Pros and cons of chess

So how do you define intelligence, trysts?

Depends on the context I wish to use the word.

Do you have any examples, preferably of an instance when your definition wasn't covered by the dictionary one?

If I use the word, I'll let you know

I like these pros and cons. Where did you find them? They are so interesting!!

In the unlikely event that you are referring to the first post 4 pages back, I wrote them down off the top of my head in about 10-15 minutes, based on 4 decades of experience. But the ones other people have come up with since have been more witty.

Very correct indeed.

Chess indeed serves no real purpose outside itself other than academic research. While I reached this conclusion I was reminded of a famous quote, "It is paradoxical that many educators and parents still differentiate between a time for learning and a time for play without seeing the vital connection between them."

Before I should validate my point further I wish to ask you Elroch, "Have you ever played a Chess game alone, playing both White and Black, right from starting till true end of the game "?

I would say if one person makes all the moves it is not a game, it is a line of analysis. I suppose the only time this would happen would be if one was analysing some opening position and found a line that led to a clear result, which I am  sure I have done on many occasions. (When playing online games, I often look at lines that go from the current position to a result, but typically this would only happen after the opponent has played some moves, and almost always having left previous theory).

No, what i am asking is that have you played both White and Black from starting opening position i.e. from Move 0 onwards till the end. If you have played this kind of game, then what is the general result, you win or you draw? IMHO your listed pros and cons of Chess will make a greater sense then.

In this kind of self-game, the issue of transference and Chess, listed by you as a con will become more clear as now the Observer becomes the One who is being observed or analysed.

My previous post said that I had done what you say, but I consider this of very little significance. It is unlikely that the quality of such a game would be very high, as there is not the natural motivation present in a contest. There certainly would not be any "general result" common to such games, nor would such a result be of any signficance if there was. Games played by a computer against itself would perhaps be of more interest, as the moves played would be mostly of high quality. I am not sure how what you say relates to my (independently arrived at) idea that too much chess might transfer to an unconstructive relationship to the world, continually fighting against it and being under attack.

An analysis without transference is an impossibility. It must not be supposed, however, that transference is created by analysis and does not occur apart from it. Transference is merely uncovered and isolated by analysis. It is a universal phenomenon of the human mind, it decides the success of all Chess games, and in fact dominates the whole of each person's relations to his human environment. We can easily recognize it as the same dynamic factor which the grandmasters have named 'suggestibility', or 'intuitive' moves. What i mean to say is that, transference is more of a kind of pro than con in Chess, as also subtly suggested by you in your original post.

We appear to be talking about two entirely different things. The transference I referred to is a term from psychology that usually refers to problems caused by transferring relationships from childhood inappropriately to other contexts in adulthood.

Speaking in context of psychology and Chess, it is utterly false and cruelly arbitrary to put all the play and learning into childhood, all the work into middle age, and all the regrets into old age.

I don't think human beings can Win any significant Chess game without desperation. Desperation is a necessary ingredient to learning anything or creating anything. Period. If you ain't desperate at some point, you ain't interesting, and will not serve as a good example.

Hi Tonydal! I can't quite figure out whether I'm 9 or Elroch, in your post, but it is always a pleasure to see you on the forums(and it reminds me to have another drink!).

 I find this comment to be out of line. Nobody has encyclopedias anymore.

I guess having more than a fourth grade education upsets some dweebs on here. Maybe they have a desire for us all to go back to living in caves, and turning over flat rocks for our dinner.

They still are. Gnocchi, right?

Both sound Italian to me...

tonydal, with regard to more than one of your earlier posts, I encourage you to read and respect the chess.com site rules.

I predict great success with that approach.