Chess of course !
What's deeper ? Chess or Mathematics
Sort:
chess < go < math
It's a misconception that you need to be good at math or even "smart" in general to enjoy playing chess. It's just a game like any other, with predefined rules and those who excel at it are familiar with the patterns.
Jul 11, 2021
0
#25
I dont think this is even a conversation is it? Maths is obviously infinitely deeper!
#29
There appears to be a link between chess and mathematics: Andersen, Steinitz, Lasker, and Euwe were mathematicians, Capablanca, Vidmar, and Botvinnik engineers. They have some abstract thinking in common.
Jul 11, 2021
0
#27
chess according to me because it kinda teaches life lessons too. A pawn worth 1 point may save the game by promoting, the queen is the most powerful, tricking the opponent by sacrificing sometimes, and teaches patience.
The answer is rather simple. Math cannot compete with chess in terms of both, complexity and difficulty in reaching a level of even mere proficiency. There are only about 1600 chess GMs in the world, compared to 1200 math Phds graduating annually from U.S. universities alone.
#33
Those 1200 math PhD per year all get well-paid jobs, while most of the 1600 GM struggle to make ends meet. That is because math is useful and chess is just a game. It tells nothing about complexity or depth. We now have 12 year old GM, but no 12 year old math PhD... It is easier to become GM than math PhD, but less rewarding financially.
Some great points there
Jul 11, 2021
0
#31
AreaElf skrev:
The answer is rather simple. Math cannot compete with chess in terms of both, complexity and difficulty in reaching a level of even mere proficiency. There are only about 1600 chess GMs in the world, compared to 1200 math Phds graduating annually from U.S. universities alone.
Yeah, and since chessboxing req. 1600 elo in chess and 50 matches of boxing or equivalent to even participate in a match there should be less people who are qualified to even participate then amount of GM so regulat chessboxer > GM.
Or maybe we should use some subset of math, like stats, and check both how many GM and what is the starting set of people who started to train chess on same level as people who started their math bac. aka how many people spend 3 years @ 40hours/week on chess and how many of them continue to become any kind of master. Also, do remember that most of children drop off not because it is to hard but because that is the reallity of any hobby.
Another problem is that Elo is relative unlike degrees which are absolute. It should be impossible for every chess player to reach 2600 elo since you get points from winning in live events and those who lose also lose points. In theory, everyone who started math bach. could become a phd if they all are both motivated and have optimal learning environment.
Dmfed wrote:
AreaElf skrev:
The answer is rather simple. Math cannot compete with chess in terms of both, complexity and difficulty in reaching a level of even mere proficiency. There are only about 1600 chess GMs in the world, compared to 1200 math Phds graduating annually from U.S. universities alone.
Yeah, and since chessboxing req. 1600 elo in chess and 50 matches of boxing or equivalent to even participate in a match there should be less people who are qualified to even participate then amount of GM so regulat chessboxer > GM.
Or maybe we should use some subset of math, like stats, and check both how many GM and what is the starting set of people who started to train chess on same level as people who started their math bac. aka how many people spend 3 years @ 40hours/week on chess and how many of them continue to become any kind of master. Also, do remember that most of children drop off not because it is to hard but because that is the reallity of any hobby.
Another problem is that Elo is relative unlike degrees which are absolute. It should be impossible for every chess player to reach 2600 elo since you get points from winning in live events and those who lose also lose points. In theory, everyone who started math bach. could become a phd if they all are both motivated and have optimal learning environment.
Sorry but the requirement for GM is not 1600 elo
Jul 11, 2021
0
#34
chamo2074 skrev:
Sorry but the requirement for GM is not 1600 elo
I know, it is req. for participating in a chessboxing match. Since AreaElf used the logic "fewer GM than PhDs means GM is harder", we can use same logic "fewer qualified chessboxer then GM means qualifying for chessboxing (1600 elo AND 50 matches) is harder", which we all can intuitively tell is wrong because there are fewer chessboxer (and GMs) mostly because fewer people try to become one.
Now, chessboxing IS theoreticly more complex then chess since chess is a subset of it but in practice it at best average quick chess with average boxing until we have same level of participents (and prize money) as in boxing.
Yeah true more math phds because it's more useful. GM titles don't pay.
Jul 11, 2021
0
#37
Math is so... much... deeper.
Alright, don’t get me wrong here. I know that chess is extremely deep, speaking in a general contest, but comparing it to Mathematics?
Really?
Jul 11, 2021
0
#38
Before "deeper" is clearly defined, all of this is simply an exchange of emotions
Jul 11, 2021
0
#39
chess is it .every opening is so deep .math is only 1-9 which is made into multiple numbers. Endgame studies are a must .its soo interesting and so deep. henceforth chess is deeper and I love the game a lot!!
Math/Maths/Mathematics
Which name do you guys prefer? Try to be unbiased of your country.