An accountancy background, it seems to me, gives you a better grounding for chess than mathematics in general. The typical attributes of an accountant: insight, good professional judgment, integrity and ethics, strategic thinking, planning, a cross-functional perspective, risk management, financial analysis and taxation, strong communication, well versed in IT, strategic vision,  committed to lifelong learning and able to learn from the mistakes of the past - seem to have a close correlation with the requirements for playing sound chess. Knowledge of taxation is likely to prove invaluable in grasping the subtleties of FIDE laws. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2002/07/04/stories/2002070400371100.htm

My math teacher always said that he never really appreciate complex numbers (i squared = -1) until he learned how to use them to become a better chess player. I never figured how he could use them in chess...

Slotemeyer wrote:

My math teacher always said that he never really appreciate complex numbers (i squared = -1) until he learned how to use them to become a better chess player. I never figured how he could use them in chess...

Could your teacher have been using matrix notation [ (1, 4) -> (3,5) ] or vector notation [Q 45˚ +2 ]... { I'm using degrees to make it more intelligible} instead of the traditional algebraic notation? You might arrive at negative numbers this way - though square rooting would still be quite unusual.

dynamicdyland wrote:

i think chess is way more fun than maths!

 It all depends on your interests, if you can apply math to your life than it is a marvel.

I am sure that you have other interests in life and if you asked people if they think it's way more fun, they may agree with you.

Life is all about personal and extrapersonal interests. What you want and need and what you want to do to help others.

 And any contribution is well worth it in my opinion.

Fischer, in one of the interviews, said that math abilities have "very little" to do with playing good chess.

He's been known for controversial statements, but having a look at the top players yes we do see engineers (like Botvinnik) or mathematicians (like Steinitz, Euwe or Karpov) but for example Tal graduated in literature, Kamsky - in law, Korchnoi  - in history, Reuben Fine was a renowned psychologist, Nimzowitsch studied philosophy etc. etc. So it is quite safe to say that representants of human science do rather well.

PS. My sincere congratulations to those who achieved/exceeded 2000 ELO just by playing 6 months on chess.com - well done, guys. Maybe you should slow down! But well done nevertheless

K+B+B v K+N+P? All you have to do is construct the appropriate fibration and the Serre spectral sequence does the rest ;)

mandelshtam wrote:

Karpov was an economist, not a mathematician

You're right - but he studied mathematics before he switched to economics.

Two of the strongest players in our club have doctorates in English. Of course we also have strong players that are more into math. How many people here are posting in a second language and what does that tell you?

there is so many people sharing their opinion some of them are believed and some of them are not agree.. but for me i believed  that people who are good in math is also good in chess and i make myself as one example.. im not spending too much time in studying chess but im already surpassed the 2000 rating..

I buy the idea, but not the argument.  Math and Chess are not completely related, but math is not a dearth of creativity.  I am no mathematician nor do I claim to be a chess expert. I have studied math past linear algebra and differential equations (and I could be a lot worse at chess)  At this level math becomes much more than memorization,  technique is still a huge part of it (much like chess) but also the ability to see a system as a whole and to see the big picture is a huge part of advanced mathematics.  I think this takes some creativity and intuition to do this. In a system of equations if you just plow through them with a particular technique which you memorized, you may be doing things the long way.  If you find some way to simplify things before you start (often this takes creativity) things often become much easier and a new technique may become obvious.  This is good mathematics, this is good chess.

In chess the surest way to defeat is attempting something the long way.  I think the misunderstanding is, in Math there is now real penalty for doing something the wrong way (other than wasting hours of your life and being more prone to errors).  In other words you could be 'good at math' and do things the long way.  In chess doing things the long way leads to interrupted strategies and losses.  A person who performs math with no creativity might have a very tough time over the board.

So maybe it would be better to say, "People who are mathematically efficient, tend to be good at chess."  Haha that sounded really nerdy.

Of course any one who is good in Math has the potential of being a good chess player, the reason is that both require similar skills, Grandmasters dont calculate more than strong chess players, but they have a bigger pattern database stored in their minds, which is a skill that can be learned and improved using Mathematics.