What's the relation between chess and math?

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

...watch out for irony...

The final answer to the topic's question "What's the relation between chess and math?" has appeared after thorough and meaningful discussion with some of the high-brained members of the site and

it's solved: Math has absolutely nothing to do with chess. It would be like comparing apples with oranges.

Besides former being both abstract, latter both fruit.

But hey! this is of no significance whatsoever!

...end of irony...

One of the most humorous moments in this thread can be found on page 1, when somebody inquired 'bout the meaning of 'idk'... The answer was 'I don't know'!

I had a laugh, let's all have one! 'Cuz - we all dk!

It isn't vague, you just don't know what it is. Err, I mean, I don't understand your post. Your use of "in common" here is too vague and really throwing me off. Also other words like "Let" and "me" and "know" and "if", etc. What even are words? *Bong rip*

And in doing so, you've missed the point entirely. Induction is not "removing of the guard" just as induction is not calculus is not fluid mechanics is not algebra is not differential equations is not control theory is not game theory. They are all related, but they are not the same exact thing. I've already talked about pattern recognition, that it is literally math in disguise, and how it shows up in chess. Even more examples of it would be finding tactics, evaluating pawn structures, etc. All of this has already been said multiple times in previous posts, where you either read it and didn't understand it, or just blatantly ignored it. At some point, we have to realize we're talking to a wall and move on.

the force is strong with you, Dan!

Are proving-by-induction and playing-with-an-isolated-queen-pawn even close to each other as activities?

Think some math journal is going to publish a paper about how to play with an isolated queen pawn?

ok guys, everything has been said, but not from everybody  

there is a video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BSxFY-NhHTU

there's a book

https://yetanothermathblog.com/mathematics-and-chess

Have fun & the best next to last move (n-1>1/2:1:2)

Think it gets much attention from grandmasters? Used much as a text for math majors?

"... To solve these puzzles, you don’t have to be a chess player. All you need to know are the rules of the games, and in some cases, not even that. ... recreational math literature. …"

http://store.doverpublications.com/0486294323.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI4ryo1duF4QIVMR-tBh2RQQwyEAQYASABEgLnUPD_BwE

There's some really weird stuff you put in there. When expanding the brain turns out to be bad, let me know.

"... I should warn you that I am not a chess expert. …"

Let's put it topsy-turvy -

Somebody please tend proof chess is not connected to math, especially verify pattern recognition is not used in either.

Enjoy!

well surely someone must know what idk means!!! maybe it is identikit. hey - what's the best acronym finder on the internet?

Can you quote a sentence where either of those claims were made?

There was at least ten posts which seemed to imply this.

If I'm wrong, it is fully justified to assume we all finally can agree pattern recognition is connected to chess.-  Admittedly as to other domains, if not generally. To which degree in which domains specifically would sure be interesting to examine. But here it's off topic.

However - Chess in particular is connected to pattern recognition. Just like Math apparently.

I therefore totally agree with you!

That is very interesting, how they are the 3 things people are usually said to be genius at. Apparently they tested me at school and I was in the top 1% of the population for music, maybe top 2% for maths as I beat out 297 out of 300 people and would have beat them all if I'd put the decimal point in the right place for one question, but in Chess I'm such a looping back to the point / spontaneous thinker that ...

Well I don't know why I'm so rubbish at chess I think it's because I don't want to pay heaps of money for chess books and I owe the library some money xD Nah obviously I just make heaps of blunders but when I focus really hard for a long period I can beat people nearly double my rating.

one of those annoying anecdotal evidence people yes

lack of concentration / focus w/e. But it surprises me music keeps getting compared to chess because lets face it, you can make a million mistakes in music and still be great at it, chess not so much. Music just doesn't require massive focus at all times in fact I think it's good to go into a bit of a trance or emotional abyss to make great music.

You only really have to remember the key you want to be in, the recurring refrains, and the last few notes you played, but this is not essential.

It does not appear to appeal to you to identify even one specific sentence. Well, here are some of my previous sentences:

"... I've tried to propose things more specific for consideration - things somewhat related to real math skill and real chess skill. ..."

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

"... Are proving-by-induction and playing-with-an-isolated-queen-pawn even close to each other as activities?"

Anyone know if GM Alexander Baburin thought of suggesting that his readers practice by doing proof-by-induction problems?

https://web.archive.org/web/20140718055446/http://chesscafe.com/text/wps.txt

thx for quoting yourself, I agree: I didn't bother. And also thx for showing that pet article of yours - aw! Now I understand what all the fuss was about.

A series of strawmen won't actually win you an argument. You might have known that had you taken Intro to Advanced Math (a rigorous course on logic and proofs). There's no Calculus in it though, so you probably don't consider that math.

Btw, one thing that GM's look at is the /statistical/ performance of opening variations, and stats is obviously math related. It even has Calculus.