### Most Recent

- 1/21/2017 - With Check
- Make up a (dumb) opening and name it!
- 1. e4 vs 1. d4
- Symmetrical English
- How to become CM
- What is this 'on pasta' rule?
- Please post chess jokes.
- First word that comes to mind when you hear chess?
- facts that most chess players don't probably know
- Chess with Builder, Fool and Guard - vickalan vs evertVB

### Forum Legend

- Following
- New Comments
- Locked Topic
- Pinned Topic

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-does-math-relate-to-chess

And now that I look at the problem again, I suddenly realized that it's not a valid problem. In the original ad there was a space after "5 +," and you were supposed to fill it out. Which I just realized is impossible with just the information given.

That's why you need to go to their website and pay lots of money!

wow! This is a sleeper, so here's a wake-me-up (ahem)...

Some years ago I read a study that compared progress in arithmetic and english between two sets of primary-school children: the only variable was that one set learnt and played chess -as part of the school curriculum- after the age of 6.

After only one year, the chess playing set were up to two years ' more advanced' than the 'control' set of children, in

botharithmetic and english (ie: number skillsandlanguage skills).An interesting result ( but surely no surprise to us Chess players); even more so as number and language skills allegedly involve different 'halves' of the brain!

My (brilliant, beautiful, extraordinary - like everyone else's) nephew -and sole genetic 'offspring' - learnt chess early on, and went through a bit of a chess-phase. The first time I decided to

notlet 8 year old Jack win, the family audiencehissedme. Then Grampa pointed out that learning to lose -for once- was a valuable lesson!I see less of my nephew than I would wish - apparently he's grown from the adorable little boy to the abnoxious young teen: of course!

[ I've deliberately used the term ''arithmetic'' rather than the - increasingly more common- ''math''. Arithmetic has always meant, to me, basic number skills: those learnt in Primary school (and at home!) . ''Math

ematics'' came along in Secondary school, when we were introduced to algebra and those other abstract and useful areas of number-skill.The term ''math''- apart from being grammatically dodgy - was always an Americanism and foreign to those of us raised with English-English spelling. Pedantic? I care not and will always spell

colourwith that ''u'', as well as encyclopaedia and foetus (thus), as being more culturally correct, and therefore more pleasing,aestheticallyspeaking, to my Australian/English eye ! ]Chess is logical yes? maths is logical yes? if you are good at maths logic and general logic then there is obviously a correlation no? I am talking about natural logic not parrot learning equations and formulas, if you are good at maths because you have good logic then it should be correlated to chess due to the same reason of logic.

then however the question is not does chess make you better at maths, the question is does chess make you better at thinking logically.

In general:

Mechanics are often mediocre or worse in computer related fields

Computer "geeks" rarely know how to fix a car

The above, minus the constant exceptions, show that there is a potential pattern not to the skill set of the person dependent on the job, but rather the skill set of the person dependent on their personal nature and nurture. In short, it is a psychological issue. For instance, I am great at calculating out variations and finding tactics on a chess board. This translates over to mathematics in the sense that I can often find patterns and shortcuts to problems. However, very rarely am I able to solve the said problems myself. This has led to me flunking Calculus, the only class that I have ever failed.

To explain things more clearly:

Electrical bursts within your brain dictate synaptic activity. This activity often correlates to the part of the brain that drives certain skills such as problem solving, comprehension, motor skills, etc. Depending on the use of such areas throughout your life (excluding unique cases) these areas can and will shrink or grow in size.

Chances are when you look at a chess board the information conveyed will first travel through your eyes and into your Occipital Lobe. The Occipital Lobe then technically transfers this information to your Frontal Lobe which then attempts to solve the problem that you saw. However, mathematics is in it's own category. You see, the brain has an independent area around or near the Parietal Cortex which makes rough calculations and often works with other parts of the brain to find the solution to more advanced equations and mathematical sequences. (the independence here is that Chess is not Math and must be learned whereas some mathematical skills can be found in other species such as apes and parrots).

To make what could be a long story much shorter, while there is certainly some correlation between math and chess, the correlation itself is based around your ability to solve problems through what you have learned in regards to the specific situation. (The difference between learning and knowing) It really isn't easy to explain, especially for an amatuer such as myself.

Exceptions:

In Chess and Math there are exceptions to the rules stated above. Some children are born with a strength in chess similar to that of a master and are always able to play strong games. On the other hand, whether through brain trauma or birth, there have been a handful of cases of people displaying great talent in math.

Einstein developed his abilities through years of studying and trial and error and was not initially the super genius everybody thinks he always was. More recently there is a guy who, through a traumatic experience (if I am remembering correctly) forced his brain to shift the mathematical calculations directly into his Motor Cortex. This shift, at a guess, was due to a type of brain elasticity, or the brain's ability to flex and change depending on long-term stimuli. In short, many calculations became as natural to him as walking. Longer, more intense equations which required more than just that area of the brain would take him much longer however.

So is there a true correlation? The ultimate verdict at this time is a big fat old maybe. However, we likely know more about the universe and all life on Earth than we do about the human mind. It may therefore be decades before we see even the hint of a real answer to this question.

Phew, pardon the rambling folks! Classes are coming so I am getting back into the swing of things!

how long did you spend writing that lol

thanks for the article

how long did you spend writing that lol

thanks for the article