You boys take it out back.....
Pros and cons of chess
Sort:
Jul 5, 2010
0
#44
How could anyone not say this discussion was not a good way to waste time with gems like these in it? 
The first one may be the most significant point in the discussion.
lumenator wrote:
It does teach you to think strategically, to analyse problems...this approach can then be applied to other areas of life. Definitely a worthwhile mental excercise, Elroch.
Flamma_Aquila wrote:
I liken my chess habit to most men's golf habit, except it is cheaper, and not as good exercise.
MyCowsCanFly wrote:
There must be a pro and con list about writing pro and con lists.
Jul 5, 2010
0
#45
Elroch wrote:
For tryst's enlightenment, the practice of communicating in a common language is based on the words used already having commonly accepted definitions, which since the 18th century have been collected in dictionaries. Every book, newspaper and webpage relies on the words having accepted meanings, avoiding the impracticality of everyone defining every word every time they use it. Every reader knows that if there is a word they do not fully understand, they can look it up in a dictionary (something which most of us probably do rather often). tryst may wish to single-handedly remove the basis of common communication, but I do not believe there will be a great deal of support for this.
This first part here, I would define as someone who is "full of themselves". When a person asks you to define a term, a lecture about how society uses dictionaries, and a claim that the person asking for a definition from you, is equivalent to "single-handedly remov(ing) the basis of common communication". That is a nice example of the term "full of themselves".
Jul 5, 2010
0
#46
Elroch wrote:
Intelligence is inherently a very broad, loosely defined concept
This part, I would define as "forgetting the original question". While in the throes of being "full of themselves", one actually gives a reason themselves, for being asked to clarify a term they are using. This is a nice example of "forgetting the original question".
pros .. fun game, easy to learn, easy to play, if you have a stick of chalk you can make a chess board.
cons .. when you start to see chessboards everywhere, eyes opened or closed, and imagine moves and games in your head when you're not playing, "tetris effect"
(some spend time on unsavory projects, itemizing pros and cons is fun, sometimes I make lists of possibly trivial things, but then again spending time on chess could be a trivial thing.)
Jul 5, 2010
0
#48
This first part here, I would define as someone who is "full of themselves". When a person asks you to define a term, a lecture about how society uses dictionaries, and a claim that the person asking for a definition from you, is equivalent to "single-handedly remov(ing) the basis of common communication". That is a nice example of the term "full of themselves".
This is an excellent example of an inappropriate ad hominem attack. It is wrong to describe someone as being "full of themselves (sic)" for sticking to dictionary definitions rather that writing a new definition.
If you did not understand what I said, the point is that when someone writes something in English, you can assume they are using words as they are defined in a dictionary. To demand that they invent a new definition of each word is a request which it is perfectly reasonable to decline. To insult them repeatedly for failing to comply with your request is a guaranteed way to lose respect.
Jul 5, 2010
0
#49
Elroch wrote:
tonydal wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Interesting response (though without any constructive content).
I infer that you reject discussion of how playing chess compares to other activities and, feeling uncomfortable about this, wish to take a shot at me. Not an uncommon pattern.
Input is very welcome from anyone more open-minded.
Tonydal, to be fair to you, please explain in what way I would be wasting my time (say, compared to you)?
lol...speaking of not uncommon patterns (how many shots at me did you just take?). I have no "constructive content" to make because I think such posts aren't constructive at all, but are merely a blathering waste of time (the usual chessplayer windbag game of fillin' the sails and sounding more important than you are, or indeed anybody is).
Resorting to the use of ad hominem attacks is no more effective in a factual discussion than unsubstantiated insults are a remedy to a bad position in a game of chess. Insulting chessplayers in general with the intention of including me does not improve your position.
The post of mine you quoted consists of a hypothesis which you have given me no reason to believe was not true and a polite question to you, asking for elaboration of the claim in your previous post. In answer to your question, that amounts to zero shots.
Try to ignore him, he just can't stand elaborations or reflection of any sort.
Jul 5, 2010
0
#50
Elroch wrote:
This first part here, I would define as someone who is "full of themselves". When a person asks you to define a term, a lecture about how society uses dictionaries, and a claim that the person asking for a definition from you, is equivalent to "single-handedly remov(ing) the basis of common communication". That is a nice example of the term "full of themselves".
This is an excellent example of an inappropriate ad hominem attack. It is odd to describe someone as being "full of themselves (sic)" for sticking to dictionary definitions rather that writing a new definition.
If you did not understand what I said, the point is that when someone writes something in English, you can assume they are using words as they are defined in a dictionary. To demand that they invent a new definition of each word is a request which it is perfectly reasonable to decline.
You've never had a conversation that ends up with both participants saying: 'Well that is not what I meant by that word.' Is this that difficult for you?
Jul 5, 2010
0
#51
It is true, I have never had such a conversation. Not sure I see the point.
[I am unhappy at the sort of bitterness that has appeared in more than one of the less positive contributions to this topic. I am sure it can be partly blamed on the problem that it is possible to make mistakes in identifying the tone of what people write, but could have been totally avoided by everyone being respectful and only discussing facts. Except for the very welcome humorous posts. ]
trysts wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Intelligence is inherently a very broad, loosely defined concept
This part, I would define as "forgetting the original question". While in the throes of being "full of themselves", one actually gives a reason themselves, for being asked to clarify a term they are using. This is a nice example of "forgetting the original question".
You cannot play Chess without learning something. We can learn much from wise words, little from wisecracks, and less from wise guys. However, Chess teaches in form of symbols.
If playing Chess teaches you to learn new things everytime you play, then you might consider yourself as "intelligent", otherwise you are just stuck in some sort of "loopback".
All unintelligent players who are stuck in the loopback of their regenerative Chess thought patterns will eventually "forget the original question" usually because of their compulsive addiction with "Chess as a source of trigger to stimulate thoughts".
Jul 5, 2010
0
#53
Elroch wrote:
It is true, I have never had such a conversation. Not sure I see the point.
Oh. Well then, excuse me, Elroch. There are close to 7 billion people on the planet, and what I commonly experience, one person may not. Sorry.
Jul 5, 2010
0
#55
philidor_position wrote:
Elroch wrote:
tonydal wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Interesting response (though without any constructive content).
I infer that you reject discussion of how playing chess compares to other activities and, feeling uncomfortable about this, wish to take a shot at me. Not an uncommon pattern.
Input is very welcome from anyone more open-minded.
Tonydal, to be fair to you, please explain in what way I would be wasting my time (say, compared to you)?
lol...speaking of not uncommon patterns (how many shots at me did you just take?). I have no "constructive content" to make because I think such posts aren't constructive at all, but are merely a blathering waste of time (the usual chessplayer windbag game of fillin' the sails and sounding more important than you are, or indeed anybody is).
Resorting to the use of ad hominem attacks is no more effective in a factual discussion than unsubstantiated insults are a remedy to a bad position in a game of chess. Insulting chessplayers in general with the intention of including me does not improve your position.
The post of mine you quoted consists of a hypothesis which you have given me no reason to believe was not true and a polite question to you, asking for elaboration of the claim in your previous post. In answer to your question, that amounts to zero shots.
Try to ignore him, he just can't stand elaborations or reflection of any sort.
philidor_position, I know you love philosophy, have you ever come across a person who has never had a conversation where the meaning of their terms was not a reason for disagreement? This is the first such person I have met.
pro: You can always learn from Chess, if you pay attention.
con: Whoever ceases to be a Chessplayer has never been a Chessplayer.
[I think if you have a clearly-defined objective (again, the original question), then the above con is not inherently limiting.]
What is important is to keep learning, to enjoy challenge, and to tolerate ambiguity. In the end there are no certain answers.
That was awesome. Way to capture the moment, Trysts. Is it really this way amongst us? We, who are a beautiful lot, should have no conflict or quarrel within our ranks! We, who are thus...patient and intelligent in a way many others only dream off, SHALL NOT have discourse in our ranks lest we shame OURSELVES!!! Now you guys play a game as friendly opponents and be at peace.
GG
Jul 5, 2010
0
#58
ibhwarrior wrote:
That was awesome. Way to capture the moment, Trysts. Is it really this way amongst us? We, who are a beautiful lot, should have no conflict or quarrel within our ranks! We, who are thus...patient and intelligent in a way many others only dream off, SHALL NOT have discourse in our ranks lest we shame OURSELVES!!! Now you guys play a game as friendly opponents and be at peace.
GG
If I'm reading your post correctly, you have captured the moment, ibhwarrior. Propositions put forth by people may require them to clarify their terms, and take responsibility for defending their meaning, without the consolation of deferring to dictionaries. This is having guts. Being able to think on your own and defend your thoughts, alone.
...and remember to always watch the children play 
Jul 5, 2010
0
#60
"If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants." - Isaac Newton
Blackadder: [rewriting the dictionary] Baldrick, what have you done?
Baldrick: I've done "C" and "D."
Blackadder: Right. Let's have it, then.
Baldrick: Right. "Big blue wobbly thing that mermaids live in."
Blackadder: What's that?
Baldrick: "C."
Blackadder: Yes. Tiny misunderstanding. Still, my hopes weren't high. Oh, and "D?"
Baldrick: I'm quite pleased with "dog."
Blackadder: Yes, and your definition of "dog" is?
Baldrick: "Not a cat."
(from the classic "Black Adder the Third - Ink and Incapability" (1987))
Interesting response (though without any constructive content).
I infer that you reject discussion of how playing chess compares to other activities and, feeling uncomfortable about this, wish to take a shot at me. Not an uncommon pattern.
Input is very welcome from anyone more open-minded.
Tonydal, to be fair to you, please explain in what way I would be wasting my time (say, compared to you)?
lol...speaking of not uncommon patterns (how many shots at me did you just take?). I have no "constructive content" to make because I think such posts aren't constructive at all, but are merely a blathering waste of time (the usual chessplayer windbag game of fillin' the sails and sounding more important than you are, or indeed anybody is).
Resorting to the use of ad hominem attacks is no more effective in a factual discussion than unsubstantiated insults are a remedy to a bad position in a game of chess. Insulting chessplayers in general with the intention of including me does not improve your position.
The post of mine you quoted consists of a hypothesis which you have given me no reason to believe was not true and a polite question to you, asking for elaboration of the claim in your previous post. In answer to your question, that amounts to zero shots.