Einstein called chess a waste of time, what do you think?

That's incorrect. That quote is not from Einstein.

"Chess is a waste of time!"

- A. F. Kennedy

Einstein was Jewish, alright. And he to some extent embraced his religion. Now, Judaism has some very special concepts regarding reality and so forth - it creates a very interesting scientific mind... perhaps even lends to creativity.

The search for truth requires that we think outside the box, and so anything that challenges us to think differently, beyond the norm, is a contribution to science.

justa be clear, AE got the nobel prize outta default in 1922. he never (and couldnt) qualify for it in 1921 cuz they say his work wuz substandard. but reluctantly, they went ahead and gave it to him in 1922. who knows...maybe they felt sorry for him ?

and s/t else. he never really bought into QM. tho cant blame him for that one.   ::/

I don't think so. You only see the chess aspect and you might be right if all people do is playing blitz online. But let's not forget. We are all Amateurs and hence it's a hobby for us.

Chess isn't just played online but also in local chess clubs. Many people use their free time to do voluntary work in the chess club, play chess together, celebrate together. Many friendships have formed this way that lasted for life. Some people even found their wife there. Another friend of mine got a job after his studies from a chess club member in his company. The passion for chess brings us club members together, but it goes far beyond that. You get to know people from all sorts of backgrounds, nationalities etc which has broaden my horizon immensely. 

If you cut out the social aspect and benefits of chess of course it would be a waste of time.

But our lives do not only consist of work and studying. There far worse hobbies you could pick up than chess.

The formal acknowledgement for his prize is due to his service in theoretical physics and his law of the photoelectric effect.  

Note sure if this has been already linked, but there are quite a few Einstein quotes and other info in this article about Einstein and chess.

frumda nobel prize.org site. happy ? dum-dum ? lol !

***

Albert Einstein received his Nobel Prize one year later, in 1922. During the selection process in 1921, the Nobel Committee for Physics decided that none of the year's nominations met the criteria as outlined in the will of Alfred Nobel.

...ur the one with the net !

That doesn't make your point.  You said "usta be clear, AE got the nobel prize outta default in 1922. he never (and couldnt) qualify for it in 1921 cuz they say his work wuz substandard."

"By defuault" is untrue, and "substandard" is untrue.  No one met the criteria in 1921, Einstein met the criteria in 1922. 

I guess your Nobel prize is more legit than his?  What's your problem with him anyway?  Science makes you uncomfortable doesn't it?  

4starters, is it worth having a stroke over ?

okay. lemme put it another way. he didnt meet the standard (pretty much making his work substandard, right ?) for prize criteria in 1921. azza result, the prize defaulted to 1922...where they went ahead and gave it to him. i would assume reluctantly ? cuz if not, they wooda just given it to him in 1921 (but they didnt), right ?

i mean wut parta that arent u getting ?

and i apologize if u took offense to it all. but u hafta admit. u are kinda obsessed w/him.

He was nominated many times before he received the prize. The first nomination was in 1910, 11 years before the prize that he year for which he was awarded the prize, one year late. It is very interesting that they did not award the prize in 1921. Einstein was nominated by a lot of physicists that year and even more the next.

See https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1921/einstein/nominations/ for all Einstein's many nominations.

Your claim that if someone's work does not win a Nobel prize it is "substandard" is amusing! It's good that Einstein's was up to standard.

@Irma_Vep i agree. even though i like the game it still feels like a waste time to time. i know i will never be a world champion, not even a gm probably, but i still keep trying to improve. actually i could do something more useful, maybe something more profitable like writing a book or learning game designing and make a small mobile game.. or learn a language.. or i could just sleep and be more healty :)

If he really said that, I think he is even smarter than he was already known

I assume chess has always been this way: 90% people on earth play the game, and out of that percentage 10% become coaches and masters. The rest of the 80% consists largely of enthusiasts who play the game as a pastime.

However, chess is such a prestigious game, much like your golf and your swimming, that it's even taught at schools and so forth. But it's no different from any of the other sporting activities. It's only as valuable and only as invaluable as the rest of those sporting activities; there are certain benefits to the game, and then there are also certain downsides to it.

Here's the catch: chess is so easy a thing to become obsessed with because it deals in matters of intelligence. People generally can't help but want to prove that they're smart enough, strategic as much as the next guy or gal. They can accept inferior positions in any other aspect of their lives but certainly not intelligence.

So we obsess - over a game - and well, one can see how that could be somewhat of a waste.

For the record: I think we're all, as people, equipped and capable of witts as awesome as the next. There are reasons why we are at times spaced apart in this regard, but those reasons don't discount potential.

I assume chess has always been this way: 90% people on earth play the game, and out of that percentage 10% become coaches and masters.

those that can ?...do.

those that cant ?...coach.

FANBOY FANBOY FANBOY 🤣