What's the relation between chess and math?

If induction and removal-of-the-guard do not have much in common, is it very significant that the same vague general word can be used to refer to both?

perhaps our ability to identify patterns is intrinsic to our own biological organization. For example: two arms, two legs, 10 fingers on the hands and feet, a head, a nose, but two nostrils, 12 holes in the body (challenge to find all of them! Lol), etc ...

In this case, considering that there are small differences between one person and another, some patterns may be more flashy than others. It's just a hypothetical scenario, but let's say that someone who has long arms (the most visible difference from this person in comparison to the others) will be more perceptive with the idea of duality, whereas someone with a big head may be more tending to see patterns involving unity.

These are children's examples, but I think you can get the point.

I'm saying it's the 'math' that's in us that we can see in the world ...

If induction and removal-of-the-guard do not have much in common, it does not seem, to me, to be very significant that the same vague general word can be used to refer to both.

Chess, math, physics, etc. etc. require some cerebral agility/prowess.

But so do many other endeavours (such as reciting long poems) !!!

And it seems to me that the appropriate conclusion is that induction and removal-of-the-guard do not have much in common.

well - chess and math are both based on patterns. Aside from details as "removal of the guard" you can easily recognize the pattern most basic in those black&white sqares which are regularly sorted. Which is btw the definition of a pattern. Math has patterns all over. So Daniel Madison hits the spot here. osdeving8 also made a important remark: We see and think in patterns even when we come across mutations. That's because they differ from a known pattern. Chinese philosophy calls it polarity, others call it dichotomy, evolution calls it tradition & mutation, math has tertia non datur, physics has centripetal or centrifugal i.a. You have chaos and order; day & night - I'd could go on definitely indefinitely. On a greater scale these are patterns, cuz there is discernible regularity. Even if - and also because! - guys like kindaspongey (sic) disagree without an argument.

Let me know if either of you want to discuss whether or not, apart from the use of a vague general word, induction has much in common with successfully handling an isolated queen pawn position.

I'd like to hear from the programmers who design computers that play chess competitively. Computer chess algorithms are a natural intersection of math and chess.

Is human chess playing very much like computer chess playing? Computer calculation is involved in what percentage of published math papers?

jazz-it-up wrote:

well - chess and math are both based on patterns. ... you can easily recognize the pattern most basic in those black&white sqares which are regularly sorted...

kindaspongey wrote:

Let me know if either of you want to discuss whether or not, apart from the use of a vague general word, induction has much in common with successfully handling an isolated queen pawn position.

I'd half jestingly say: Discuss is such a vague general word as opposed to pattern. Plus I cannot see that you contributed anything besides a sullen "no, it isn't!"

So I'm done here.

Are you saying much more than a vague general word, combined with "yes it is" as a demonstration of your position? I've tried to propose things more specific for consideration - things somewhat related to real math skill and real chess skill. If you don't want to discuss them, so be it. By the way, my use of the word, "discuss", was not intended as a demonstration of anything. It was just an attempt to see what you are willing to do. The demonstration was in your reaction.

@kindaspongey Listen kid, if you fail to see that 'pattern' is not vague but a well defined word, there is really no use in debating. Just have a look at the board lying in front of you with its well sorted black-and-white sqares which lay the ground for all those quirky chess skills (like your removal-of-defender (sic) and a dozen others you want to dwell upon). It's this very pattern which reshines in math all over the place.

You wanna have a math formula for a chess skill like putting rooks on open files? Yes, you can formulate this in math language, but I guess you wouldn't - and neither me - be able to discuss it. You might as well start breeding ants.

Daniel Madison said there's pattern in both chess and math, and I agree by adding that pattern is not a 'vague word' as you repeatedly wrote, but well defined as the chess board in all its b/w splendor.

If you want to 'discuss' what a specific chess skill like 'removal-of-the-defender' has in common with a math formula while omit the concept of pattern thinking, you reached dead end street. Exit now.

spongebob rarely sees things from another’s perspective, best to just move on and get on with things.

Is there pattern involved in proving by induction and playing an isolated queen pawn position? How about writing a sonnet? Are these very similar activities?

Does something similar shine in a brick wall? Does contemplating "well sorted black-and-white sqares" come very close to contemplating how to play an isolated queen pawn position?

Perhaps it is of significance to consider whether or not grandmasters are likely to "wanna" do so.

Why would I want to do that? I am trying to advocate consideration of what is different.