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

Can't work out how to import games as yet.

I think it's irrelevant that brilliance may seem illogical or whatever. Intuition involves cutting corners and recognising patterns maybe on a subconscious level. It is irrelevant to our purposes that obviously every move or even every state of affairs in the universe has some sort of causal logic to it, if we aren't privy, at least consciously, to that logic. Really there's no such real thing as "objectivity", which is only an attempt to bring more criteria into our subjective assessments and it all sounds a bit like these "philosophical determinists" who insist that if everything about a state of the universe is known, then all future states could hypothetically be calculated since there's only one possible effect or outcome for each cause. I'd like to see these people prove that any cause cannot have more than one possible effect!

It's still generally true that being up a large amount of material for example tends to lead to checkmate. In a very large percentage of the huge database of positions with overwhelming advantages in material, mate would result. That is indeed an objective fact, I would argue, even if a computer with unlimited vision would not need to know such a fact to solve chess.

I wouldn't disagree that even if in principle everything can be derived, it's not necessarily the most efficient for humans to use such a formal logic process all the time -- that's what intuition is for. However, I think formal reasoning can be good when you are stuck -- when you check for what you're assuming about the position, you may find that you were assuming something too quickly, and this may help you consider a "weird looking" move you otherwise wouldn't have, perhaps a "brilliant" one.

Looks like they've selectively brushed only the teeth they liked ! 

"I'd like to see these people prove that any cause cannot have more than one possible effect!"

Possible effect? Seems difficult to disprove that since "possible effects," by their very nature, aren't supposed to be seen, well, except for the effect that actually happens. Then again why be so eager to simply assume "extra possible effects" exist?

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.

<<Then again why be so eager to simply assume "extra possible effects" exist?>>

I believe in the existence of free will and tend to disagree with Bohm's deterministic interpretation of quantum physics. I'm certainly not a supporter of "many worlds" cosmological theory but I do believe that everything indicates that fixed determinism, where every "cause", if that's what we may name a current state of the universe, only has one possible outcome, is nothing more than a simplistic idealism which cannot be supported by good arguments based on evidence. In other words, there's nothing to indicate that future states of the universe are fixed by previous ones at a quantum level.

Referring to the post just above, it's generally accepted that exceptionally strong chess players don't calculate all that much. Not being an exceptionally strong chess player, I do tend to find that in a difficult position I can get an advantage by calculating all variations even half a move further than the opposition ... but often the effort has been so much that the advantage is squandered. The players I'm frightened of are those who can come up with the same move after a few seconds' thought and really It's when I *am* such a player that I can beat players with higher ratings than myself, just because, on the day, I'm thinking better than they are and with less effort. I think that's what intuition is about.

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.

<<Just think about tactics, the supposed 99% of chess. Effective tactics requires precise calculations. Even a GM would never look at the tactical element of a move and say "Well, I'll just move here because it feels right.".>>

You're jesting? 

Anyway, there's no way 99% of chess is tactics. 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/413662495337233/


Psssst Elubas and others .... nice philosophy group where you can discuss determinism to your heart's content ...

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.

Incidentally, I know this is entirely unimportant but just want to mention that I don't quite agree with your views on the place of logic within chess.