No. However we all have our rituals before starting a game without knowing it.The most common is straightening the pieces so that they are bang in the middle of the squares. I do this, but also dress up as Napoleon and imagine I am going in to battle.
Is chess good for the mind or does it lead to insanity?
Sort:
fluffy001 wrote:
netzach wrote:
Think your okay as long as don't start going to the shops dressed as a bishop or knight.
I agree with him, but I don't think you should study chess too much, either.
I don't think there's anything wrong with studying too much chess, of course I must admit I don't know much about it; I just think people should study what they want. Nor do I know anything about dressing up as a bishop or knight, but I know it's legal to carry a sword in the U.S., however a cop with an itchy trigger finger could get away with shooting a man carrying one after a couple brief warnings. So it might be kind of insane to carry one... unless your bulletproof.
Is chess good for the mind or does it lead to insanity?
Both.
But is that the question?
I've heard this dumbass question asked several ways. Never before, though, as an either or proposition.
So I guess the answer is yes!
Team Mazda must be so proud!
Sunshiny wrote:
macer75 wrote:
Ruby-Fischer wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
I think Macer has a point. Something leading towards insanity could be good for the mind as long as insanity isn't reached.
How would that work then? Im not sure what you mean.
Maybe you think a chronic anxiety disorder is good for the mind?
How close to insanity would you need to be for it to be good for you?
Actually, depending on what the definition of "good" is, insanity itself could be good for the mind. If "good" means conforming to normal human society (which is how most people define the word subconsciously), then no, insanity isn't good for the mind. However, if we ditch the preconception of insanity as a disease (and it is only a disease because human society labels it as such), then insanity is just another way of thinking. And often this way of thinking leads to results completely unattainable by so called "normal" people. To name a few examples: Van Gouh, Beethoven, Bobby Fischer (if we're talking about chess), F. Scott Fitzgerald (slightly), Copernicus (back in the day was labelled as insane), etc.
This would depend on what the definition of "insanity" is too. I consider it something that negatively affects a person. If it doesn't do that, then it's good. I don't use your mentioned definition for "good."
But how would you define "negatively affects"? Copernicus was burned alive for saying that the earth orbited the sun, so he was negatively affected in pretty much the most negative way possible. So he was insane for saying what he said?
[COMMENT DELETED]
Bobby Fischer wasnt insane!!
Chess doesn't make you insane; not playing chess makes the most of the rest of the world insane. Chess players account for the small minority of sane people on the planet.
macer75 wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
macer75 wrote:
Ruby-Fischer wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
I think Macer has a point. Something leading towards insanity could be good for the mind as long as insanity isn't reached.
How would that work then? Im not sure what you mean.
Maybe you think a chronic anxiety disorder is good for the mind?
How close to insanity would you need to be for it to be good for you?
Actually, depending on what the definition of "good" is, insanity itself could be good for the mind. If "good" means conforming to normal human society (which is how most people define the word subconsciously), then no, insanity isn't good for the mind. However, if we ditch the preconception of insanity as a disease (and it is only a disease because human society labels it as such), then insanity is just another way of thinking. And often this way of thinking leads to results completely unattainable by so called "normal" people. To name a few examples: Van Gouh, Beethoven, Bobby Fischer (if we're talking about chess), F. Scott Fitzgerald (slightly), Copernicus (back in the day was labelled as insane), etc.
This would depend on what the definition of "insanity" is too. I consider it something that negatively affects a person. If it doesn't do that, then it's good. I don't use your mentioned definition for "good."
But how would you define "negatively affects"? Copernicus was burned alive for saying that the earth orbited the sun, so he was negatively affected in pretty much the most negative way possible. So he was insane for saying what he said?
That is something different that negatively affected Copernicus. Since the topic is insanity, i didn't feel it necessary to specify the cause.
To be clear or clearer, when a person reaches a point where the person's mentality itself causes that person to be negatively affected, then that is when the mentality has reached insanity, which is a bad thing.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Sunshiny wrote:
macer75 wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
macer75 wrote:
Ruby-Fischer wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
I think Macer has a point. Something leading towards insanity could be good for the mind as long as insanity isn't reached.
How would that work then? Im not sure what you mean.
Maybe you think a chronic anxiety disorder is good for the mind?
How close to insanity would you need to be for it to be good for you?
Actually, depending on what the definition of "good" is, insanity itself could be good for the mind. If "good" means conforming to normal human society (which is how most people define the word subconsciously), then no, insanity isn't good for the mind. However, if we ditch the preconception of insanity as a disease (and it is only a disease because human society labels it as such), then insanity is just another way of thinking. And often this way of thinking leads to results completely unattainable by so called "normal" people. To name a few examples: Van Gouh, Beethoven, Bobby Fischer (if we're talking about chess), F. Scott Fitzgerald (slightly), Copernicus (back in the day was labelled as insane), etc.
This would depend on what the definition of "insanity" is too. I consider it something that negatively affects a person. If it doesn't do that, then it's good. I don't use your mentioned definition for "good."
But how would you define "negatively affects"? Copernicus was burned alive for saying that the earth orbited the sun, so he was negatively affected in pretty much the most negative way possible. So he was insane for saying what he said?
That is something different that negatively affected Copernicus. Since the topic is insanity, i didn't feel it necessary to specify the cause.
To be clear or clearer, when a person reaches a point where the person's mentality itself causes that person to be negatively affected, then that is when the mentality has reached insanity, which is a bad thing.
thats clearly wrong!!!!
People have basic needs:
1. Certainty / Security
2. Uncertainty / Variety
3. Significance
4. Connection & Love
5. Growth
6. Contribution
There are some more according to different people, but you can see how chess can fulfill some of these needs.
But the security and connecetion and love requires you to extend yourself beyond the chessboard. If you rely on the game and believe you can control the world and be safe and happy, by being the best player and that if you conquer the world, somehow everything will go your way, you are asking for trouble. Because once you reach a certain stage, you will find that the world doesn't change, and won't bend to your will. It is what it is. That is when you start freaking out.
People who are very neurotic or introverted, chess can maybe make it worse. But it is not just chess. The problems is in Mathematics, Arts, Music, Business etc
when you look for things in the wrong place and you can't find it, you go mental.
TetsuoShima wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
macer75 wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
macer75 wrote:
Ruby-Fischer wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
I think Macer has a point. Something leading towards insanity could be good for the mind as long as insanity isn't reached.
How would that work then? Im not sure what you mean.
Maybe you think a chronic anxiety disorder is good for the mind?
How close to insanity would you need to be for it to be good for you?
Actually, depending on what the definition of "good" is, insanity itself could be good for the mind. If "good" means conforming to normal human society (which is how most people define the word subconsciously), then no, insanity isn't good for the mind. However, if we ditch the preconception of insanity as a disease (and it is only a disease because human society labels it as such), then insanity is just another way of thinking. And often this way of thinking leads to results completely unattainable by so called "normal" people. To name a few examples: Van Gouh, Beethoven, Bobby Fischer (if we're talking about chess), F. Scott Fitzgerald (slightly), Copernicus (back in the day was labelled as insane), etc.
This would depend on what the definition of "insanity" is too. I consider it something that negatively affects a person. If it doesn't do that, then it's good. I don't use your mentioned definition for "good."
But how would you define "negatively affects"? Copernicus was burned alive for saying that the earth orbited the sun, so he was negatively affected in pretty much the most negative way possible. So he was insane for saying what he said?
That is something different that negatively affected Copernicus. Since the topic is insanity, i didn't feel it necessary to specify the cause.
To be clear or clearer, when a person reaches a point where the person's mentality itself causes that person to be negatively affected, then that is when the mentality has reached insanity, which is a bad thing.
thats clearly wrong!!!!
Obviously it's not so clear to me. Care to elaborate?
i better not elaborate it maybe its not acceptable...
I see. "Causes" wasn't the best choice of words. "Creates" would be better. Let me rephrase it to say "...where the person's mentality itself creates symptoms which negatively affects that person..."
That should be better. It's why i said "or clearer" since i knew it was not the clearest i could make it.
Edit: Even better might be "...where the person's mentality itself creates negative symptoms which affects that person..."
Sunshiny wrote:
I see. "Causes" wasn't the best choice of words. "Creates" would be better. Let me rephrase it to say "...where the person's mentality itself creates symptoms which negatively affects that person..."
That should be better. It's why i said "or clearer" since i knew it was not the clearest i could make it.
people do all the time acts of honor because of their mentality, that affect them negativly, thats not insane. I still dont know what you mean with symptoms though
I like chess. But I think chess is insanity.
But this insanity is good for me ( i don't know about others). I don't steal, I don't cheat, I don't hurt ppl ( except when I win and they cry like babies).