Are you more strictly logical or intuitive in your thought processes?

Never underestimate the power of playing purely on emotions....it's ultra-motivating !

it's a combination between the both, we always have intuiton guiding us throughout the game, pattern recognition etc... but sometimes it comes down to sheer calcluation, forcing moves and all that. Though to create and deploy your pieces in an organized attack, I believe, utilizes your intuition as a general, commanding your pieces, your army, strategically.

I agree with Optimissed that brilliant moves may not be arrived at logically.  At least, not consciously.

I don't think Elubas argues against this though.  I also agree with Elubas that for any brilliant move, a logical basis can be found in post analysis.

Also I'd like to add that the brilliance of a move isn't a quality of the move itself, but something that comes from the observer.  For the OP's purposes maybe the only distinction worth making is between good moves and bad moves.

As for the OP's #41, I don't think we're qualified to compare Carlsen and Botvinnik.  What's more is I hardly trust the men themselves to give me a correct assessment of how their moves are made.  De Groot said it's all about patterns, and my personal experience is that it's a mix of patterns and calculation (as almost every poster has said).  Daydreams involving hippos in swamps make for a fun read, and are good story telling, but that's about all they are.

Perhaps the fact I am much higher rated in turn-based chess shows I think more logically. This would be because with the analysis board and plenty of time, I can actually process more moves ahead. In quick chess (which I am terrible at), intuition is very important when you don't have time to think all of the possibilities.

Yes, patterns are very important, but this doesn't make chess "less logical." It just means some of the logic is already figured out. I might play a fork because of a pattern, but there is logic behind that pattern.

 Maybe think of a really hard multiple choice question. I might spend 20 minutes figuring out the right answer with difficult logic, but if the next day someone gave me this exact same question, I would just pick or recall the answer without thinking. It's not so much that there is no logic to the question but that I have already solved it once before, and can now just recall the result of that solution.

Maybe I remember the answer was "b," so I can just say that and know I'm right. But to remember the answer was "b," there would have to be a correct answer to remember, so I'd have to have figured it out prior :)

Well, I wasn't really comparing their games, necessarily. Of course I don't know anything in that regard. I was comparing the way in which they describe themselves and their chess. Botvinnik always seems to emphasize the power of logical reasoning and "correctly" evaluating positions while Carlsen has made comments akin to "I usually do what my intuition tells me to" and "I don't calculate that often." Sorry for the confusion.

My intuition tells me elubas is correct, so does logically working out his premise.

also that dude is super good at chess

The Dude abides.

I'm not saying "extra possible effects" don't exist, I'm just asking why you would want to commit yourself to them. It might be that a cool green laser machine exists 10 trillion miles above me -- I can't disprove it -- but what is making me so confident that it's there?

btw, I did have a determinism post, but it doesn't reflect my opinion today. Now, though I believe in determinism, I also believe in free will, because I think contrary to what many (and I once) may believe, I think when we say "free" we don't mean that we have some force outside of physical laws with which to make decisions (if you think about it, it's hard to even understand what that could mean, and why wouldn't that "force" itself be governed by something?), but, roughly, that our decisions are always consistent with what we want at that time -- we're always successful in expressing who we are, even if the physical laws inevitably made us into who we are.

I don't disagree with anything in your second paragraph. If you think it contradicts what I have been saying, then you have misunderstood my point. Intuition is great, and should be used a lot. Although as I argued with my "multiple choice question" example, I think it's merely learned logic, logic you have already essentially figured out before so now all you have to do is recall it when you see a similar pattern. I guess you don't actually have to know the logic -- for example maybe you play a move because it "looks like" something a strong player did -- but if you didn't learn the logic you would probably play "the master's move" in the totally wrong context.

Who said that?

Not sure I would agree with the above quote. I actually used to think chess was 99% tactics, but not anymore, because although almost every game is decided by a tactic, how easy it is to find one is proportional to how good your position is, so it's of course worthwhile to acquire positional advantages.

I assume you could not see the bold and italic 'supposed' before the 99%.

I agree completely and I think people are doing more harm than good highlighting the inportance of tactics with this type of statement.

This type of statement does a lot to minimize the very important strategic planning component in chess. 

Each is useless without the other.

No, that's fine. I just figured if you wanted to casually exchange a few ideas what's the hurt, but we don't need to go into a debate.

Seems pretty on topic to me. No worries.

Not sure if you are talking to me, Elubas or everyone. But, either way, that is fine.

Most of this is all about personal philosophy, not any real provable facts.

For me, personaly, my philosophies have some room for additions/subtractions. It is just a matter of finding a reasoning I can agree with.

Not sure how much you learned if you think taking a philosophy course gives you the answers :) I've taken some philosophy myself, and though it provides useful tools, it also provides tons of unanswered questions. And if you put a hare in a philosophy classroom, I still won't expect any insights from him :)

I think a lot of philosophical questions do have a findable answer; just that they are really hard to find because no one is smart enough :)

Concepts can get confusing, but obviously they must be referring to something for them to be meaningful to us, and that is a lot of what philosophy is trying to figure out. For example, paradoxes can be resolved by making sure we understand our concepts; paradoxes can't actually happen, so we know when it seems like we have logically deduced that a paradox is true, we've gone wrong somewhere in our understanding of the argument or its premises. That's not an empirical problem -- all the info is in front of us -- the problem is in understanding this info.

I can see why that would be a problem, sure, I'm open to that. I'm just not so concerned about it that at first glance it would make me give up determinism. But, maybe you have some ideas that I don't appreciate.

my pa blessis heart alwayz sed that to me

....and emotionally ?