Chess and logical thinking?

Not true. Chess involves many critical thinking like:

should I trade my bishop for his knight, should I weaken my d5 square, but in return I will control that square, should I weaken my structure for activty etc. These are just samples.

Now the players that you came across might be throwing variations at you with explaining the reasoning behind their moves. I suggest you get a book like the Art of Logical Thinking by Neil Mc Donald. These book explain well the logical ideas of GMS games.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to think critically in general, whether the subject is chess, politics, literature, theology etc.

When I was 8 years old my father taught me to play chess. Then he won 100 games in a row.

I knew then that chess was a game of logic and skill.

Later, I found that the ability to think outside the box will greatly increase your chess abilities and results.

"C.   whereas whatever the age of the child, chess can improve children's concentration, patience and persistence and can develop the sense of creativity, intuition, memory, and analytic and decision-making skills; whereas chess also teaches determination, motivation and sportsmanship;"

I think there is some truth to this quote. How much this is true for everyone probably depends on each person's natural predisposition and personality.

I treat "critical thinking" and "logical reasoning" differently. I equate "critical" with "rational" thinking. "Logical reasoning" is just one of the components of rational thought. Critical thought encompasses many types of mental skills, some of which are described in the above quote. I do think chess has the potential to improve one's critical thinking, by enhancing one or several of those underlying skills. I feel that the game is mainly exercising mental discipline... it compels me to be more patient, analytical and systematic in my thought approach. The way I see it, it can help people to think more critically or rationally (and this may affect one's character as well), but not logically.

Don't think the game has much to offer in terms of logical reasoning per se. I'm inclined to think that logical reasoning (inductive, deductive, etc,) is a learned skill. And I think that most people in the mentally healthy range learn some of it one way or another, even if many fail to use it well most of the time. Hell, it would be pretty hard to be autonomous and survive in society without some basic grasp of logic. Most of the "if-then" types of conditionals and some sorts of heuristics that are relevant in the game, are already part of the thinking abilities of most people. Abilities used in everyday life in many ways and contexts.

One may choose to transpose the algorithmic nature of the game to one's life approach or strategy. There may be some advantages to that, I guess. Personally, I'd refrain from treating life as a game of perfect information even if I could. It's impossible to conceive it as a game of perfect information from my limited and subjective point of view, and I'm glad because life predictability is a nightmarish concept to me.

So chess made us all stupid, but it made you a HUGE dick? 

I think the term "logical" is not quite correct. Analytical thought is a better description imo.

Logic certainly applies to successful play. Positions get analyzed, sometimes not logically (relatively). 

I'd have to come down more on the side against logic in chess.

It's far more important to have seen key patterns and have already seen various plans of attack and defense than trying to figure it all out OTB in real-time. Of course, you're out of book in every game, but the more patterns and plans you're familiar with, the better you can apply the information, and more rapidly.

Whip.. I'd say emotional thinking can also be very logical, albeit less thinking. Often over thinking somethings is not particularly logical. Some debate this is a difference of male/female. I do not want to go there. This ls not the place.

Some people like to weigh all the options before making a decision. Sometimes not very logically, but that is what they do, analyze. Others just do or choose not to do. Maybe they can logically process their thoughts in 1 quick moment. Why bother with all the analyzing, when so many factors are open to change?

This is not a good plan for successful chess play. One has to do some analysis, and hopefully it will be logical.

Enter .. ur in the wrong forum. Express ur feelings in the cheating forum. Enter just joined today! The expert at detection has entered the building! Lol

I had a math professor who described doing mathematics as thinking small careful thoughts. There's something to that. The same could be said about chess, at least at slower time time controls.

The way one solves problems in chess is similar to solving problems in math and other subjects. You break the problem into parts (analysis) and put them back together (synthesis) into a solution. Then you have to check your work by steps to make sure it's correct. If not, go back and try again.

Whether chess players, especially young ones, can transfer what they learn from chess to other areas is the question and I'm not sure it's been answered persuasively. Mostly I run into claims, like the European Parliament declaration linked above, that it does.

Judit Polgars Foundation, teaching chess in grades 1-12 certainly would agree with you ipcress.

WK: As I recall, people suffering brain damage which wiped out their emotional responses were unable to make any decisions at all.

One thing I've noticed many times is that bright people who are superb at one kind of logical thought -- troubleshooting technical equipment or becoming doctors or lawyers -- may be terrible at math. It seemed to me more of a psychological block, but I was never sure.

Anyway I just don't jump to the conclusion that because a person is good at one kind of logical thinking they will be able to transfer that skill to other types of logical thought.

And can not the reverse also be true? Some people who are very good at math may not think logically in other areas of thought. By example, child prodigies, savants with so-called high IQ's excell in math, music and chess, but their logical thinking in other areas may be lacking.

True.

----------

(p. 84)

Scientists are now understanding the

true nature of emotions. First, emotions tell us what is good for us and

what is harmful. The vast majority of things in the world are either harm-

ful or not very useful. When we experience the emotion of "like," we are

learning to identify the tiny fraction of things in the environment that are

beneficial to us.

   In fact, each of our emotions (hate, jealousy, fear, love, etc.) evolved

over millions of years to protect us from the dangers of a hostile world and

help us to reproduce. Every emotion helps to propagate our genes into the

next generation.

   The critical role of emotions in our evolution was apparent to neu-

rologist Antonio Damasio of the University of Southern California, who

analyzed victims of brain injuries or disease. In some of these patients, the

link between the thinking part of their brains (the cerebral cortex) and the

emotional center (located deep in the center of the brain, like the amyg-

dala) was cut. These people were perfectly normal, except that they had diffi-

culty expressing emotions.

   One problem became immediately obvious: they could not make

choices. Shopping was a nightmare, since everything had the same value to

them, whether it was expensive or cheap, garish or sophisticated. Setting an

appointment was almost impossible, since all dates in the future were the

same. They seem "to know, but not to feel," he said.

   In other words, one of the chief purposes of emotions is to give us val-

ues, so we can decide what is important, what is expensive, what is pretty,

and what is precious. Without emotions, everything has the same value,

and we become paralyzed by endless decisions, all of which have the same

weight. So scientists are now beginning to understand that emotions, far

from being a luxury, are essential to intelligence.

Kaku, Michio. 2011. Physics of the Future: How Science Will Shape Human Destiny and Our Daily Lives By the Year 2100. New York: Doubleday.

Whip_Kitten,

Are you doing a serious study of logic and chess, or are you just wondering? If you're doing a serious study, I'd recommend you do an exercise our professor had us do in one class I took: study the 15-Puzzle before you study chess. Here's what a 15-Puzzle looks like, for those who haven't seen one:

I used to have one of those made of plastic. The tiles slide around and the goal is to get it from a scrambled state into left-to-right numerical order, from 1 to 15, with the lower right square empty.

This puzzle is much simpler than chess, but like chess (and unlike tic-tac-toe, checkers, and go) you "win" by having a certain type of configuration at the end. Because no captures are possible (unlike checkers and chess), and because there is no promotion (unlike checkers and  chess), and because all the pieces are identical and move in the same way (unlike checkers and chess), and because there is such an extreme lack of space for mobility (unlike checkers and chess), it's much simpler. Like chess (and unlike tic-tac-toe and go) you're moving unique pieces around, in this case the equivalent of rooks that are all on the same side and have very constrained space.

Now if you ask the same questions about logic and try to decide whether this puzzle involves syllogisms, predicate logic, fuzzy logic, or some other kind of logic, it's easier to see that logic simply isn't involved. You're simply moving physical objects--tiles--and noting which tiles are in your way as you focus on a single goal, like how to move the "8" to the lower right-hand corner in the photograph above. It's visualization, pure and simple. Even an animal can solve that problem in its simpler forms, like a bird shoving a piece of bark out of the way to get to the insect it sees or hears hiding underneath, or a rabbit putting a boulder between itself and a charging coyote. Humans just add more steps to the process. Clearly it's not symbolic logic. It might be some new form of logic, however. If you're doing a serious research project we can discuss that possibility further.

There is a "huge hanging dick" in this forum alright, and it isn't inbetween your legs.

Darn. I was hoping to get into some really deep discussion here! Anyway, let me add another comment...

One can see the parallels between the 15-Puzzle and chess in certain events on the chessboard. One type of example is in certain tactical themes like interference and obstruction. Another type of example is in openings where a desired position requires a preliminary motion. Here are some examples of the latter:

(1) Caro-Kann Defense

White wants to play Bf4, but Black "blocks" that move temporarily with ...Qc7, which covers the desired f4-square. This in turn requires White to make a supportive preparation move (Ne2) first. It happens that White has to wait yet another move, thanks to an attacking distraction, but White finally gets to play his desired Bf4. This is analogous to a tile being in the way of another tile, which requires some preliminary motions to remove the obstruction.

(2) Sicilian Defense

White wants to play d4, but if he plays it immediately, he'll get his queen chased off with ...Nc6 after d4 ...cxd4 Qxd4. Black is preventing an immediate and convenient d4, which requires the preparation move Nf3. Again, it's like backing away by one move from the goal of moving a tile into its desired place, to take care of an indirect "blockage."

Note the parallels with the 15-Puzzle:

(1) The tactics don't (yet) involve capture, only unit placement, like tile placement.

(2) To overcome the problems of piece/tile placement, one must visualize moving objects.

(3) To solve the problem, one must work around obstructions of the intended goal.

(4) Backtracking from a desired goal is the standard practice. (Note also that I originally asked you first what your goal was, such as whether it was writing a Prolog program.) Almost all intelligent problemsolving procedures start with a goal, then backtrack. There is a parallel to mathematical proofs, too, since math proofs are usually discovered by manipulating the form of the goal, then presenting the formal proof in the forward direction. This is also how humans often can solve tactical puzzles so quickly: they visualize possible mating positions given the pieces available, then visualize how lines might be cleared or blocked to get the desired configuration.

To relate this to the OP's original question, think of how to overcome problems in everyday life. Chess (and the 15-Puzzle) teaches us that we sometimes have to make a preparation step before we can move into the state of our life that we want. It also teaches us that sometimes delaying threats occur while we're preparing, but if we nullify those quickly and efficiently, eventually we'll achieve our desired state. It also teaches us that sometimes it takes multiple such preparation steps.

Ever see the movie "Gravity"? Remember the scene where the lady astronaut is about to commit suicide because the shelter can't be moved, then she realizes that there is another way to produce mobility? That step happened after they solved the first step of how to get to a shelter. That's a good example of problemsolving where the solution came in a sequence of steps that had to be followed in order, and where each new blockage had to be dealt with before reaching the primary envisioned goal, which was to get back to earth safely. Chess is teaching us the essence of how to solve real-life problems in general, but we need to add wisdom to incorporate its lessons into our daily lives.

Nonsense. We all know that philosophy and mathematics are just branches of chess. 

Someone who is very good in chess is likely to be very good in bridge or poker or some sport or several other things.

Our library carries Garry's book...

Kasparov, Garry, and Mig Greengard. 2007. How Life Imitates Chess: Making the Right Moves, From the Board to the Boardroom. New York, NY: Bloomsbury USA.

...and I took a look at it, but I wasn't very interested in it, even though his view of the game and how it relates to life is the same as mine. I can't get interested in the philosophical threads on chess on this site, either, for the same reason, whatever that reason may be. Maybe I secretly resent people coming up with the same generalities I did? Or maybe I just feel boredom in likely having to read what I already know? Or maybe I'm usually more practically minded, that I just want to play better chess? I don't know, and I'm sure nobody cares.

One thing that definitely interests me, though, is general wisdom, which is closely related to this topic. I find it hard to believe that with all those forced courses in high school (Geography, for God's sake), and with all those electives available in college (Basket Weaving, for God's sake), that no course is offered on wisdom, which is one of the most important things any human being could learn. I attribute this lacuna to political reasons, but that's just my opinion.