a bunch of y'alls posts actually......thxs
Do you think chess and mathematics are related?
Sort:
Mathematics is related to everything.
Both are associated with nerds.
chess also have a lot to do with deception, foresight and awareness without those you could be good at math all you want and get you king cornered.
If a1 = 11 and h8 = 88, and if g2 = 72 and g7 = 77, you would add 1 to 72 to make 73 for an opening pawn move. Or 52+2=54 for e4. Your opponent would subtract 2 from 57 to get 55 for e5. You can plot it out on a graph. You can also do the moves for rooks and knights and bishop and queens. Pawn capture, en passent. I have not gone too far into it. I don't see much purpose for it except maybe for a chess program. I really just wanted to say chess is math when I was taking a math course at college. Let me know what you guys think.
Not everything with numbers is math.
A knight looks like the number 68, a king looks like the number 69, a queen looks like the number 70, a pawn looks like a tomato, a bishop looks like the number 43774934883, and a rook looks like the number -1. This is how math is related to chess.
I believe we established above that they are second cousins on their mother's side.
JoyofSatan_dot_org wrote:
If a1 = 11 and h8 = 88, and if g2 = 72 and g7 = 77, you would add 1 to 72 to make 73 for an opening pawn move. Or 52+2=54 for e4. Your opponent would subtract 2 from 57 to get 55 for e5. You can plot it out on a graph. You can also do the moves for rooks and knights and bishop and queens. Pawn capture, en passent. I have not gone too far into it. I don't see much purpose for it except maybe for a chess program. I really just wanted to say chess is math when I was taking a math course at college. Let me know what you guys think.
This seems to make no sense. 1. e4 = 54 = 52+2, right? In that case, black playing e4 at some point is also 54 because 55-1=54. What if tyhe queen moves to e4? Is this still 54? If one were to add the piece value to the equation, such as giving a knight +3, then Ne1 = 54. Therefore there is no way to show what moves where, meaning your current system denotes nothing. There are other problems. How about 37... Nfd5? How about Qa1 - Qh8? Your system has nothing to include moving across files, designating pieces, captures, and special descriptors such as check.
The idea of a graph illustrates nothing. Graphs are a visual representation of data. Your system will require two graphs since black also moves. Therefore, soon as black plays 1... e5, they are shown as having a higher number on the graph than white, giving us an asymmetrical graph to represent a symmetrical chessboard. Another option would to have a negative graph for black, but now we're back to descriptive notation. The more important flaw in the graph is that is represents nothing on the chessboard. It does nothing to show the strength of the position, or event he position itself.
What JoyofSatan neglected to mention is that he's using international correspondence chess code.
The way to read it is instead of letters for the files, they receive numbers. And the ranks also have number. Files appear first, so e2 is represented by 52. e4 is represented by 54. 53 would be e3. The normal way to write 1.e4 in such a system is 5254. The advantage of this system is that it does not depend on any letters. Rf1 means Rook to f1 in English, but K to f1 in French.
1.Nf3 would appear as 7163 (g1-f3).
SIMILARITIES:
(i.) Calculation
In both endeavors, there is a need for calculation. Chess specifically involves visual and geometric calculation of chess pieces on a fixed 8x8 board, whereas math involves a wider array of objects to be calculated, from numbers and shapes to mathematical concepts like functions and limits in more diverse settings (i.e., beyond merely an 8x8 2-dimensional board/plane).
DIFFERENCES:
(i.) Chess has not been solved yet, whereas many areas of math have been.
Currently, chess is solved only for eight pieces. In other words, if each side (WHITE & BLACK) have a total of eight pieces or less on the chess board, then for any given configuration of those pieces, there is a solution as to what is the best move - or sequence of moves - to win (or draw). Beyond eight pieces on the board, computers have not yet calculated a solution. And it will be a while before we're able to calculate a solution - be it a win or draw - for all 32 pieces from the beginning of the game.
This means chess endgames with eight pieces or less can be solved by sheer memory and recognition of the position and its solution - albeit still hard for many humans, given the vast numbers of combinations and configurations of pieces still possible with "only" eight pieces in play.
In math, there are many problems that are solved/proved. That's why we know how to and can accurately solve something like a basic quadratic equation. On the other hand, there are also many problems that have not been solved yet and remain open to exploration.
(ii.) "Winning" in chess does not require perfect play, whereas a proof or new development in mathematics does require that you get things 100% correct.
You can play subjectively "bad" chess and still win, as long as you play better than and relative to your opponent. In math, there is no relativity of this sort involved with findings and developments. One has to have a foolproof solution for a finding/development to be considered correct.
thanks a bunch chessmate......nice