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

In OTB I try at least to play a Bit logical ;)

Intuitive logic half the time. Logical intuition all other times.

I just put the moves into my chess engine and make the move the computer plays in the game. 

In slow games, when I try to implement too much logic I get into time trouble and have to keep going with my intuition from that point, anyway ;)

In sharp tactical games, logic is very important (precise calculations) but intuition helps the logic by finding the right moment to come up with a combination. I have to admit I rarely miss tactical shots when they are possible because my intuition (pattern recognition) works well and I can fell that a position is ready for a sac.

When I was much more active player (many years ago) my intuition worked even better. I made moves which I could not understand but something told me to make them. Their meaning became clear after action proceeded (sometimes a piece occured at the best position for defence, sometimes for attack). When I refused to follow my intuition and chose a more logical move the game usually went worse for me.

Of course, there is no intuition without studying chess. I fed my with lots of books, playing through master games, analysing my own games, solving tactics.

"However, doing a philosophy degree prompts  people to look at questions more from a variety of potential standpoints and it provides a basic mental discipline so as to facilitate the anticipation of irrelevant objections and a possible decision to ignore them, for instance. :)"

Couldn't agree more.

Anyway, as to the rest of your post, the objections you have raised seem to be ones I've already responded to. I'm not assuming every cause must have one possible outcome; it just seems more plausible to believe that than to assume the opposite. I admitted before in fact that we can't disprove "extra possible effects," at least not by normal empirical means, but again I look at it similarly to saying we can't disprove that there is a giant green laser 50 trillion miles above us. I would agree with such a statement, but it wouldn't make me think that laser is likely to exist. I'm going to believe in things that are more plausible more preferentially than the opposite, even if I can't be sure :)

"because it in no way may be based on a consideration of empirical observations, since it's impossible to observe that only one outcome is possible for every cause."

Well, there is some empirical basis :) Take for example observing the same cause creating the same effect in many different instances (rather than just one). But I agree, it's possible that it was just a big coincedence :)

I do see where you're coming from. There are certain assumptions that have to be made with probably any theory. But at least I'm not begging for the laser to be true and so just assume it; I'm still looking for logical connections between my ideas before I posit something. Is that fallible? Sure, but it's the best I have and so I'm not going to disrespect it.

The entire edifice of philosophy is built on the bedrock of meaning.

But, when you ask the ultimate question:

What is the Meaning of Meaning?    The entire edifice comes tumbling down like a house of cards.

Eh, not really. Obviously our ideas (at least the bulk of them, certainly the fundamental ones) about the world come before our language is built to represent them.

As toddlers we say "cha cha hamat", as we point, and our parents say, "tree"

To summarize, Optimissed, I feel like your objections are effective in arguing for how difficult it is to be sure, but they don't really say much about what is plausible and not plausible to believe. I could make a big deal about how the super high laser I have been talking about is "outside of our framework of observations" or something flowery like that, but again that's just saying we can't know there isn't a laser up there, and says nothing about whether it makes sense to (fallibly) believe it or not.

I think it's very important to play with emotion - controlled assertiveness, of course. A person's desire to win can get you emotional. I like interesting positions over winning - unless I'm in a tournament - which I last was in 1997........So, the feeling of anxiety before and during play and, more importantly,  knowing the expected feeling when I win or lose (elation, contentedness, happy or frustrated, angry, depressed) is enough to motivate me.

I'm probably a little off topic here. But, I feel you can't really separate logical or intuitive thinking from your emotional state while playing. That's why I think the main reason for a player having 'good' chess days or 'bad' days begins with their emotional state - which will affect their logical or intuitive thought process........

Interesting. But some would argue not caring about the result makes you more objective, hold back less and play the best you can. On the other hand it might make you make a careless blunder because you're not checking for them like your life depends on it!

So it's hard to say honestly. For me, I am happy to win, but I fully accept a loss too. The win is like something extra, nice to have, but it's not what my playing chess relies on.

I do like trying really hard to win though. Not because it's so important, but because it allows me to be really absorbed in the game, like I'm temporarily in another world where all that matters is my relationship with the pieces :)

How exactly are we seperating moves based on logic and moves based on intuition. Usually moves based on intuition have become that way through a sort of operant conditioning process (ex/ Usually my rooks work best on open files so I will put them there). We play certain types of moves and tend to repeat those moves that lead to positive outcomes, while not repeating the ones that lead to neurtal or negative outcomes. That seems pretty logical to me.

If by logical you mean activly processing positions, I'd assume that whether one plays logically or intuitively depends on the amount of recognisible patterns they have in their present position if they have no pattern recognition to work off then they will begin using 'logic'. Otherwise they will likely rely primarilyo n intuition, unless another factor such as nervousness kicks in and makes them want to calculate despite having the present pattern commited to memory, in fear of making an error.

AlCzervik wrote:

The Dude abides.

.

You mark your scoresheet 1-0, you are entering a world of pain.

A

WORLD

OF

PAIN!!!!!

If you work on a plan based on principles you have learned, according to your endgame knowledge etc. then it is pure logic: the knowledge is consciously applied in the thought process.

If you rather prefer to think: this rook should get to this file and that knight is best placed on this square than intuition comes into play. You are not trying to find the reasoning for a specific setup, just assume it is going to work (Capablanca had enormous positional intuition like that, he could make moves without calculations because he knew where to put each piece to improve his position).

This is correct.  The 5  visualization pattern memory banks are the ones that enable you to get the right perspective on the position.  In other words, the 5 give you a handle on the position.  After a move seemingly jumps up off the board and smacks you on the forehead in a flash!!  You begin analyzing logically to see if you can find a BETTER move. 

I'm a painter. One of the best painters I've ever known said something like 'Look at someone else's (art) work 100% objectively and without any emotion. A famous name has nothing to do with anything'.

He was trying to say....paint with all the deepest emotion you can generate while working on a piece. But, when looking at a piece, keep all this in mind.

Someone awhile back said the greatest chess games are from unknowns. I believe that. Chess is partially art....you must play partially with emotions. 

Very true for humans.  Not for machines.  Machines are slowly but surely taking the art out of chess and freezing it in silicon.  Look at the Nalimov endgame tablebases.

Take a look at this video about the Mating Net forced mate for K+B+N vs.  K:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3EqM17jvOc

This video demonstrates technical perfection.  Not art

It is like saying that the technique of poetry: rhyme, iambic pantameter, etc. is poetry.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Thankfully words are like crystals.  You turn them one way and mean one thing.  Turn them another way and they mean something completely different.  That, if not infinite, or almost  infinite variety of words is the essence of art.

A short poem from Edna St. Vincent Millay titled "First Fig"

My candle burns at both ends

It will not last the night

But ah my friends and

Oh my enemies

What a lovely light it makes

(Yarlslavl) That, if not infinite, or almost  infinite variety of words is the essence of art....As is chess. It's the players free will to take the game down one trail or the other. Some moves are forced (determined = logical) and others are by design (free will = artistic = intuition). And if chess is partially art, then it's partially emotion. Why do we call people's names out in openings (Benko Gambit, Richter-Rauzer, etc.) ? Because it's their own little artistic chess creation/contribution.

That's what makes organic chess so beautiful. Now, silicon-based chess is in the middle of trying to ruin this wonderful game. But it won't !....Until it surpasses the artsy-fartsy side of organic chess with AI. This's our last stronghold. And I believe inside, because of this, everyone deep down, hates computer-based chess - cuz it's stripping away our emotional advantage. And we don't like being outplayed by a computer chip that we created !....We have met the enemy....and it is us my love........

Logical, that's why Kirk always wins... ;)

Yaroslavl has plan of Chess, thats what I can tell you for sure.