How does math relate to chess?

sapientdust wrote:

pelly13 neglected to mention that Speelman is actually a mathematician AND a chessplayer, as is his compatriot, John Nunn.

And Werent both at the candidates giving Suggestions??? Now this gets really scary...

The sum of the parts .... = pieces working together.

 2 R = Q + 1    intial value of  R = 5 What is the intial value of Q?

Force...... is very similar in math and chess.

"There is beauty in math , just look at Eulers equation : e^(i*pi) -1 = 0"

Except it is e^(i*pi) +1 = 0.  I wonder if you really see the neuty in the equation....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%28mathematical_constant%29

"e" the base of the natural logarithm (~2.71828...). The letter e is used to honor Euler.

edit: On the topic of e, there is a Feynman anecdote that he liked to tell people the number is "2.7 1828 1828 and so on", to give the impression that it continues forever with 1828 1828 rather than in a quasi-random fashion like pi and the irrational numbers people are familiar with (square roots of non squares, etc.). It is pretty uncanny that a block of 4 repeats almost immediately. It has to happen eventually, of course, and there must be some irrational numbers that have repeating blocks early on, but the fact that it happened immediately in arguably the most important constant there is, and certainly one of the two best-known constants (the other being pi, of course), is a bit surprising.

Yes correct , I see the neuty now. Thanks for pointing this out . I have corrected the original text.

If Rook is on file a and opposite Rook B is on file a

do the opposing forces cancel each other?

Do you have enough info to solve this problem?

Problem 2 like gravity objects fall the same rate assuming no outside force is applied to some and varios measures of force. So if the Rook and Queen had a race from on side of the board to the other side it would be and even race assuming no pieces block their path and distance them have to travel is equal.

Momentum takes on the form of tempo in chess except in our world that could be a crash leading to an oil spill. Where some people may die.... on the chess board it may just cause the lost of a piece.

Board is used for a teacher to write on and team math in a math class...duh. Board in chess is by which 2 opponents play chess.

@royalbishop ,

To me trying to relate Chess to Physics seems like an even more hopeless endeavour.

I did not try .... if i did it would be 5 pages long easy.

And the theory alone would blow your mind.....

Theory... i overlooked that one as i mention it often enough.

Mistakes exist in both also.

Both have books where some authors make situations more complicated than what they really are and lead the reader needing a tutor/coach.

Mathematics is factual,universal and objective. You cannot argue with facts , math is about logics and truths.

Physics and Religion are based on assumptions , not on facts. We propose that things like atoms exists , but we will never be able to really see one. We propose there is a God , but nobody has ever seen him. They are both part of Philosofy and form our intellectual heritance.

Chess is based on facts. There is no doubt about reality and we don't have to assume anything. No gods or atoms. There is always a limited set of moves (and follow ups) available in any starting position. Chess is finite and therefore accessable to be mathematically (analytical,numerical) approached.

Seeing it this way , both Chess and Math deal with facts and truth . They both follow a path of stacking axioms on axioms using logics.

Put down the wacky weed ..... then we can talk.

Clearly you know nothing about Physics as the fundamentals of it are based on Calculus ....last time i checked that was math. That same Calculus and Physics that help manufacture cars.  So by that i assume it is not safe to ride in a car as the car was created by assumptions and the same for planes, trains and etc.

I have Dr Phil number..... forget that i will give him your number.

@royalbishop ,

Nowhere did I say that Physics is not usefull . I think it is our biggest achievement and it raised us out of darkness. I was merely trying to answer OP's question with my personal view.

How did you get Dr Phil's number ?

@rmurray wrote :

When i try to even begin to contemplate the possibility of having a chance to ever understand mathematics...my brain immediately.....realizes.....it has made a wrong turn.

In knew a woman called Betty.She was a nurse and was married to a Dutch farmer named Jan. He kept Frisian cows and she had a beehive and a parcel of land with plants and vegetables on it. She was a strong chessplayer but poor in math. She's divorced now and lives in Aspen.

So don't worry , there's more people like you and they are still doing great. Now get some sleep.

Euclids book on the elements can be viewed as a chessbook.

Euclid starts with some definitions of points and lines etc , and adds some commonsence assumptions . From this he start to build up a serie of propositions , he proves them using logic and/or conclusions based on previous propositions. This way he build a huge network of facts , constantly providing proofs build on previous proofs.

Chessbook starts with the movement of the pieces. Then the Opening strategy is discussed.  The openingbook contains many lines played by many GMs , call these experiments . Once a certain line is shown ( proven ) to be wrong , noone will ever play it again.That's what killed i.e the Scolars-mate.

So an openingbook is like Euclids Elements , it builds on past experiences. The difference being that Euclid proved all of his theorems and that a chessbook contains only a few moves (lines) that can really proven to be wrong.

Euclid Elements = Chess Opening Book

@rmurray ,

If cut-and-paste wasn't invented , you'd be out of a job is see. Is there a question or comment to be expected in the near future ?

How does math relate to chess ?

Now I am Dutch and think : For a relation to exist at all , both sides have to have at least something in common.  Take i.e the relation between John Doe and Microsoft Inc . Well , John works there , he is an employe of MS . The relation thus becomes : is employed by , from Joe's side and : employes , from MS Inc's side. The relation goes both ways. The tag on this relation could thus be : employement.

I will proceed my investigations into this relations stuff and will only bother you again when I find out something worthy enough to post.

@rmurray ,

I heard Jan is ok now , he is off-the-sauce they say : not a drop he drinks , but he got a little quiet . He turned Betty's greenhouse into a marihuana-plant and lives with some gal from Korea. They say the tube is removed from his mouth and that he's training to eat hard food again.

@holy_hamster ,

I really love Physics , Math and Chess . Both economics and religion are not Science and are not based on any experimental evidence.

Physics works great , we can very accurately calculate values and compare these with the experiments. Physics uses experiments to check the theory (or visaversa) , Religion does nothing like that.

The Standard Model in Physics makes a couple of commonsence assumptions about what the world is made of. They come up with abstract things like atoms,electrons and now even strings. These things most probably don't even exist,but the funny thing is , that using this model and a set of rules , we can make very accurate predictions about the results of a certain experiment. Physics is nice , but still based on some mystic assumption. That it has in common with Religion I think.

@rmurray yawned :

 mathematical possibilities?   something about monkeys, and typewriters, and shakespeare    

Are you suggesting that eventually a group of monkeys will end up typing the lines I wrote ? It only took one you know .