Is chess a science?
Sort:
Chess is the 1st computer game before computers were invented. Just look at the algorithm
vickalan escribió:
I think chess is a science, and there's scientists using supercomputers to solve chess problems just like in any other science. In this thread scientist used supercomputers to solve a chess game that was unsolved for 122 years!
Computers can be programmed to write fugues. That does not mean that composing music is a science.
Computers can solve chess problems and beat the best chess players in the world because their power to analyse exceeds that of human beings. If computers are good at chess all that tells us is something about the nature of chess.
BronsteinPawn wrote:
Slap them in the face and tell them this quote from Botvinnik.
Chess is the art which expresses the science of logic.
You could also argue the louder and the more big words are used to say its a science the more people believe such "arguments".
I hardly get the way of arguing whether its a science or not. There is no black and white, it always depends on the kind of view on the subject. So many things can be viewed from a science-perspective. Its not about chess whether its categorized under science or not its the way of treating that, the approuch of dealing with the things around chess. And this applies to almost everything.
chess is science to those people who need to label as such so they feel like they are not wasting their life playing the game all the time
ha ha
1818-1828271 wrote:
Chess is a part of the arbitrary and changing human universe.
Say that to computer science.
As someone who is very interested in science, I can confidently say that chess should be considered both a formal science and a social science, but not a natural science.
The game of chess uses logic, maths, game theory etc. (formal science) and has relationships among individuals (social science).
If your teacher does 5 minutes of research into what branches of science there are GuudFuurYuu, it will (hopefully) change his mind. Good luck.
I like that botvinnik quote, but playing chess for fun at highschool isn't science. The teacher is right, sorry.
chess is history . . .
Are pigs science? If you study their body functions then they're science. If you study how well they navigate a maze then they're science. If you raise them as pets then they're recreation. If you turn them into ham sandwiches then they're food. My point: any object/phenomenon is neutral; it's how you regard that object/phenomenon that allows you to put it into a (likely nonexclusive) category.
Sqod wrote:
Are pigs science? If you study their body functions then they're science. If you study how well they navigate a maze then they're science. If you raise them as pets then they're recreation. If you turn them into ham sandwiches then they're food. My point: any object/phenomenon is neutral; it's how you regard that object/phenomenon that allows you to put it into a (likely nonexclusive) category.
my words but people want to see it as something special where all the time is spent
Yes you can say there is some science to chess. When the game is learned and then played over a period of time by a individual they begin to develop fundaments. Fundaments that already exist. The nature of the game at some point changes in the individual mind as to what has been happening prior to there gradual state of the hobby. Reasearch and study is bound to happen once a person says to them self " by now I have something or the other player/ challenger/ or expert has made some advancements, possibly profounding ones, that are and could be noteworthy of. After all what comes to the mind when you think chess, a-strat-egy-game.
chess is just a game, not a science
Perhaps turn it around...use science to study chess.