As a ex soldier. When mortar shells are raining down, i don't remeber grabing my laptop and doing computer models and having special councels to decide what to do. and Chess, well life is helping me with chess,
Have your chess skills helped you in real life?
Sort:
joeydvivre wrote:
" I can see why you would laugh at the analogies between warfare and chess tactics."
I can't. Besides being a military officer has he studied history at all? This "there are no rules in combat" is simply wrong (but the kind of thing that faux macho military guys say). In fact, we start with the rules of physics and run through the rules of probability to the less well-defined rules of psychology and they all apply on the battlefield. The outcomes of battles is almost always the result of the applications of these rules. Read any account of any famous battle - Leyte Gulf, Gettysburg, Waterloo, Tours, Thermopylae, etc. - and tell me there is not a chess game going on there.
Joeydvivre: Since you asked, yes. Besides being a military officer I have studied history extensively. Any tactician who hopes to have any success realizes that history holds lessons that if unlearned are bound to be repeated. And actually, there are no rules in combat. Period. I'm sure most readers realized that I wasn't referring to the laws of physics. Chess isn't about physics, it's about capabilities and limitations. Each piece has rules that is must follow. There are no new ways to use a bishop - it goes diagonally and is constrained to one color whether you like it or not. I'm sure you get what I mean. Is the same true of a tank, air plane, rifle, potato gun, market place, forest, hill top, or any of the other thousands of pieces found on the battlefield? Certainly not. You use a tank in any way that comes to mind, from firing the main gun to dropping it on the enemy’s head, if you were so inclined. I'll ignore the silly macho military guy comment except to say that it makes you look pretty foolish to make a personal generalization about someone you've never met based on a couple dozen words. I'm not one to qualify my statements because I think they can be judged based on their merit, but I can assure you that during my advanced studies of psychology I've grown to understand that there are no rules there either. Certainly there are tendencies, but no rules. And unless one is battling someone else from their own culture, I doubt they understand their enemy’s psychology either. Hence, the further divergence from chess. Granted, you may not understand your opponent's mind or language, but do you know his aim? Yes you do; it's checkmate. Do you know his ways and means? Yes you do; they're identical to yours. Conversely the outcomes of battle are never the result of such rules. You may think you know your enemy’s aims, ways, and means, but you may never know for sure. It is often the breaking of perceived rules that creates the advantage. How was Napoleon so successful in war? By breaking the “rules” of surprise and mass. How did he ultimately fall at Waterloo? By his enemies adopting his strategy. He didn't adapt because he thought his rules were superior and he lost. If Thermopylae was a chess game it was a couple thousand pawns against a couple hundred thousand of every other piece and the pawns aren't allowed to move. That doesn't sound like any chess game I've ever played. I think the biggest point about there being no rules in war compared to chess is that you never know what you're fighting against and battles are never truly even. Of course many arm chair historians probably sit around and quip about the mistakes of past battles based on what they know in the present. In a real battle you rely on principles quite different from chess. If you'd like I can teach you all about them! Oh and simply being a military officer does not qualify anyone as an expert on war. However, spending years in combat and studying war and tactics can certainly help one compare it to chess! I could go on, but your point is too lacking in support to be worth dissecting further. Poker on the other hand…
Goddess-Ishtar wrote:
As a ex soldier. When mortar shells are raining down, i don't remeber grabing my laptop and doing computer models and having special councels to decide what to do. and Chess, well life is helping me with chess,
Timing is the key...and this was already discussed
nameno1had wrote:
I don't mean to seem to insult your intelligence as it pertains to how war/battle planning is conducted. Truth be told as in chess, it can be difficult to deal with whatever is thrown at you, no matter what you planned originally. The real difference is the consequences for chess are basically ego, where as with war/battle, it is life and death. I am sure if we invented chess to the death, where the loser died at the end. Not many would babble about it, as if they know something, and far fewer if any would play it.
I would assume that computer models are used and special counsel is convened, to determined the best options, instead of old maps and trinkets.
I know you didn't mean any insult and I didn't take any :) The funny thing is despite the advance of technology and what not, we've basically just created new and exciting ways to make maps covered with trinkets... The problem with computer models are they are based on the cold-war era rationalist world. These days real world experience trumps any computer. It's complicated, but the point I was trying to make was it's nothing like chess. Of course the stakes are very different, yes. More importantly is the fog of war. You don't know what you're fighting, what it can do, or how long it will last. That's what makes it a funny analogy!
I can disscuss whatever i want. and you sir can't stop me. and you can't say that i can't have a say because i live on the other side of the planet, and was asleep when this forum was started. Dam you yanks,
I once read that modern chess without castling was a good simulation of medieval warfare. Usually, nobody dies from playing chess, but I have never been in the military and wouldn't presume to speculate on some of the matters being discussed. For those of you who have served, thank you for your service on this Memorial Day weekend.
LOL.
for me anyway. not being a Officer. knowing what you can do and what you can't is very imported. same as chess.. ther are so many loop holes.. like that move Boris did with his Queen. Taking that rook might had been a great idea. but he got flanked. and there was no ecape.
Goddess-Ishtar wrote:
I can disscuss whatever i want. and you sir can't stop me. and you can't say that i can't have a say because i live on the other side of the planet, and was asleep when this forum was started. Dam you yanks,
I rather think it is asinine to come into the middle of the conversation and make assumtions about one of the last few comments made. Otherwise I really don't care what you think or have to say. If in fact you are a combat veteran, that doesn't give you a pass or make you special. No matter what we plan in life, we are all throw curve balls we can't plan for. Just because yours were made of lead and fire doesn't make the rest of us inferior. We all have consequences for our choices. No one owes you anything.
sofaknee wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
I don't mean to seem to insult your intelligence as it pertains to how war/battle planning is conducted. Truth be told as in chess, it can be difficult to deal with whatever is thrown at you, no matter what you planned originally. The real difference is the consequences for chess are basically ego, where as with war/battle, it is life and death. I am sure if we invented chess to the death, where the loser died at the end. Not many would babble about it, as if they know something, and far fewer if any would play it.
I would assume that computer models are used and special counsel is convened, to determined the best options, instead of old maps and trinkets.
I know you didn't mean any insult and I didn't take any :) The funny thing is despite the advance of technology and what not, we've basically just created new and exciting ways to make maps covered with trinkets... The problem with computer models are they are based on the cold-war era rationalist world. These days real world experience trumps any computer. It's complicated, but the point I was trying to make was it's nothing like chess. Of course the stakes are very different, yes. More importantly is the fog of war. You don't know what you're fighting, what it can do, or how long it will last. That's what makes it a funny analogy!
I still see an analogy to chess in the fog of battle. When my opponent does something that I didn't count on and suddenly my own position is turned into my enemy and I have to figure out what I am up against and it is confusing as hell, it is basically the same to me. For me still, the only difference is, all of the pieces on the board aren't the same color. If those two things were as such I think it would be an almost perfect anology, except for the stakes.
joeydvivre wrote:
"Is the same true of a tank, air plane, rifle, potato gun, market place, forest, hill top, or any of the other thousands of pieces found on the battlefield? "
Of course it is true of those things. A tank can only go so fast over certain kinds of terrain and only when faced with certain kinds of defenses. An airplane can travel over more terrain but only when the weather is good. Etc, etc.. There are tons and tons of rules associated with these weapons.
In fact, I think that diatribe is utterly silly and simply wrong. I think you have a fairly poor understandiong of how wars work. Do you think you are a better military officer than you are a chess player?
Sorry, wrong again. And now you're attempting to be intentionally personal and insulting, which is sad. You're certainly entitled to your opinion and I'm happy to agree to disagree. But there are no rules for tanks because they can be modified. As can the air plane, etc. Again you missed my point, which is understanding because you're clearly lacking any real world experience in the matter. But that's OK, too!
nameno1had wrote:
sofaknee wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
I don't mean to seem to insult your intelligence as it pertains to how war/battle planning is conducted. Truth be told as in chess, it can be difficult to deal with whatever is thrown at you, no matter what you planned originally. The real difference is the consequences for chess are basically ego, where as with war/battle, it is life and death. I am sure if we invented chess to the death, where the loser died at the end. Not many would babble about it, as if they know something, and far fewer if any would play it.
I would assume that computer models are used and special counsel is convened, to determined the best options, instead of old maps and trinkets.
I know you didn't mean any insult and I didn't take any :) The funny thing is despite the advance of technology and what not, we've basically just created new and exciting ways to make maps covered with trinkets... The problem with computer models are they are based on the cold-war era rationalist world. These days real world experience trumps any computer. It's complicated, but the point I was trying to make was it's nothing like chess. Of course the stakes are very different, yes. More importantly is the fog of war. You don't know what you're fighting, what it can do, or how long it will last. That's what makes it a funny analogy!
I still see an analogy to chess in the fog of battle. When my opponent does something that I didn't count on and suddenly my own position is turned into my enemy and I have to figure out what I am up against and it is confusing as hell, it is basically the same to me. For me still, the only difference is, all of the pieces on the board aren't the same color. If those two things were as such I think it would be an almost perfect anology, except for the stakes.
That's an interesting point, but imagine that instead of your opponent doing something unexpected and backing you into a corner, let's just say you're playing a game of chess and all the sudden a queen that wasn't on the board appears and captures your rook. Then, instead of waiting for your turn, the queens goes ahead and takes your knight and bishop, too. Then the queen doesn't care if it has cover for checkmate, so it goes ahead and takes your king, dying in the process. That's what I mean by the fog of war. I do see what you mean, though. Certainly the comparision isn't without precident, it's just lacking a true understanding of the principles of war.
thats the biggest BS line i've even seen on this site. if that was the case then there wouldn't be a forum. as only two people would be aloud to make comments. and no one else would be aloud to enter a confersation in the middle.. thats right, you don't have to care, good for you.. and what pass would that be because i'm doing what everyone one else is doing. doesn't make me special one bit. But i have, like everyone one else here has.. THE RIGHT TO SPEAK!. well they do ! it tax time, and are hoping for some cash back.
sofaknee wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
sofaknee wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
I don't mean to seem to insult your intelligence as it pertains to how war/battle planning is conducted. Truth be told as in chess, it can be difficult to deal with whatever is thrown at you, no matter what you planned originally. The real difference is the consequences for chess are basically ego, where as with war/battle, it is life and death. I am sure if we invented chess to the death, where the loser died at the end. Not many would babble about it, as if they know something, and far fewer if any would play it.
I would assume that computer models are used and special counsel is convened, to determined the best options, instead of old maps and trinkets.
I know you didn't mean any insult and I didn't take any :) The funny thing is despite the advance of technology and what not, we've basically just created new and exciting ways to make maps covered with trinkets... The problem with computer models are they are based on the cold-war era rationalist world. These days real world experience trumps any computer. It's complicated, but the point I was trying to make was it's nothing like chess. Of course the stakes are very different, yes. More importantly is the fog of war. You don't know what you're fighting, what it can do, or how long it will last. That's what makes it a funny analogy!
I still see an analogy to chess in the fog of battle. When my opponent does something that I didn't count on and suddenly my own position is turned into my enemy and I have to figure out what I am up against and it is confusing as hell, it is basically the same to me. For me still, the only difference is, all of the pieces on the board aren't the same color. If those two things were as such I think it would be an almost perfect anology, except for the stakes.
That's an interesting point, but imagine that instead of your opponent doing something unexpected and backing you into a corner, let's just say you're playing a game of chess and all the sudden a queen that wasn't on the board appears and captures your rook. Then, instead of waiting for your turn, the queens goes ahead and takes your knight and bishop, too. Then the queen doesn't care if it has cover for checkmate, so it goes ahead and takes your king, dying in the process. That's what I mean by the fog of war. I do see what you mean, though. Certainly the comparision isn't without precident, it's just lacking a true understanding of the principles of war.
Really similar to everyone around you seeming the same. Innocent looking kids rolled grenades down hills at soldiers feet in Nam. My uncle explained that and hated discussing having to shoot them.
A guy who looks like everyone else on the street you are patrolling, rides his bike to a storefront were you are situated and "boom"....I get it. It is hard to emulate in chess terms, but still similar to your opponent doing something you didnt expect and you are forced to make snap decisions, with added calculation to even have a chance to survive. It might even require a sacrifice, which in battle is far harder and must be decided much more quickly than in chess. I really do get it. I think the thing that is missed in some respects is that people relate chess to older simpler styles of warfare, but they perhaps try to do it with a more modern discipline and style.
Goddess-Ishtar wrote:
thats the biggest BS line i've even seen on this site.
lol..."Oh, would that that were so!" (pictured is the Chess.com Biggest BS Line line):
Goddess-Ishtar wrote:
thats the biggest BS line i've even seen on this site. if that was the case then there wouldn't be a forum. as only two people would be aloud to make comments. and no one else would be aloud to enter a confersation in the middle.. thats right, you don't have to care, good for you.. and what pass would that be because i'm doing what everyone one else is doing. doesn't make me special one bit. But i have, like everyone one else here has.. THE RIGHT TO SPEAK!. well they do ! it tax time, and are hoping for some cash back.
Go ahead, do it til your fingers bleed...see if I care...
Yes, games like chess have been proven to improve general thinking skills, which helps you in every area of your life
LOL Andy. only you.
And Nam..didn't you say this forum was over.. . and you don't care, why are you still here. are you needing a hug or something.
joeydvivre wrote:
"But there are no rules for tanks because they can be modified."
Do you really think that? A tank can be modified so there are no rules that applies to tanks? Can I make my tank go 120 mph over the water? How useful were tanks in Vietnam?
Honestly, the notion that "there are no rules for tanks because they can be modified" is not just wrong but completely dumb wrong.
Hahaha! Can you make a tank go over water? Of course. In fact you can make it go underwater, too. You'd have to adjust the armnament and propulsion, but it can be done. They may not go 120 mph, yet, but a hundred years ago they barely existed at all. War and technology are similarly constrainted only by what you can imagine. I suppose chess is that way, too, if you consider that you could pick up your rook, hit your opponent in the head with it and call it a victory. Good luck doing that in an online game... I'm not sure how tanks in Vietnam is relavant to anything. If anything that entire conflict proves my point. But you still don't get it. In fact you're not even close, so you might just want to let it go. Not everyone has creativity of thought. This isn't that complicated, but consider your definition of the word "rule" and maybe you'll understand, assuming you don't just let it go that is...
The question is in itself a fallacy, because it implies that we 1. have chess skills and 2. have a real life.