What's the relation between chess and math?

kindaspongey
"… I do think GM's are paying much more attention to math, patterns, logic than I do." - jazz-it-up
"... Think many chess books have a chapter on math, math patterns, and/or math logic?" - kindaspongey
wollyhood wrote:

why would they, they don't have to separate the math out, it's mixed in allover natural like.

All chess is geometry mate all geometry is math, get over it.

Ever seen the proof of the a^2 + b^2 = c^2 thing? See things like that commonly "mixed in" with chess instruction?

wollyhood

why would you, pythagoras's theorem is an in credibly specific triangulation tool for finding a side length, something that is never needed in chess.

wollyhood

i think once i used it to plot a pentagram on a plane for an exam but that's only because i forgot the formula that i was supposed to use. never found out if it worked correctly.

kindaspongey
"... they don't have to separate the math out, it's mixed in allover natural like. All chess is geometry mate all geometry is math, get over it." - wollyhood
"... Ever seen the proof of the a^2 + b^2 = c^2 thing? See things like that commonly 'mixed in' with chess instruction?" - kindaspongey
wollyhood wrote:

why would you, pythagoras's theorem is an in credibly specific triangulation tool for finding a side length, something that is never needed in chess.

Would nearly all of a geometry textbook be "in credibly specific" and "never needed in chess"?

wollyhood

i don't recall ever having a geometry textbook. We had very good teachers that prepared the lessons manually.

Yoendri15230
Hey I have a question why when I play bullet from 1:00 min when I make a play they don’t give the 2 second up but eveybody else get it so it’s so hard to win with this miss advantage why this happen and I’m even premium member anyone can help me
kindaspongey
"... Would nearly all of a geometry textbook be 'in credibly specific' and 'never needed in chess'?" - kindaspongey
wollyhood wrote:

i don't recall ever having a geometry textbook. We had very good teachers that prepared the lessons manually.

Remember seeing the proof of the area of a triangle?

pdve

Proof of area of triangle is intuitive. You just make a parallelogram out of it and then divide by half.

pdve

If you need proof of area of parallelogram then you just cut out two triangles and make a rectangle out of it. If you need proof of area of rectangle then idk, look up calculus.

kartipower

cant say

kindaspongey
"... they don't have to separate the math out, it's mixed in allover natural like. All chess is geometry mate all geometry is math, get over it." - wollyhood
"... Remember seeing the proof of the area of a triangle?" - kindaspongey
pdve wrote:

... You just make a parallelogram out of it and then divide by half. If you need proof of area of parallelogram then you just cut out two triangles and make a rectangle out of it. If you need proof of area of rectangle then idk, look up calculus.

See things like that commonly "mixed in" with chess instruction?

pdve
kindaspongey wrote:
"... they don't have to separate the math out, it's mixed in allover natural like. All chess is geometry mate all geometry is math, get over it." - wollyhood
"... Remember seeing the proof of the area of a triangle?" - kindaspongey
pdve wrote:

... You just make a parallelogram out of it and then divide by half. If you need proof of area of parallelogram then you just cut out two triangles and make a rectangle out of it. If you need proof of area of rectangle then idk, look up calculus.

See things like that commonly "mixed in" with chess instruction?

haha .. ive known some people who could play sensational chess but couldn't solve a math problem and vice versa.

wollyhood
kindaspongey wrote:
"... Would nearly all of a geometry textbook be 'in credibly specific' and 'never needed in chess'?" - kindaspongey
wollyhood wrote:

i don't recall ever having a geometry textbook. We had very good teachers that prepared the lessons manually.

Remember seeing the proof of the area of a triangle?

Since when did triangle area require a proof?

"... they don't have to separate the math out, it's mixed in allover natural like. All chess is geometry mate all geometry is math, get over it." - wollyhood
"... Remember seeing the proof of the area of a triangle?" - kindaspongey
pdve wrote:

... You just make a parallelogram out of it and then divide by half. If you need proof of area of parallelogram then you just cut out two triangles and make a rectangle out of it. If you need proof of area of rectangle then idk, look up calculus.

See things like that commonly "mixed in" with chess instruction?

 

look spongey, just because you drag out a super basic geometry formula is completely redundant. There is Math inside chess even if you were bad at math / pray for math to be removed from life, whatever your beef is with math.

You can't change that fact, and you are just starting to sound like an old dog panting in the wind

 

 

Colin20G
wollyhood wrote:
 

Since when did triangle area require a proof?

Since everything we know in maths is known because of proofs.

kindaspongey
"... they don't have to separate the math out, it's mixed in allover natural like. All chess is geometry mate all geometry is math, get over it." - wollyhood
"... Ever seen the proof of the a^2 + b^2 = c^2 thing? See things like that commonly 'mixed in' with chess instruction?" - kindaspongey
"why would you, pythagoras's theorem is an in credibly specific triangulation tool for finding a side length, something that is never needed in chess." - wollyhood
wollyhood wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
"... Would nearly all of a geometry textbook be 'in credibly specific' and 'never needed in chess'?" - kindaspongey
wollyhood wrote:

i don't recall ever having a geometry textbook. We had very good teachers that prepared the lessons manually.

Remember seeing the proof of the area of a triangle?

Since when did triangle area require a proof? ...

Perhaps, if you look in a geometry textbook, you will get some idea about the degree to which the subject is concerned with proof.

kindaspongey
wollyhood

… just because you drag out a super basic geometry formula is completely redundant. There is Math inside chess …

Ever seen a chess book refer to the angles of a triangle adding up to 180 degrees?

wollyhood

I'll see if I can elucidate your point more effectively here as you seem to be struggling.

I will have to paraphrase your posts thus far.

Maths is NOT involved in chess, as I can drag up Year 1-5 maths problems that have nothing to do with chess.

Therefore, there is almost no maths in chess.

Is that how your brain works spongey?

MattFarell

Daniel-Madison wrote:

 

MasonLasker wrote:

 

There is no relation between mathematics and chess chess at all.  All people who claim otherwise:  tell just one mathematical theorem which helps you to play chess better. Mathematics is abstract , chess is concrete. By the way the metaphor of calculating in chess has nothing to do with  calculation in the mathematical sense - it's just a word-  and even more: doing math has nothing to do with calcuculation. According Poincaré mathematics is the art to call  different things with the same name. And just an apercue by Jean-Pierre  Sierre one of the greatest mathematician of the 20thn century: I became mathematician because I disliked  calculating. 

Having said all that : It doesn't exclude the possibility that there are not few people that excel both at chess and mathematics , as there are not few people that excel both at music and chess.

 

As a mathematician, I disagree. Which means I owe you a theorem. But first, a definition:

A Nash Equilibrium point (in terms of chess) is a strategy combination (W, B), where W, B are strategies, such that no player can increase their advantage by a unilateral departure from (W, B). If one player sticks rigidly to his Nash Equilibrium strategy, W, then the other player cannot increase his advantage by selecting a strategy other than his Nash Equilibrium strategy, B. In other words, W is the best reply to B and B is the best reply to W.

Nash's Theorem: For every finite n-person game, there exists at least one Nash Equilibrium point. From the definition and theorem, it is trivial to mathematically prove the existence of such a thing as a best move or in some cases moves.

You could also look at it in terms of Group Theory. Not sure how useful that would be, but you could do it. Also calculation in chess is in fact mathematical, especially if you are using a computer to do it, which uses an algorithm, which is of course math.

 

The Nash Equilibrium for online chess is to use chess engines 😂 Least risk / Maximum payout.

MattFarell

Daniel-Madison wrote:

 

MasonLasker wrote:

 

There is no relation between mathematics and chess chess at all.  All people who claim otherwise:  tell just one mathematical theorem which helps you to play chess better. Mathematics is abstract , chess is concrete. By the way the metaphor of calculating in chess has nothing to do with  calculation in the mathematical sense - it's just a word-  and even more: doing math has nothing to do with calcuculation. According Poincaré mathematics is the art to call  different things with the same name. And just an apercue by Jean-Pierre  Sierre one of the greatest mathematician of the 20thn century: I became mathematician because I disliked  calculating. 

Having said all that : It doesn't exclude the possibility that there are not few people that excel both at chess and mathematics , as there are not few people that excel both at music and chess.

 

As a mathematician, I disagree. Which means I owe you a theorem. But first, a definition:

A Nash Equilibrium point (in terms of chess) is a strategy combination (W, B), where W, B are strategies, such that no player can increase their advantage by a unilateral departure from (W, B). If one player sticks rigidly to his Nash Equilibrium strategy, W, then the other player cannot increase his advantage by selecting a strategy other than his Nash Equilibrium strategy, B. In other words, W is the best reply to B and B is the best reply to W.

Nash's Theorem: For every finite n-person game, there exists at least one Nash Equilibrium point. From the definition and theorem, it is trivial to mathematically prove the existence of such a thing as a best move or in some cases moves.

You could also look at it in terms of Group Theory. Not sure how useful that would be, but you could do it. Also calculation in chess is in fact mathematical, especially if you are using a computer to do it, which uses an algorithm, which is of course math.

 

The Nash Equilibrium for online chess is to use chess engines 😂 Least risk / Maximum payout.

kindaspongey
wollyhood wrote:

I'll see if I can elucidate your point more effectively here as you seem to be struggling.

... Is that how your brain works spongey?

At this time, I have no desire to add anything to the words that I have already chosen.

"... I am trying to advocate consideration of what is different."