Does chess increase violence?

Whoa, you think chess is violent.... you should see this new kick and punch thing they have called MMA. Those guys get so emotional they send each other to hospital or sleepy-time. Oh my goodness.... get the mop.

bastiaan wrote:

people increase violence and chess increases thinking

 

---

I agree bastiaan, I have a neighbor who cannot take losing without throwing a fit

Chess REVEALS those who are violent by nature. It does not create nor increase violence.  

No it doesn't, but you do get very mad when you are in a winning position and throw itaway, especially against your friends.

nope. unless they are violent and dead serious.

i nearly pwned my friend by making him resign, i felt sorry for him.

GreenLaser wrote: depthshaman, Global warming is all about controlling the people and reducing freedom. I lived through the politics of global cooling when I was already familiar with global warming greenhouse theory. Paul (The Population Bomb) Ehrlich and others then jumped from freezing to warming. Over 31,000 scientists signed against the current fad because they were not afraid of losing grants enough to shut up. 18,000 years ago (before industry) the ocean level was 350-400 feet lower than it is today. The earth has been warming since then, with fluctuations down at times. The issue is not just is the earth warming, but the connection between human activity and climate change. The whole thing reminds me of the children's story of Chicken Little and Henny Penny running around yelling, "The sky is falling!" Appeasing the gods of global warming requires human sacrifice.

---

No offense intended, however, I have found that the majority of sceptics of global warming, are so because of something they do not want to stop doing. Whether they take offense at being told their stupidly inefficient car is damaging the environment, or if it is simply that they don't want to have to go to the effort of recycling. I get angry about this situation because things are bandied around, and insults are thrown at scientists purely because of bad (read biased) media reporting and people trying harder than possible to prove that their opinion is right even if the majority of evidence is against them.

Apart from the ease of faking signatures on the list that you point to (I will assume that the scientists you talk about have more integrity than you assume of the resounding majority of the scientific community - this is plain insulting, as my wife and her father are both academics), it is worth bearing in mind that firstly, only 9000 of the list hold phds, and of the total number the list is open to anyone with even a college degree. From Huddler's Green Home (fantastic rebuttal site :) ):

"If just 10% of the US population has such a degree (according to the US census, 25% of Americans have a bachelor's degree or better), then the 31,000 names on the Oregon Petition make up ~0.1% of the pool of possible signatories.  So what exactly is one-tenth of one percent supposed to prove?"

 The other common argument which I find disgusting, and repulsive is that scientists and academics will not go against global warming theory on the grounds of funding. There is a belief that every scientist in the majority is part of a global conspiracy just to keep people in fear and get money from it. It assumes that the majority of scientists are bad people, only out to make money.

I seriously advise you to read from the following link, because I feel that not only are you misleading yourself by basing your views on very shaky evidence, you are misleading others by suggesting that this evidence is anything other than meaningless.

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-skepticism

Once again quoted, the original 17,000 scientist list was binned before the release of the 31,000 list. One of the reasons is as follows:

"Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell""

wheresrobert wrote: mysticalfairymagic wrote:

hah! I find this topic rather amusing since my best friend has come to the conclusion "Chess players are violent!"

In her old school she was on the chess team and fights broke out all the time apparently. There was also one guy who'd hit a random person when she wouldn't play full out against him (he couldn't hit a girl and she was focusing on another game). Because of her experience there, everytime chess is brought up, she makes the statement "Chess players are violent!"

---

 Maybe if she'd gone to a new school that senseless tragedy might never have happened.

---

ha, quite possible. But, she can't choose where she lives, now, can she? and living in a small town offers only one school. She wanted to be going to my school... which was about an hour or so away.... anyways, she did eventially move, then had to be homeschooled....

exiledcanuck wrote:

who knew that conversations about chess increasing violence would increase comments about american politics :P

---

 i got a bit side tracked there but this topic is lame so do forgive ;)

I agree timmy as I tried to sum up in my earlier post its really quite simple.

 anything that a person can have an obsession with -> potential violence

a game with win/lose/draw -> lack of character -> potential violence

apart from that I think its all semantics.  People that say no it can't are defining the question in a certain way that is either very closed or so open that everything becomes meaningless.

If an arguement can cause violence surely anytime people clash wills/intellects/opinons etc there is potential for violence... so the question raised by this topic is silly... if I was really curious about the pyschological effects of chess on people I would most likely be more interested in...

Is a game of pure skill (like chess) more or less likely to cause violent outbursts than games of pure chance or of a mixture of skill and chance. If so does this vary with age? and in what ways?

This question interests me because of articles I've read with regards to raising children with a healthy attitude towards winning and losing. (you should start them off on games of pure chance with no skill involved so you don't "go easy on them" and blah blah blah blah blah.

 But by all means we can talk global warming if you like... the amount of hot air produced in internet forums must be a contributing factor, no?

Do you think it was anything but chess that made Bobby Fischer hate Jews and America?

I agree exiled, sorry about contributing to it somewhat, there are a select number of things which really annoy me, and one of those is the "global warming conspiracy".

Personally I think it's a lot better having kids in a controlled competitive environment such as a game of chess or football (by this I mean soccer :) ), rather than them ending up in a competitive environment such as the working world without a clue on how to handle people being better than them or worse than them. As a kid I remember our inter-school football league being dropped for being too competitive. Board games are also good :)

waltermong wrote: Do you think it was anything but chess that made Bobby Fischer hate Jews and America?

---

Now that you mention it, I'm sure that Stalin, Hitler and Saddam all played chess.

What  good of raising member's points? Do you actually get something from it? When you raise you chess rating you can a least proudly say

"I'm 2300 rated". lol  

shakje, Global warming blamed on human activity is supported "because of something they do not want to stop doing" which is supporting a fad. You question both the integrity of scientists and questioning the integrity of scientists. The scientific community resembles the religious professionals with its true believers, reformers, and false messiahs. As for academics being insulted, often scientific papers with six authors are done by one or two in reality. That way a whole group gets named on all the papers any of them have done. It is up to the public in a democracy to evaluate scientific claims and make policy decisions.

Does chess cause violence? How narrow do you limit your parameters? As a mentor of troubled teens, I use chess to redirect the aggressions that have built up in the individual. Yes, as they first learn the game their predisposition towards violence takes over and all they want to do is fight when they lose. Showing them how to keep a calm head, while looking for a winning solution in chess xfers over into real life, and they begin to look for winning solutions in life. Not all respond the same way, but the key is the retraining of thinking patterns.

Those that choose to play chess because of insecurities about their intelligence. - "Chess players are smart, so if I play chess, I'm smart too." They have a tendency to lash out more often, than those who really like the game. Those that really like the game, after a loss, want to try something else to see if they can get a different result.

The link provided showing the article on an attempted suicide, is an hours drive from my home. The individual was dispondent prior to the game. How narrow do you limit your parameters?

chessfanforlife wrote:

does chess increase violence?

---

 some times i get really stressed out when playing blitz chess.

  just started playing probably a month ago & when i lose to many games in a row i get really agro lol. i guess thats from boxing for 4 yr, or the drink driving. 

NO!!!

LOL...same here Filo01

any sport could have done that to him, if the violent nature was there to begin with. but hidden inside.

timmaylivinalie, The Patriot Act reduces freedom in response to actual attacks threats. This is always the case. If we lived in paradise, we wouldn't even think to have a written law against murder. Laws are often responses to recognized problems rather than philosophizing. Then the actions of those who break existing laws often leads to more restrictions on those who follow the laws. This happens in chess as well. You may not disturb others or cheat in tournaments, but others who did have caused organizers to restrict or ban electronic devices, such as cell phones. Since terrorists use cell phones for communication and to cause explosions, even democracies are forced to resist their methods.