Chess=Math? - Chess Forums - Page 2

Paranoid-Android

Sep 9, 2009

0

#21

euchrestud wrote:

I would agree insofar that logic is an offspring of math. "Math" is commonly known as taking numbers, using oporations, and getting new numbers following the rules of the oporations. Logic is commonly known as taking a statement, using an oporation, perhaps coupling it with other statements, and getting a conclusion.

Example:

1. IF "A" is true, then "B" is true.

2. "A" is true.

3. THEREFORE, "B" is true.

State spaces of chess games can be desciribed by means of symbolic representation and can show which states they can lead to.

In other words, chess is really nothing more than a logic puzzle, which is really nothing more than a math problem. The fun comes in that the scope of possibilities is too large for anyone to see all of the outcomes, introducing major inefficiencies for things like "tactics" to become useful. But as said before, chess is a math problem (specifically a dynamic program/Markov chain math problem). :-P

I agree. I was wrong when I said that chess has little to do with math, it actually has a lot if you look at it the way you did. What I actually had in mind was chess-playing itself. As I already mentioned: chess vision. Chess vision won't help you in math and math won't give you chess-vision.

By chess-vision I mean the "feeling" of the piece movement. Mathematician who doesn't play chess will have to actually look closely at the board to see which pieces move where and how and what they attack on that diagonal etc... While serious chess player (who has "chess skill") will just know.

Paranoid-Android

Sep 9, 2009

0

#22

Eiwob wrote:

Hm, I think there is very little creativity involved in school, it is mostly solving 100 problems the same way after being told how to do it. It is when I have experimented with math myself I have been creative. But as I said, this is my experience, and I might be wrong.

I'm sorry, I meant "scholastic" problems - the problems that will not discover something new, but are there to be solved. I experimented a lot with math, tried to create new ways to get to a solution. And I never came up with something completely new, only variations of already existing formulas. But I have to admit that the more I think about this subject, the more math seems creative to me. I am still not convinced that chess skill can also be math skill and the other way around though.

OMGdidIrealyjustsact

Sep 9, 2009

0

#23

Paranoid-Android wrote:

By chess-vision I mean the "feeling" of the piece movement. Mathematician who doesn't play chess will have to actually look closely at the board to see which pieces move where and how and what they attack on that diagonal etc... While serious chess player (who has "chess skill") will just know.

Chess vision has helped me with maths. In the final 5 minutes of my Further maths exam I had only the last question (the hardest) to do. I was completely stumped and then I "saw" how the problem was supposed to go. It was just like "seeing" how a chess position could be won.

Paranoid-Android

Sep 9, 2009

0

#24

OMGdidIrealyjustsact wrote:

Paranoid-Android wrote:

By chess-vision I mean the "feeling" of the piece movement. Mathematician who doesn't play chess will have to actually look closely at the board to see which pieces move where and how and what they attack on that diagonal etc... While serious chess player (who has "chess skill") will just know.

Chess vision has helped me with maths. In the final 5 minutes of my Further maths exam I had only the last question (the hardest) to do. I was completely stumped and then I "saw" how the problem was supposed to go. It was just like "seeing" how a chess position could be won.

That was "math vision" if you want to call it something. Solving problems in a chess kind of way doesn't mean you have a chess vision. What I mean by chess vision is the actual vision of a chess board (and possibilities on it). I think you can't use this specific vision in a math problem and you also can't posses this same vision by simply being good at math. You have to play and study chess to get it, math won't help.

OMGdidIrealyjustsact

Sep 9, 2009

0

#25

Paranoid-Android wrote:

OMGdidIrealyjustsact wrote:

Paranoid-Android wrote:

By chess-vision I mean the "feeling" of the piece movement. Mathematician who doesn't play chess will have to actually look closely at the board to see which pieces move where and how and what they attack on that diagonal etc... While serious chess player (who has "chess skill") will just know.

Chess vision has helped me with maths. In the final 5 minutes of my Further maths exam I had only the last question (the hardest) to do. I was completely stumped and then I "saw" how the problem was supposed to go. It was just like "seeing" how a chess position could be won.

That was "math vision" if you want to call it something. Solving problems in a chess kind of way doesn't mean you have a chess vision. What I mean by chess vision is the actual vision of a chess board (and possibilities on it). I think you can't use this specific vision in a math problem and you also can't posses this same vision by simply being good at math. You have to play and study chess to get it, math won't help.

Thats like saying being able to run fast in football and being able to run fast in rugby are completely different: you can call them "football speed" and "rugby speed" if you want but it doesn't hide that your argument is bull.

"Vision", in the sense of being able to look ahead and predict what is going to happen is useful in a lot of facets of life. Maths and chess have different groundrules, but you build them into complexities in the same way with the same skills.

exigentsky

Sep 9, 2009

0

#26

Do we need a million topics on this?

Paranoid-Android

Sep 9, 2009

0

#27

OMGdidIrealyjustsact wrote:

Paranoid-Android wrote:

OMGdidIrealyjustsact wrote:

Paranoid-Android wrote:

By chess-vision I mean the "feeling" of the piece movement. Mathematician who doesn't play chess will have to actually look closely at the board to see which pieces move where and how and what they attack on that diagonal etc... While serious chess player (who has "chess skill") will just know.

Chess vision has helped me with maths. In the final 5 minutes of my Further maths exam I had only the last question (the hardest) to do. I was completely stumped and then I "saw" how the problem was supposed to go. It was just like "seeing" how a chess position could be won.

That was "math vision" if you want to call it something. Solving problems in a chess kind of way doesn't mean you have a chess vision. What I mean by chess vision is the actual vision of a chess board (and possibilities on it). I think you can't use this specific vision in a math problem and you also can't posses this same vision by simply being good at math. You have to play and study chess to get it, math won't help.

Thats like saying being able to run fast in football and being able to run fast in rugby are completely different: you can call them "football speed" and "rugby speed" if you want but it doesn't hide that your argument is bull.

"Vision", in the sense of being able to look ahead and predict what is going to happen is useful in a lot of facets of life. Maths and chess have different groundrules, but you build them into complexities in the same way with the same skills.

Running is running, concept is the same. Is seeing 6-moves deep combination with a knight fork and a pin the same as seeing solution to a math problem? By "solving problems in a chess kind of way" I meant looking ahead and calculating the possibilities. If I understood correctly, that's what you have done in your math exam. But chess vision is something completely different. I think I said already this 3-times in this thread: vision of a chessboard. How is your ability to quickly spot which pieces are on a particular diagonal or possible knight forks going to help you with your math problem?

876543Z1

Sep 9, 2009

0

#28

Yes Codebreaker_93 you may have a point, Emanuel Lasker arguably the all time greatest player is perhaps the most notable example of the connection.

>:)

OMGdidIrealyjustsact

Sep 9, 2009

0

#29

Paranoid-Android wrote:

OMGdidIrealyjustsact wrote:

Paranoid-Android wrote:

OMGdidIrealyjustsact wrote:

Paranoid-Android wrote:

By chess-vision I mean the "feeling" of the piece movement. Mathematician who doesn't play chess will have to actually look closely at the board to see which pieces move where and how and what they attack on that diagonal etc... While serious chess player (who has "chess skill") will just know.

Chess vision has helped me with maths. In the final 5 minutes of my Further maths exam I had only the last question (the hardest) to do. I was completely stumped and then I "saw" how the problem was supposed to go. It was just like "seeing" how a chess position could be won.

That was "math vision" if you want to call it something. Solving problems in a chess kind of way doesn't mean you have a chess vision. What I mean by chess vision is the actual vision of a chess board (and possibilities on it). I think you can't use this specific vision in a math problem and you also can't posses this same vision by simply being good at math. You have to play and study chess to get it, math won't help.

Thats like saying being able to run fast in football and being able to run fast in rugby are completely different: you can call them "football speed" and "rugby speed" if you want but it doesn't hide that your argument is bull.

"Vision", in the sense of being able to look ahead and predict what is going to happen is useful in a lot of facets of life. Maths and chess have different groundrules, but you build them into complexities in the same way with the same skills.

Running is running, concept is the same. Is seeing 6-moves deep combination with a knight fork and a pin the same as seeing solution to a math problem? By "solving problems in a chess kind of way" I meant looking ahead and calculating the possibilities. If I understood correctly, that's what you have done in your math exam. But chess vision is something completely different. I think I said already this 3-times in this thread: vision of a chessboard. How is your ability to quickly spot which pieces are on a particular diagonal or possible knight forks going to help you with your math problem?

Because it proves you are able to spot things. I'll say it again, just because the ground rules are different does not mean that the ability to see when the ground rules apply is wasted.

TheGrobe

Sep 9, 2009

0

#30

Is "I-spy-with-my-little-eye" the same as math as well then? That game totally proves you're able to spot things.

Paranoid-Android

Sep 9, 2009

0

#31

I don't think there is any connection in Lasker example. He wasn't good at one thing because of the other. He was naturally intelligent and could probably be very good at few other things if he was more interested in them. For example, he was also philosopher. I don't think he was the only one in history that was good at completely different things. As Rooperi said - some chess players were actually also musicians.

OMGdidIreallyjustsact - I'm trying very very hard to see your side as correct. One of us is completely ignorant because either you didn't really took the time to see what I wrote or I am just too stupid to understand how having vision of piece movement on a chess board can be related to math problems. Again, I'm not talking about solving problems by seeing ahead. I'm talking about THEE chessboard. Can you explain it a bit more?

876543Z1

Sep 9, 2009

0

#32

Well Paranoid-Android, if you cant see any connection with Lasker's aptitudes then I don't know, horses and water come to mind.

>:)

Codebreaker_93

Sep 9, 2009

0

#33

"a good chess player has a good result in mathematic exam and vice versa".

Thank you for your opinions.That is only a theory and it still can be argued.I do hope that I'll be getting more views regarding this theory.

:)

OMGdidIrealyjustsact

Sep 10, 2009

0

#34

Paranoid-Android wrote:

I don't think there is any connection in Lasker example. He wasn't good at one thing because of the other. He was naturally intelligent and could probably be very good at few other things if he was more interested in them. For example, he was also philosopher. I don't think he was the only one in history that was good at completely different things. As Rooperi said - some chess players were actually also musicians.

OMGdidIreallyjustsact - I'm trying very very hard to see your side as correct. One of us is completely ignorant because either you didn't really took the time to see what I wrote or I am just too stupid to understand how having vision of piece movement on a chess board can be related to math problems. Again, I'm not talking about solving problems by seeing ahead. I'm talking about THEE chessboard. Can you explain it a bit more?

I get you now: you are only focusing on one aspect of chess (namely, understanding how the pieces work) to the exclusion of all others. I was hinting at that when I mentioned the "ground rules": the basics of each subject are different so you can't learn to solve chess puzzles by doing basic sums. However being good a chess and maths are correlated because once you understand the basics you can only get ahead by having (I need to think of a different term for this because we've been misinterpreting each other here) foresight so you can see how the basics interact.

UnlimitedKnightWorks

Sep 10, 2009

0

#35

I agree because I myself is an example

zankfrappa

Sep 10, 2009

0

#36

     "Correlation does not imply causation". This is a famous theory from my
Psychology and Statistics days which means that just because there is a connection
between two variables it doesn't mean one necessarily makes the other one
happen.   It may or may not.
      And so the debate rages on.

ichabod801

Sep 10, 2009

0

#37

tonydal wrote:

ichabod801 wrote:

Chess is math.

No, it isn't. Unless maybe you're talking about geometry (and then you could make all these claims about, say, billiards as well). And anyway, it has nothing to do with analyzing shapes, but merely using them as a medium to calculate moves.

I thought I was pretty clear about how chess is math, and it didn't have anything to do with geometry. I was thinking more in terms of linear algebra or set theory. If you would like to try and refute what I said, go ahead. But please don't misrepresent my argument.

TheGrobe

Sep 10, 2009

0

#38

Sure, but it could be similarly argued that everything(by which I mean the universe) is math. It doesn't really fit with the intent of the original statement which is terribly flawed.

bigpoison

Sep 10, 2009

0

#39

I like moonunit's quote. Causes, not effects, repeat after me...

Chess_Lobster

Sep 10, 2009

0

#40

ichabod801 wrote:

Chess is math. It is a finite (if large) set of states with rules for transformations between states, and for the termination of recursive transformation chains with given values. Exactly the sort of stuff math does, and now that I think about it, the way I stated it reminds me of the Mandelbrot set.

However, that does not mean that being good at chess implies being good at math, or vice versa. Human use a lot of things besides the math in order to play chess, so the skill sets do not necessarily overlap.

I'm sorry how is this at all "clear" I'm a fairly smart guy, but I've never heard the term recursive transformation chain in my life. I'd like to know what you meant by this statement, but my gut feeling is, as mentioned, applicable to a boat load of situations other than chess.

By the way, I did attempt to my homework on this one, but when I googled

"Recursive Transformation Chains" I got one results...this discussion