Chess=Math?

The way I see it, math is always going for the same solution (the answer to the problem) but chess can have many goals, such as tactics for winning a piece, long term endgame strategies, checkmate, avoiding being checkmated, draw, etc. I see them as unrelated for this reason...

I'm a math and computer science major who considers himself primarily a chess player.

Do I find a connection between the two? God, no. I like math and I like chess. As I exceed in my mathematical abilities, will I exceed in my chess skills? No!

The stereotype that chess = math is based on the opinions of people who don't know how to play chess. Since you're at a chess site posting this thread, I assume you know how to play .

So, then, you should know that chess is not math.

If you sit down to play a game of chess and ten moves in, you starting thinking, "Ok, I'll let my knight = 5x+2, and when he moves his bishop, the limit as my king approaches a3 exponentially approaches negative inifnity", it's no wonder you lose.

When I sit down to play a game of chess, ten moves in, I look at the variations that will happen when I move a certain piece and see if I end up with the advantage.

Honestly, I don't understand how so many smart people think that to be good at chess automatically makes you good at math. While I am personally good at both, I know several people who are only good at one.

If you want to say: solving mathematical equations requires an imaginitive mind and playing chess requires an imaginitive mind, therefore they are very similar, I will say I don't agree with that a bit. If you think you need an imaginitive mind to solve mathematical equations, you obviously don't have a very good understanding of mathematics. Let's take a simple algebra problem...:

5x+2=-8-x Solve for x.

"Ok, let's be creative guys! Let's let our imagination take shape! I'm gonna move the 2 to the other side real fast and get 5x=-x-10. Now let's get the x's all on one side! 6x=-10. Now divide by 6! X=-5/3!!! Look how my creativity works!!!".

For God's sake, that's not being imaginitive or creative. That's following a freaking rule (aka axiom) like "if a=b then a+c=b+c" and expounding on it. Except you're not the creative one who is doing the expounding. The creatives ones who expounded on that simple axiom are now dead. I wonder if they were good at chess?

Maybe they weren't too bad at chess at all, I couldn't tell ya. But from my experience in both math and chess, being creative in math and being creative in chess are two completely different types of creativity.

There's no imagination or creativty in math today. It's learning how to do something new by follwing examples/learning formulas/ect. YOU'RE not the one being imaginitive or creative by learning something new.

To be honest, I've not read all 6 pages of this thread before posting, but I'm hoping the majority of you agree that chess =/= mathematics.

I no doubt agree with you Ouachita. But stating the obvious doesn't back up your opinion that chess is equal (or very similar) to math.

You said that "The fact that chess programs play at such a high level by definition means that chess can be expressed in logic and mathematics. Therefore, solely from that perspective, chess equals mathematics."

Chess can be expressed in logic - I definitely agree with you. You seem like a smart person, much smarter than I am, I admit. So I have to ask, what complex mathematical equations are involved in creating chess programs such as Fritz and Rybka?

I've seen this argument come up often throughout this thread. Yes, if one excels at chess he or she has the potential to also be good at math.

As does he or she have the potential to become President of the U.S.

As does he or she have the potential to create a time machine.

As does he or she have the potential to commit a serious crime.

So, sure, this thread could be called chess = commit a crime? chess = time machine? or chess = President?, because we all have the potential to be anything we set our minds to.

I agree, math and chess do have a lot to do with pattern recognition. But life itself has a lot to do with pattern recognition!

Every situation that you can think of would go better for you if you recognized patterns within that situation. What you're doing, Flier, is similar to cold reading. Saying something so broad to try to make a point about something specfific. Psychics use it a lot when "communicating with the dead." They'll say something like "Your grandfather had very... narrow features, did he not? A very sharp face, very powerful eyes...," and so on. Of course anybody could be said to have those features.

Just like anything can be said to involve pattern recognition.

I've long thought someones playing style hints towards their aptitudes and vice versa.

>:)

Can you share some of these similarities? I'm curious. I trust your math abilities,  and we're both mathematically inclined, so feel free to use any complex math language you see fit.

        I will give you all an interesting fact about math and chess, although I am
still not saying whether there is a definite connection or not.
         The Knight's Tour is a puzzle in which you place the knight on a square of
the chessboard and then moves it so it touches each square once and only
once.  Now, if you were to perform this operation and number the squares as
you move 1-64, afterwards you can add up the rows and columns and they
will all equal the same number.  I'm not sure if this always works but I have
seen examples of it, some even with the diagonals adding up.
          Is this coincidence or just an oddity I don't know, but it is fascinating
Captain.

Really, because I love math and good at chess. I don't like music though. In fact, I don't even like to be creative, just on the chess board. But I guess more often than not I'll follow the moves of the masters but that's only because I feel that the creative moves is not stronger. I can come up with things that I didn't learn before, but with most things I hate being creative. I think people who are good at solving problems like in math will have an easier time learning the game if they want to.

I understand that. In several cases in chess there are more than one way to go about attacking, defending, tactics, checkmates, etc.

Note that I'm not to hardened on the subject and am open to other ideas.

I think maths and chess do have a slight link as some people define maths as looking at think logically which is sort what is chess is about looking at moves that logically make sense???? I have quite a mathematical (Basic GCSE) mind and love chess too but i am not qualified in psychology of the brain so only offer my opinion on this subject matter

I kinda see what you're going at, but since your opponent cannot be forced to do anything, (except in some, very few, exceptions) and I don't consider 3+a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i+j+(r4)+(((7+x)/6c5)+(h2)) to be good (or much correct) math...

Note again I'm open to other's ideas.

a load of variables (without solvable numbers) doesn't help you much...

the variables are what happens next, since you dont kow what your opponents' moves will be.

almost all mathematician likes chess very much...even albert einstein..i have a copy of Einstein vs Lasker chess game...but it doesnt mean that all chess players are good in math..for example, All nuns are female but not all females are nuns..

         My Fused Geometry teacher used to love to say "If a man lives in Yorktown,
he lives in Virginia, but if a man lives in Virginia he does not necessarily live in
Yorktown".
         I'm not sure if that applies to this debate, but Mr. Williams was a tough
teacher and a nice man.

Me too. I'm afraid your attempt at arrogance, Cuncta, leaves much to be desired.

Name change from Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzpoulos no doubt.

>:)

Cuncta, I'm a double major with math and computer science in college (I'm a freshmen). I'm wondering whether, in your opinion, the Riemann hypothesis (you've heard of it I'm sure, I'm not trying to be arrogant or anything) has more to do with pure mathematics, mathematics in general, or physics? I see you're passionate about physics on your profile, so you'd be a good person to ask.

I'm not able to understand the Riemann hypothesis completely due to my math skills at the moment (zeta zeros are unfortunately still beyond my comprehension for the time being). Maybe you can simplify it a tad for me, put it in college freshmen terms?

Thanks.

I prefer 'Chess is life'.  I guess that would include mathematics but it covers all the bases. 

A mathematician should be good at Chess, not because of the maths, just because they should be smart enough to play the game. 

That applies to a lot of people though.  A street smart person should be able to play Chess just as well. 

Ironically, (being a mathematician) Lasker recognized Psychology as a critical aspect of the game.

At the end, mathematicians and computer scientist were able to design chess programs to beat the best humans (they were forced to understand the math-skeleton of chess to do it). But as you should agree, playing against a computer and against a human is a very different kind of game.