishing my PhD in actual rocket science and supervising a research lab in that area for 10 years. Consequently, I will never be as good as the 10 year olds playing with coaching since they were 6. I have met exactly one good player through my connections to that lab in 17 years. So here are some perspectives on chess if you played in high school or you “learned how to play in 30 mins and think it’s boring”:
-
It’s a game with layers. The first layer is knowing how the pieces move, the second layer is memorizing openings, and the third layer is some basic knowledge of tactics (I.e., forks, skewers, pins, removing the defense, etc etc) and THEN you learn the game. Most people never learn the game unless you went out of your way to do so.
-
For reason 1, “good at chess” is a hugely subjective statement. You knew a few people who can beat all your friends? Cool. I was that guy and it took me MONTHS to get to what the chess world calls “intermediate”: 1200-1400 ELO. Your friend is probably rated 700 to 750. You have probably never met more than a handful of good chess players in your life unless you were in a university club or better.
-
You do not have to be typically smart to be good at chess, but it doesn’t hurt. Top GMs are sometimes impressively smart or impressively… Uh… susceptible to misinformation cough Kramnik cough. But what they CAN do is master the shit out of board positions, visualization, and prediction.
Case in point, Hikaru Nakamura, arguably world #2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WsEQuoOz-c&t=490
Or you can watch him play blindfolded chess against actual good players, or speedrun 1 minute games winning hundreds in a row while talking about his pineapple shirt. He’s alternatingly pretty entertaining and kind of annoying to listen to.
If you are that kind of smart, the visualization and memory kind, yeah you’re probably going to also be a good chess player. Otherwise, there’s not a lot of traceability that I’ve seen research on.
All that said, this thread is absolutely annoying to see the whole world show up and talk out of their asses about it.
/end rant
Edit:
More Hikaru craziness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhDYSNbPs_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXDol9GqK64
Completely agree. Just a bunch of people who clearly don’t play the game and know nothing about it talking out of their asses.
IMO you can’t have a serious opinion about the game without having actually played it competitively. If you’re just somebody that’s casually played a couple games with friends and family, your opinion about the game isn’t really relevant.
“show me your non-provisional rating and then we can talk”. Yeah I agree. But then this is the internet and everyone is an expert at being an expert lol
-
Disclaimer: not calling myself smart or anything.
I always found chess boring, for some reason. Like, not because it is too complex, but because it isn’t complex enough, in a way. As an example, the first time I tried my hand at Medieval II: Total War, I fell in love with all things strategy.
I still can’t do chess, though… It’s like my mind goes to its happy place halfway through a match and I start making moves just to progress the game and be done with it. Gimme a 4X game, and I’d need reminders to pee every 12 hours.
Well there is not a lot of action going on in a chess game and you are a lot of patience, I guess that makes it feel boring for you.
Honestly, I don’t think the action’s the problem, I enjoyed creating interlinked databases with tens of thousands of entries in Spreadsheets. I think it’s strictly to do with the complexity itself, I need more. I like the concept of every piece having a specific move set, I’d just need more of them. And add more complexity to them, but at that point may as well just play grand scale combat games, like 40k.
Edit: plus, to be honest, this lack of complexity doesn’t even let me properly enjoy a victory. Maybe it has some fetishistic tinges at this point, but a protracted victory is so much sweeter, make me feel like I pulled my brain through high intensity training for a couple of hours. Either that, or something which can start acting as a reflex, like backgammon.
I dont play a lot of chess and I’m bad at it but I recommend playing chess puzzles or timed chess. If it helps, just think of it as a mini skermish on one area of the “map”.
While there is competitive chess, I think the advantage it has over most things is that many people know how to play and that most of the time its a casual background game. Like you aren’t trying to win, you are trying to not lose.
When someone is playing at a house party, it’s so much fun to make wierd faces after they played a move or so.
Yeah I always laugh when movies or TV portrait a character being good at strategy by depicting them being good at chess. Those two have zero relation. Total war on the other hand, get good at that and you’re cracked at strategy
In my teenage years I really tried to master it well. I score relatively high in chess.com and lichess but I share your sentiment. If you are a chess master it doesnt mean you are super smart it means you are super good at chess.
Science confirms this in a way. Prof Andrew Huberman has a podcast episode about games in general and their effect the brain development and the takeaways:
- Games can help the brain development according to publications because of the different experiences that you will never have irl
- The positive impact was only noticed when you play a variety of games under different setups and not when you master a single game and play it a lot
So… disclaimer first! I have played chess but only a year or so; I got into chess during the pandemic and had a peak ELO of ~1600+ on chess.com and 1900+ on Lichess; probably translates to a classical ELO of ~1200 (competition is tough in classical…). Obviously I’m not remotely a good player, but I can hold my ground. I also had to do a neuropsych evaluation recently for mental health reasons, so I spent the last month of my free time looking into research of intelligence (g factor, IQ tests, the disturbing history, etc…) for my own curiosity. So I might have a bit of knowledge on this… but:
For the most part chess is its own unique skills and is unrelated to “smartness”. Nevertheless, I think chess might be related to probably just one or two specific narrow fields of intelligence. Being good at chess requires one to be knowledgeable of various chess openings (memorization, working memory), extremely strong pattern recognition (Magnus Carlsen is really good at this; AlphaZero was literally all pattern recognition due to the way it works), and being able to see 5, 10, or even 15 steps ahead and consider all the rational options (again, working memory)
I just took the WAIS-V test two weeks ago for my psych eval, and they do indeed test for working memory and pattern recognition in specific sub-tasks. However the difference is… IQ tests are never meant to be practiced as they measure a type of “potential” if you may, but chess is all about what you actually play on the board. Sure maybe if ppl were literally just given the rules and had no prior exposure then a smarter person might spot a forced checkmate faster, but ppl do pratice for the game… In fact, the advice people used to give to get better at chess is… to do more puzzles
Sooo… methinks an intelligent person might have a slight edge training themselves to do the above, but there is probably otherwise very little association. After a certain point intelligence itself probably has no influence on chess performance whatsoever, and realistically it’s more about “grit”, or how much time/effort someone puts into the game
Aaand… case in point. Apparently Kasparov went through a 3-day intensive intelligence test, but had a really “spiky” profile that is more commonly seen in neurodivergent individuals; scored really high on some categories and abysmally low on others. I saw this random Reddit post which says that Carlsen scored 115(+1SD) on AGCT (a fairly quick and accurate online test), which is not low but not impressive by any means either. Nakamura allegedly got 102 on Mensa Norway’s trial test, which is not as accurate as AGCT but should be fairly good too; 102 is like dead-average
Folk always seem to underestimate the effect of training and experience. In a match between two unpracticed players, sure, the more analytically inclined of the two will have an edge. This is true of any game with a strategic component. General intelligence helps but specialist knowledge is better.
This got me wondering about lionising Go in films. I think I need to start a such a movement amongst directors or screen writers.
I’m hilariously bad at chess. I learned the fools gambit and never progressed.
The pared-down nature of chess really puts me off. I’m sure there’s some elegant simplicity in it but I mostly find it dull. I like an element of randomness in my games.
Chess doesn’t feel like a gateway to other, more fun games, and if it’s not a fun game for me, why would I pursue it? I’m fairly sure it doesn’t build skills that translate to anything else.
I also get that there are layers to it, although I’m adding that as apparently that’s not so self-evident as to be taken as read. I can see where the path leads and find it no more appealing than the obnoxiously boring gambling machines in casinos, or Dota2, or athletics. Learn the meta, build an understanding of the underlying concepts in order to be able to build more complex strategies based on a combination of instinctive statistical analysis and assessment of your opponent, etc. etc… I get it, I’m just not interested.
Edit: oh that’s interesting, some of you have gone into my profile and systematically downvoted my older comments. That’s what I get for not just blocking a Lemmy.ml user as soon as they chimed in.
Chess is a logic puzzle that changes as you play it, with the randomness coming from player interaction. If you’re not into solving those kinds of puzzles, you’re probably not going to have fun.
Pretty much the problem. It’s very pure but I find that puts me off rather than draws me in. I kind of have the same problem with Quake 3!
I find that I don’t like full games of chess, but chess.com has these little chess puzzles that highlight the surprising deviousness of the rules that can turn a sure defeat into a swift victory.
They also have an algorithmic engine that will calculate the general effectiveness of each move so you can get instant feedback, which I like.
I guess I need more focus in the things I play, and chess is just too broad as a game.
Elon is that you.
If you’re going to throw around an insult like that I’d like to see some working. I find chess boring, I’m not a fucking fascist.
He was ref this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi5ypuLXnVs
Regardless it’s an insult I wouldn’t throw at anyone other than a fascist.
I’m sure there’s some elegant simplicity in
There is! It can get REALLY cool once you get just a bit inro it.
Chess doesn’t feel like a gateway to other, more fun games, and if it’s not a fun game for me, why would I pursue it? I’m fairly sure it doesn’t build skills that translate to anything else.
If you’ve never learned how to read, then while you’re learning it’s difficult to imagine reading books for fun.
If I don’t enjoy stumbling on pronunciations and having to look up the meaning of words, then how will I ever enjoy books?
Well books aren’t about getting stuck in the pronunciation, you can only really start enjoying reading after you’ve already learned how and the built in rules and patterns are things you understand and can play with.
It’s up to you whether to put in the effort to learn to read, but for someone who hasn’t yet learned to say they “don’t like reading”. Sorry but you havent actually experienced what reading for fun actually is yet.
I really don’t buy this comparison at all. I think a better comparison would be to JRPGs - “it gets fun after 30 hours!” There’s also the presumption that a game like chess must be fun and everyone will definitely enjoy it. I’m really glad you enjoy it, I find it irritating that I don’t. However if the basics of it don’t draw me in, and I see no ancillary value in learning how to play it to a higher level, why would I continue? The world is full of enjoyable diversions and not everything is for everyone. I enjoy playing football (as in soccer) but find watching it to be awful. If I invested enough time I could perhaps find myself engaged enough in the bigger picture, care about the minutia, but why? There’s so many other things I found enjoyable from the outset. Reading included.
I think that’s a much worse comparison tbh.
There’s no presumption that a game like chess must be fun, all I said is that we are unable to objectively judge whether chess is fun or not before we’ve learned the rules and memorized common openings.
However if the basics of it don’t draw me in, and I see no ancillary value in learning how to play it to a higher level, why would I continue?
You shouldn’t. No one’s telling you to do things you don’t like. I’m just saying don’t accuse reading of being “unfun” because you hate learning grammer and punctuation.
If you say “i don’t see the value in chess so it’s not worth it struggling through the unfun part of learning the basics” then we have no issue. See the difference?
It’s the basics you hate. You have no clue how you feel about chess cause you haven’t really played it yet.
If I invested enough time I could perhaps find myself engaged enough in the bigger picture, care about the minutia, but why?
You’re focusing on the wrong question.
If it is possible to invest enough time that it becomes fun, then why are you trying to insist that thing is inherently just unfun.
It’s unfun at the level you’re at, but the next level is a completely different game.
I’m not saying you have to go to the next level, just stop judging it based on the current level.
all I said is that we are unable to objectively judge whether chess is fun or not before we’ve learned the rules and memorized common openings.
At no point did I seek to judge it objectively.
I have played some chess at various points throughout my life. My subjective judgement is that it didn’t grab me, unlike many, many other games. It might well have some divine beauty to it but the subjective barrier to entry is far too high. I also don’t bother with TV shows that “get good in the second season” or endure multiple chapters of tedium before bailing on a book.
I’m just saying don’t accuse reading of being “unfun” because you hate learning grammer and punctuation.
You’re now putting words in my mouth.
At what point did I state anything other than a subjective opinion?
In fact I went out of my way to make it abundantly clear that these are my opinions and not a judgement on the game as a whole.
It’s unfun at the level you’re at, but the next level is a completely different game. I’m not saying you have to go to the next level, just stop judging it based on the current level.
If this thread is anything to go by, I wish I’d played even less chess than I already have. Sorry that I’m enjoying my hobbies wrong?
I have not enjoyed my limited experiences with chess. They have turned me off pursuing it further. The same is not true of many other games I’ve played. To me that makes chess subjectively worse than those other games.
At no point did I seek to judge it objectively.
That was exactly the reason for my response. :)
Your subjective opinion that “chess is unfun for you” ignores the objective lack of knowledge of what chess even is. I believe something is unfun for you, I just disagree that it’s the game of chess you’re describing.
What you are calling “chess” here is the basics. It’s not the game Magnus Carlson plays.
I have played some chess at various points throughout my life. My subjective judgement is that it didn’t grab me, unlike many, many other games. It might well have some divine beauty to it but the subjective barrier to entry is far too high. I also don’t bother with TV shows that “get good in the second season” or endure multiple chapters of tedium before bailing on a book.
Fair!
Once again I’m not here to convince you to play it or that it even would be fun if you did. Watch and play what you want. Just also recognize everything has a learning curve and that it is an error to misattribute frustrations in general along the learning curve with frustrstion towards the actual thing once it’s been learnt.
You’re now putting words in my mouth.
At what point did I state anything other than a subjective opinion?
“Chess doesn’t feel like a gateway to other, more fun games, and if it’s not a fun game for me, why would I pursue it?”
Right in here. You don’t actually know if it’s a fun game for you or not. You just know it’s unfun to learn at your current level and don’t see it getting more fun any time soon to he worth sticking with.
Happens to me with countless games and hobbies. I used the book analogy to explain how someone learning to pronounce and sound out words complaining that “reading isn’t fun for me” isn’t actually complaining about reading, they’re complaining about learning to read. Those are different things.
In fact I went out of my way to make it abundantly clear that these are my opinions and not a judgement on the game as a whole.
You did. But there’s an objectiveness hidden in the subjective opinion.
As an analogy, if I saw a child in a burning building I could say as a subjective opinion “I will save that child”.
The problem is under pressure and actual flames of a fire, I can’t know how I would act. Maybe I’d panic and wouldn’t actually be able to do it, or maybe some switch would go off and I’d rush in.
The point is I don’t know because I’ve never been in that emergency situation. I’m unqualified to make subjective statements about how I’d react to completely unfamiliar states of mind.
Maybe chess is unfun for you, maybe it’s not. Insert ANY hobby in that statement, it’s not about chess specifically.
Until you’ve learned the thing you can’t even make subjective statements about yourself and how you’d act with knowledge you DONT HAVE.
If this thread is anything to go by, I wish I’d played even less chess than I already have. Sorry that I’m enjoying my hobbies wrong?
Why are apologizing lol?
You aren’t enjoying your hobbies wrong, I just think you’re thinking about them in the wrong way.
I think you mean “X is unfun to learn” instead of “X is unfun”.
I think you admitted you don’t know enough about X to say if it’s fun one way or the other.
I have not enjoyed my limited experiences with chess. They have turned me off pursuing it further. The same is not true of many other games I’ve played. To me that makes chess subjectively worse than those other games.
That’s okay I guess.
I could spend a few hours with no tutorial failing to learn Dwarf Fortress and just conclude the game is unfun and live my life that way perfectly fine.
Does it actually mean the games unfun for me? No, of course. It just means I’m preventing myself from giving a chance to things I misjudged.
What I played was called chess, followed the rules of chess, and seemed to be chess. I didn’t like it.
Building an opinion around the game I actually played rather than some hypothetical higher level game feels like an extremely reasonable approach to me. I’m sorry that you feel it’s not, I guess.
I understand you didnt like it haha. That was never unclear.
But why do you keep feeling the need to apologize to me? Don’t self flagellate, just state what you believe without worrying about upsetting me, this is just about understanding a concept. Theres no emotion here. I think you are almost there and actually nailed the point you’re just missing the nuance.
This is perfectly on the money here
Building an opinion around the game I actually played rather than some hypothetical higher level game feels like an extremely reasonable approach to me.
Fully correct. Build your opinion around the game you actually played, which unspoken but importantly in that implies you should leave room for potential different opinions on the game you haven’t gotten to yet.
When a little kid says “I hate math” we don’t want to take that as inate truth about them, it probably has more to do with their boring math teacher.
Get them into Minecraft, if they’re into sports get them into learning stats for their favorite players.
I am super passionate about learning and what I’ve learned about the human brain is all it takes is for the right mindset and sometimes a thing just clicks. Not always, but trying to leave room for the myself I could grow into is a huge part of growth in general as a human.
You at 40 is not you at 30 which isn’t you at 20. Accept my advice or not, you’ll look back one day and I guarantee you won’t recognize the person you once were.
I’m really at a lose about how what you wrote addresses their analogy. You just say that you don’t buy it and that the basics should draw you in.
Don’t get me wrong. You don’t have to like chess. I don’t particularly like chess, but I know the basics and know that I have to play a lot of games to get to the enjoyable part. In that way, their analogy is apt.
I’m not the guy you’re replying to, but it is a bad analogy since learning to read a language leads to more exciting things, even if you don’t enjoy reading books. You can communicate, do science, watch movies with subs etc. But learning chess does not make you good at anything else. (Tbh, I’m speaking out of my ass here, and will stand corrected if presented with research showing otherwise.)
Your points are correct but I think you misunderstand what my analogy was intended to do. None of this makes it a bad analogy.
I don’t disagree with you that reading opens the doors to so many other things than chess does.
I also never intended to imply chess is a transferable skill. Chess skill, for matters of this discussion, could be entirely useless outside of the specific context of a chess game.
The reason i made the analogy betwen learning to read and reading for fun is because I’m trying to illustrate the difference of 500 ELO chess and 2500 ELO chess.
If you play 500 ELO chess you DO NOT KNOW what 2500 ELO chess is, you could not explain the reasons behind a single move which is made in strategy, you can barely identify how to move your horse.
That’s part of my point. If we were talking about painting then the skills might well be useful for other stuff, but everything I’ve read says that it’s just a game. It doesn’t build other useful skills.
Im gonna say it… i dont care, im gonna say it!
CHESS 👏 IS 👏 FUCKING 👏 DUMB
The best you can do is lose to a robot. Good job 👍
You know what is not stupid? Hot dog competition. Try to alphazero this wrustel now robot. 🥖
Robot can’t win hot dog competition 💪
The best you can do is apparently lose to a robot.
Oh yea? We do chess shaming now? Did you know that many people have a proper disease and can’t play chess too well? Do you think it’s fair to mock them like this? Look it up on google, it’s called “having a life”, very debilitating.
/s
People need to stop putting chess on a pedestal. Its a game. General intelligence has no bearing. Its a specific skillset you can hone by practice and research, just like any other game.
Would be hilarious if Hollywood moved away from chess to show someone being smart and instead showed them yelling at teammates in League of Legends.
It is a super deep game for how simple it is, i think that’s the “genius” part. But remembering openings in chess and their names doesn’t make you a genius, it makes you a genius in chess.
Almost anything where memorization is the primary skill is going to be dominated by people with specific interest, rather than general high intelligence (certainly doesn’t exclude it, but it’s just statistics). Gotta look for something frequently requiring novel problem solving and adaption to filter for high probability of high general intelligence.
Then there’s also a lot of games requiring very narrow intellectual ability. Being able to parse a specific ruleset, or doing a specific kind of math fast, without needing to be able to handle anything novel. You’ll certainly find some “interesting individuals” around those kinds of games.
Being able to parse a specific ruleset, or doing a specific kind of math fast
Oh man, I would love competitive tabletop games, where the goal isn’t to min/max your build, but to min/max your build after being given a brand new system and 45 minutes to read the rules.
Lol, I can relate. My friends are always surprised how good I am at a game when I’m playing for the first time (mostly card games, and board games). But I quickly get bored, so never get to be actually good at any of those.
Same with language. I can pick up a little bit of any language fairly quickly, but to actually learn it, I basically need to be forced e.g. live in a place where most people don’t speak anything else.
Gotta look for something frequently requiring novel problem solving and adaption to filter for high probability of high general intelligence.
So, to riff off another commenter - league of legends 😅
Boy is it a toxic and frustrating game but I will give it credit where it’s due, you have to make good tactical decisions in not a lot of time.
I’m sure overwatch et al. work as well.
If you’re going to give a “MOBA” as an example, at least go for Dota 2, then. Having played both, LoL is quite one-dimensional and rather repetitive. Of course, you don’t have to be smart or skillful to play either, but top Dota 2 players/pros are really something else.
I play Pokémon Unite a lot. Very wide variation in abilities and skillsets
Based on the number of comments in this thread, apparently this is a common misconception. Memorization is not the primary skill of chess. Knowledge of chess principles and common ideas, strategies, and tactics and the ability to synthesize those ideas with elements of the current position are the primary skill of chess. In fact, novel problem solving is very fundamental to the game.
Opening theory prep ultimately makes up a pretty small part of the game (though it is more pronounced at top levels of play). The primary purpose of studying openings is not to just memorize a bunch of lines (though having lines prepped is helpful), but to understand the common thematic elements that arise from said openings and common middlegame positions and ideas.
Exactly, Chess is Mario Kart.
Anyone can learn how to play Chess. Anyone can learn how to play Mario Kart.
You slap a controller in someone’s hand tell them “A” is go and they can play Mario Kart. Sure they have to learn the track, where to collect power ups, where the shortcuts are, and eventually they have to learn about and master drifting.
But being a genius in Mario Kart doesn’t make you a genius. No heist movie ever said, “And this genius over here? They scored first place in 200cc Special Cup.”
I want a version of chess where if you’re down enough material, you have the opportunity to take out half your opponent’s pieces
I think anarchy chess allows for such rulings.
I used to play Atomic Chess a lot, it could also be a good modification along the same lines.
It’s that to be good you have to think several moves ahead. Being able to predict and plan out you and the opponents next 5 moves takes intelligence.
Chess is mostly a memorisation game for gambits / openers and subsequent sets of follow-on moves.
After that, it’s mentally simulating the board state a few moves ahead, varying pieces and guesstimating probability of what move the opponent will make. A lot of that you start to memorise, especially since other chess enthusiasts will often play well-known gambits / strategies.
Intelligence often correlates with memory but they’re not one and the same. I grew up knowing a competitive chess player and remember the time they referred to their “hambag” (handbag). English was their mother tongue…
“Ah ha! I see you’ve played the Frenchman’s Cumsock. I will have checkmate in 4 moves!”
Wait, my hand is still on the piece… I… have … not… completed… my… move
“I understood that reference”
KOLANAKI
Yeah I was sorta interested in pursuing Chess more at least as a hobby a few years ago. Learning about the ‘meta’ strategy was kind of intimidating and discouraging. The basic strategy is interesting to me but learning and memorizing different games just sounds awful to me. I guess it’s like most things - the more you learn about it the more you realize there is a lot more to it than what you initially thought it was.
I’ll gladly eat shit for a controversial opinion, but I mentally put chess pros in the same basket as those guys that would queue solely for Office in counterstrike and reach global elite. Like sure, it’s still an impressive time commitment, I just feel like there were better things to put that into. I hate MOBAs and yet I’d respect a professional DOTA player more? But I’m more than familiar with the fanbase of Chess and how defensive they get.
The person who taught me chess was constantly perplexed by my bizarre tactics. He found it refreshing and interesting. Obviously, I had no idea what I was doing, and I got nuked to oblivion on a regular basis. Maybe he was expecting to see some popular moves, but was only faced with whatever sketchy tactics I could come up with.
I have a mishmash dialect as we moved around a lot when I was a child; very rural, too. I’ll say “hambag” and “ain’t” and “me an’ this guy” and my sister says “ambliance”, but we spell it all correctly.
Did your chess expert know the spelling and say it wrongly, or was there confusion about the spelling too?
They thought it was because the leather was from a pig…
I think it’s a good name if it’s a pigskin bag. Gonna start calling my wife’s bag that now. Most of her other bags are nylon or whatever, but on she’s had for 20 years is some kind of leather.
Ain’t ain’t a non-word. I’ll fight anybody who says otherwise.
This is not at all what chess is. This reads to me like you don’t really play chess?
Like sure, good chess players have studied opening theory for the openings they play (and top players know at least some theory about most competitive openings), but there’s so much more to the game than simple memorization. Memorizing a bunch of lines and doing nothing else will get you nowhere with the game. Chess is about principles, concepts, ideas, strategies. It’s about tactics and positional ideas and how the two intersect. It’s about tempo and conducting the initiative. There’s a reason it’s the game with the most number of books written about it by a large margin. It’s an incredibly deep game that rewards investment and fine-tuning your own learning process (and, in fact, a great deal of unlearning bad ideas you learned earlier).
It is decidedly not a game about memorization, even if there is some amount of it involved. At high level of play, memorization (or what we simply call “prep”) is table stakes for playing the actual game. At lower levels, many players don’t know a lot of opening theory and simply rely on some combination of positional ideas, tactics, and calculation.
Do you know what rating your friend was at? In my experience, the super strong players I’ve met (including a Senior Master that occasionally visits our chess club who’s 2450 USCF or so) are incredibly intelligent and sharp. Anecdotally in my own chess career (only ~1134 USCF atm, though I think I’m a bit underrated due to my last tournament being in 2023), I’ve definitely noticed a difference in my own thinking since I started studying chess. Progressing in chess involves a lot of meta-cognitive thinking, and that kind of thing translates to all kinds of things in life.
this is inaccurate. edit tbd
If you want to beat all of your friends at chess:
learn how to mate in endgames with a few different combinations of pieces.
Castle early and on the same side of your opponent.
Learn to defend scholars mate.
Focus on piece development early on, get you back rank pieces out (bishops knights)
Fight for the center
When attacking a square, just count how many other pieces are attacking and defending that square and see if you have more than your opponent, this is a great way to quickly analyze an attacks value.
Trade when you have a piece advantage, this is like taking a math question and simplyifing the terms. It greatly simplifies the game and brings it in to the the end game with an advantage.
Learn any one opening system just a few branches that can consistently bring you into tactics (static analysis of the board state) even or with a slight advantage.
These tips can be accomplished in a week and will dominate anyone who ‘just knows the rules’
Got it. To beat my friends at chess i just need to learn to play chess.
Funny, but really, those things are marginally more effort than learning the rules and are a far cry from the level of effort it takes to actually be considered broadly ‘good’ at chess.
Learning one opening system can be done in about an hour and most of the tactics advice is just things to think about as you play.
I also think it’s a generational thing.
Back then, since chess was associated with intelligence, a lot of academic types tried to play it and get good at it.
I would say once we had computers, there was another much more practical thing you could get good at.
But seriously, chess sets used to be part of the house decor.
I know someone who is pretty good at chess but also thinks vaccines are fake, Musk is a genius, and Ukraine belongs to Russia.
So not all chess players are smart.
I don’t think a minority of rightwingers are dumb. I think they’re invested in their idea of their team, and any insult to their team is an insult to them. They root for Trump. It’s like that one guy you know who owns a lot of Lakers memorabilia despite living in Texas. The media, expectations, their own investment, the threat of being wrong or misguided, “Me? Never!”, vastly outweigh any sort of critical thinking. Its straight denial to the core.
But a vast majority? Yeah, dumb as an absorbent trash bag.
Do you know their rating? Tbh most people’s idea of being “pretty good at chess” is actually not very good at all (I don’t mean that as an insult, more lack of familiarity with the game).
That’s not to say that it’s impossible for someone to think those things and be a strong chess player, but it’s probably not super common. I’ve actually ran into a couple people at a local chess club with “interesting” ideas about vaccines and uh… let’s just say they were not hard to beat (I think I mated one guy in like 12 moves). And btw, I’m not even a super strong chess player myself (~1134 USCF). But like, they probably would seem really strong to someone that just occasionally plays chess at family gatherings or whatnot. Chess is a game with a low skill floor and very high skill ceiling, so you have a huge range in ability.
2000 ish, apparently.
The only famous douche I know that’s very good at chess is Andrew Tate lol
Paul Morphy, chess genius and sometimes described as best in the world in the mid-1800s:
“The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life.”
Why play chess with Moriarty when you can just bash him in the head with a chessboard?
Chess requires dedication, conviction, and patience. Anyone with average intelligence can learn the game to the point of competence in 30 minutes.
It requires much more time to become an expert, or master.
And most people don’t have that much time to expend on it. That’s not something to be ashamed of.
You also need a sharp memory. I’m good in math, but terrible in remembering things. I forget terms that I’m actively doing research on, and constantly need to look at notes. (Aside: I work on modular forms, and often write them down as MF in my notes. I have more than once read that aloud as motherfucker, once in front of my advisor. Dude is chill, so it’s fine. But I dread the day it happens during a talk lol.)
Much of the game of chess, particularly becoming an expert or a master, relies on memorizing every possible move and, then, every possible counter move. Mastery of chess is almost always reliant upon that memorization.
The game itself is not that complex, and most people can learn how to play chess fairly quickly. Much of the apparent wizardry of chest mastery is actually just a sign of excellent memorization of every possible move and it’s possible counter moves.
There’s not a lot of creativity in chess
I think DeGroots work in the 30s and 40s shows otherwise. Grandmasters know rather quickly what they were going to do in general as they orient to the board state. Then they explore a small set of moves and explode them into a few moves into the future and pick the best candidate. Finally, they spend time verifying their selection.
They have good memories, for sure, but for real game states. This is a quote from Herb Simon, an important early researcher in psychology and computer science:
The most extensive work to date on perception in chess is that done by De Groot. In his search for differences between masters and weaker players, de Groot was unable to find any gross differences in the statistics of their thought processes: the number of moves considered, search heuristics, depth of search, and so on. Masters search through about the same number of possibilities as weaker players-perhaps even fewer, almost certainly not more-but they are very good at coming up with the “right” moves for further consideration, whereas weaker players spend considerable time analyzing the consequences of bad moves.
De Groot did, however, find an intriguing difference between masters and weaker players in his short-term memory experiments. Masters showed a remarkable ability to reconstruct a chess position almost perfectly after viewing it for only 5 sec. There was a sharp drop off in this ability for players below the master level. This result could not be attributed to the masters’ generally superior memory ability, for when chess positions were constructed by placing the same numbers of pieces randomly on the board, the masters could then do no better in reconstructing them than weaker players, Hence, the masters appear to be constrained by the same severe short-term memory limits as everyone else, and their superior performance with “meaningful’ positions must lie in their ability to perceive structure in such positions and encode them in chunks.
That makes sense. Here’s a video of Magnus Carlson identifying famous chess positions without seeing that actual pieces in the board and usually knowing what happens next. It’s incredible
Apparently Carlson loses his keys regularly as well. So this type of memory is domain specific.
I’d argue that there is a certain kind of creativity in coming up with those moves. But since it’s mostly a solved game now, modern players probably don’t experience it anymore.
I’m certainly happy to hear that climate change is “solved” now, but that doesn’t really address the problems I raised. Particularly, what is the OP’s opinion on the advancements in green initiatives/goals that Apple has made as discussed in the article?
Huh?
Might be an AI Bot?!
If you can’t make sense of your own proposition, repeated to you, then don’t be surprised when nobody else can make sense of it either
Wtf are you talking about? I’m gonna give you the benefit of doubt, and assume that you’re replying to the wrong thread.
Removed by mod
Do you understand this is discussion about chess?
Sir, this is a Wendy’s
A lot of it is bluffing, like in Poker.
If you get to that level, you know all the strategies and moves.
It’s all about tricking someone into making a mistake.
This couldn’t be further from the truth, and it’s pretty clear you don’t actually play the game. I had no idea this misconception was so common.
Chess is ALL ABOUT creativity and figuring out how to outplay your opponent and secure a win. It’s a game of strategy and tactics, of timing and technique. The way “memorization” works is that players tend to have some number of moves in their opening(s) memorized (typically 5-10, though top players can go to greater depth), at which point they are “out of book” and into the middlegame, which is where the game is actually played using some combination of positional ideas, tactics, and calculation. Many players opt to play less theoretically viable openings (that is, variations that are not quite as good with best play), because it gets their opponent out of book faster. “Novelties” (a move in a variation not previously played by a master/grandmaster in a tournament) are played all of the time, even by grandmasters.
[odd topic?]
This is from an essay about writers. The author said that you see a lot of architects in movies because it’s a fast and easy way to convey that someone is ‘artistic’ and a bit of a dreamer. It doesn’t matter that real life architects are much more about engineering that artistry; it works for a character.
The same thing with chess, it’s a fast and easy way to present a ‘smart’ character.
Architects or advertising executives. Sometimes lead male is one and lead female is the other.
I think it was one of the writers on Cracked that opined it’s because those are the only jobs screenwriters partially understand. They’re people who pitch ideas to customers, kind of like screenwriters do with scripts. So you get a lot of main characters that have a weirdly large amount of down time, a looming deadline to present an idea for an ad campaign or building to your boss and the three executives your boss is kissing up to. Is it the moment of triumph for our main character, has our main character had a change of heart that he can’t run a greenwashing campaign for ExxonMobile anymore because hippy dippy love interest got to him, and now his previous life is going to fall apart and he’s going to start over as a shop owner in a small town or something…
I’ve noticed that a lot of the women in rom-coms are bakers.
Then you’ve got the Hallmark movie they’ve remade 90,000 times now, where the women are usually some kind of lawyer or executive or something, who travels to a small town likely where she was raised for some contrived reason only to find what she really needs: Some stuffed flannel with designer stubble.
I want that in the next satire. A business card with
Angelina Jolie
Some kind of executive
Or lawyer
on it
I think my top favorite business card simply said
John Doe
Legitimate Businessman
I remember a sign from The Simpsons.
Legitimate Italian Businessmen’s Club.
Also from that episode “It’s an Italian American Mexican stand-off!”
