13943 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Maybe you all are very curious with my subject.Let me explaint this matter to you...
Fist of all, can you all reply your suggestion on my Time Managment subject after you all read or reply this subject?You all opinion are very important to me.
Chess and math have very strong connection.Both of them need us to think...think and think.We must be creative to solve any problem involving chess and math and we must do a lot of practice continueously so we can get better from time to time.
My theory is simple "a good chess player has a good result in mathematic exam and vice versa".
Do you all agreed with my theory?
I disagree, chess has little to do with math. Those that can calculate "stuff" faster can be good at both, but good mathematician is much more likely to be good at poker than at chess. After all, there are no numbers in chess, only vision, while in poker there is calculating the probability of a specific combination. One of my class mates from high school played chess seriously and he was very bad at math. I achieved 4th place in national math competition, but was always losing at chess.
Math, much like chess, has everything to do with pattern recognition. This means that if one excells at chess, he has the potential to also be good at math, and vise versa, however the talent for pattern recognition (and insight) also requires knowledge of the subject.
Believe it or not, music has much more to do with pattern recognition than chess and math. And although I'm musician myself, I don't think I'm better at chess because I simply have the ability to remember patterns more clearly.
Music, math, chess - all have pattern recognition (and there are a lot more things that have it too). But for music you need the "musical hearing" (I don't know what is the correct English word for it), for math you have to be good with numbers and calculating, for chess you need to have good "vision" and calculating abilities. If there is something that both, math and chess require, it's calculating. But still, it's only a part of both things. So it's not necessary that mathematician will be good at chess "and-vice-versa".
That's it, Paranoid. In maths you calculate, but in chess you must "see".
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.
Yes, chess contains as much logic as math does by this definition. I hope I didn't misunderstood something, but it seems to me that music would also fit into this definition. Music has rules too (scales, rhythms...) and by these rules you "transform" from note to note. Someone might say that Sonic Youth don't play by the rules because of their weird harmonies. But they do as much as Mozart did, they just have their own scales. If they wouldn't create them and play by them, they would sound horrible. Not that they don't to pop-listeners, but you know what I mean.
You can look at it the other way: In chess you can (must) be creative, while in math there's not much creativity (except making math problems). So chess is music. There are rules, but you have to be creative.
Correlate all you want ... but good chess playing skills only indicates that one has an aptitude for chess. Nothing more.
Patience, organized thinking and the "will to win" however are things that one can claim may spill over to other fields.
That's the thing that I wanted to prove - you can correlate chess with a lot of things if you just want to. But chess skill is a chess skill. You can play chess with it and that's it.
You know there's a lot more to math a lot of the time than just solving sums or whatever.
Not necessarily. It's been proven that kids who play chess generally do better in tests, but if these kids were to take an interest in something like math instead the overlap into other academic areas would be about the same. So it doesn't have anything to do with any "special" quality chess has you're right.
Lasker, Euwe and Nunn were all mathematicians...
actually real math is much more the just pattern recognition, the parts thought in high school are mostly equations and calculations, but real math requires a lot of creativity to find the right way to solve problems, and lots of the time there are several different good ways to the solution
Taimanov was a concert pianist, Smyslov an operatic singer. Philidor was a top composer. Mendelssohn was a strong chess player. (Oxford companion) THere are more examples under music and chess. There is no entry for Maths and chess.
I know this very well. I assume you are referring to my statement about math not having much creativity. Of course you have to be little creative in some fields of math, but unless you are discovering something new there is not much to create. Similar is with chess, there are tested lines that you can play without creating something. But the difference is that there are hundred plans in certain position and hundred ways to achieve the goal of a particular plan. Math does not have this in such big numbers. In chess there will always be novelties, not necessarily good ones - that's what math also doesn't have (bad novelties in math are the wrong ones).
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.
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
Essentially what ichabod801 said. I usually skim entries, write my own, then go back and read them all. It kind of bit me this time around. :-P
Chess is art, according to Bronstein.
I was surprised to see someone finishing 4th in a national math competition say that theres little creativity in math. Of course you have to stick to the rules, but from my experience, theres much creativity involved. I agree with Boring304, there are often several ways to the solution in math.
Yes, of course there is a lot of "creativity" in solving school-math problems. But the theory is still the same, you can't just make up something. You can't say the same thing about chess though, chess hasn't been solved yet, while math problems have been.
I am aware that there were chess players who were also mathematicians. But that doesn't mean right away that chess and math are the same. The thing is that those people could think. Lasker was not only mathematician but also philosopher. Are math and philosophy related? I think that only a bit.
I agree with all of you!
how long to gm from beginner
by bunicula a few minutes ago
Your Predictions For Carlsen VS Nakamura Blitz Championship
by AussieRookie a few minutes ago
The notion that <1000 is awful?
by MyRatingis1523 3 minutes ago
Grandmaster secrets: why is it bad to play the Dutch?
by newengland7 5 minutes ago
How to become GM in 3 months?
by SilentKnighte5 5 minutes ago
Too late to become GM?
by SilentKnighte5 6 minutes ago
how many hours a week do i study to become a gm in 5 yrs from 1200 rating
by SilentKnighte5 9 minutes ago
Can I become a grandmaster?
by SilentKnighte5 10 minutes ago
How to become GM?
guide me to become gm
by SilentKnighte5 11 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
Try the new Chess.com!
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!