droceretik wrote:
back to draughts.
Chess and Real Intelligence
Sort:
Hi there!
Yeah, it suits me, chess and beer....thinking of trying another type of beer with each opening, which one would run out sooner :)))))
Dec 25, 2011
0
#25
I know he is trolling, but I'll bite.
Have a master at chess play an amatuer in a game of checkers (where both have no significant experience). Now take a guess who can calculate better? I can tell you from personal experience (and not just checkers, things like Gomoku [rather, the Omok variant] as well) that it gives the master a significant edge. Some of the skills gained from chess get transferred to other tasks, which carry similarities.
gamesgeek wrote:
Only few people have tried to explain their point logically.
Uh-oh, somebody else who's still stuck in that "logic" rut.
As obnoxious as the original Q is it does have some merit. Take Chess 960 as an example and you'll see how even strong players can get mixed up when opening repertoire and rote memorization is taken away or kept to a minimum. The ability of strong players to calculate simply MUST be an advantage in these situations however. I cannot see how a weaker player will suddenly be able to out calculate a stronger player if the pieces are mixed up or an extra square is added to the board.
he played a simple trolls gambit - everyone knows the best response is Troll's Gambit Denied. This pretty much proves his point that simple chess skills do not transfer to other situations. Now many strong players will remember the proper response for his next post, but this is based on memory, not intelligence.
gamesgeek wrote:
There is so much study and analysis on chess but what is it really useful for? Chess was originally intended to build analytical skills. But chess has become more of memory game with lot of preparation before a tournament. If a good chess player is asked to play chess on a different board (say 10X10 board) or a variant of chess, he is likely to lose the game to even an amateur. If the game of chess is to serve its purpose then players should be asked to play a set of 10 or 20 neat variants and the cumulative result on these variants should be used to judge a person's thinking skills. Even world championship should be conducted with variants of chess. There should be a surprise element on what would be the board size, shape and rules. I feel most of you will agree with this.
I thought the only purpose of chess was for entertainment and ego gratification. No wonder I lose!
Dec 26, 2011
0
#31
beeph wrote:
he played a simple trolls gambit - everyone knows the best response is Troll's Gambit Denied.
Sez who? People who don't want such posts to appear at all might think the best response is not to reply, and yet here you are.
But for those who enjoy some forum banter, the best response is . . . . . . . . . . a response!
Dec 26, 2011
0
#33
Uh oh . . . this is the time of year when everyone up here is running out of syrup. There's still 3 months until sapping season!
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
beeph wrote:
he played a simple trolls gambit - everyone knows the best response is Troll's Gambit Denied.
Sez who? People who don't want such posts to appear at all might think the best response is not to reply, and yet here you are.
But for those who enjoy some forum banter, the best response is . . . . . . . . . . a response!
Well I guess I am a bad example, whenever i see a gambit, I think 'FREE PAWN' CHAARRRRRRGE!!! and end up resigning like 10 moves later lol. I dont see gary kasparov responding at all, and he's a great chess player. So I guess your theory holds true, this thread is full of crappy chess players, who are also kinda stupid lol.
I play chess to stave off dementia. It runs in the family and I have early signs........now what was I going to say.....oh never mind. back to draughts.