Why Chess is a Waste of Time and Intelligence – Yes

You can consider just about anything to be a waste of time. Obviously most people would stress doing things in moderation.

Perhaps do whatever is right for you then, as an individual.

ltgtvb

Are all games pointless?

Is it more pointless than this conversation?

Really don't understand why anyone would require consensus. If someone believes it to be pointless or a waste of time, simply do something else.

You are of course referring to the famous board game.

Not my cup of tea, but whatever takes your fancy.

your reason makes sense but it depends on condition and situation, i think people know what i mean

When I read your title, OP, I thought you would say that chess is a waste of intelligence because intelligent people such as Capablanca and Kasparov could have contributed more to mankind if they had been scientists, discovered the cure for some disease, or found the laws of the universe. But it seems you are saying that great chess players didn't actually have such a powerful intelligence, so why bother with how they spend their modest brain power?

yes the opening post is so very dumb. too bad they will probably not read your response...

I disagree with his opening sentence.  Improving your chess is linked to intelligence.  I found my intellect increase sharply since I was rated 700 USCF.  I do agree that mastering it is a waste of time, however, like Paul Morphy said.  It will stunt your self-improvement and render you narrow minded.  I think if you get to the point where you stop making blunders you should get another hobby.

Here is the problem with chess in a nutshell:  "Women hate me -- I repel them," said Magnus Carlsen.  And that's not just referring to sex appeal.  It's the whole capacity to engage with the feminine aspect of human experience. 

If we solve math problems, we will get good at math.

If we solve crossword puzzles, we will get good at crossword.

Unlike science subjects, things we learn from chess cannot be applied to other areas at life.

For example, if we are good at math, more than likely we will do well in physics and engineering.  If we are good at chemistry, more than likely we will do well in chemistry.

Can we use things we learn from chess to pick the next winning stock and become a millionaire? No.

Can we use things we learn from chess to run a business and become a millionaire? No.

Can we use things we learn from chess to get into a medical school and become a doctor? No.

Chess by itself is a standalone game/expertise/sport whatever you call it. If we learn chess, the only thing we get good at is chess. 

If you argue that chess makes us smarter, it simply means that you did not go to college, you did not read books, you did not learn a life skill such as first aid, cooking..., because these are the most direct way to become smarter.

Is chess a good game? Yes.

Is chess a good hobby? Yes.

Is chess helpful in life? No, stop lying to yourself.

I feel as though you could take ANY skill - music for instance, has the "27 club" - and find a seemingly disproportionate amount of young tragic deaths. The truth is that intelligent people tend to be less happy, they understand more of the dark side of living & often form nihilistic or at least jaded opinions. Couple that with the intense training it takes to succeed at something competitive and it takes it toll.  Athletes suffer similar fates. It's the law of equivalent exchange, you can't get something without giving something else up.

Sharper than doing nothing at all or binge drinking/netflixing/scrolling social media, sure. But does it make your brain sharper than spending time on any other mental activity, some of which could be translated or transfered to other areas in life?

At least spending time on memorizing pi to whatever digit teaches about general mnemonic and memory technics, mostly for numbers. From all chess memory tests it seems "experts" are really good at remembering valid chess positions but almost as bad as novices at remembering random nonsense positions.

@nicbentulan: Ah yes, perfect example that a board game should not be seen as an intellectual activity. You have no real argument for any of your two claims and link to yourself as a source. Lastly you wonder what's better for mental health: pokemon or digimon. Because all examples of mental health problem in some famous chess players (and I still haven't seen if it is more prevalent than in general population) depend on:

• Spending time on the wrong variation of almost identical activity.
  
  Instead of:
• Focusing and spending all time and energy on one specific and narrow activity while neglecting one physical, social and mental health.
  AND
• Being a person who can focus on one specific activity while ignoring everything else without stoping in time.

If memorizing theory in chess was a mental health concern than academic studies as well as learning languages or any other new skill would be regarded as high risk activities. Instead, learning new things is almost always regarded as a good way to improve your cognitive health. Add some exercise and your are golden. 

So maybe start chessboxing instead of chess and chess420. Even better, change boxing to boxercise so that we can avoid braindamage and use fischer random instead of regular chess to keep it fresh. Repackage as Extreme Chessexercise Diet Abs Brain™️ and sell it as future of exercise and mindfulness. 

Really bad O.P. because it looks at the question from a very slanted viewpoint. The O.P. was wasting his abilities by not being self-critical.

@nicbentulan: I wasn't really arguing that chess is more "streetsmart" than chess960. What I was questioning was:

• that it is memorization that is the big problem in chess, if there even is a problem, instead of a many factors like long focus on one specific highly competitive activity. 
• that chess960 would have less mental stress than regular chess just because it lacks memorization, pretty sure people would find any other way to get an edge by grinding any other skill. 
• lack of any real evidence or hypothesis behind ideas, just like 90% of this thread.

you argue that many of the greatest chess players died at a young age. problem: all of the deaths listed are about average life span for the period. if you want to live a long time avoid the pre 20th century, not chess. secondly, the "the greatest chess players were insane" part is true of pretty much any field that requires life long dedication. Van Gogh chopped his ear of to send to his ex. Jackson Pollack was abusive and had a hot temper. many athletes are narcissists. if you think chess is a waste of time just do something else.

Average life span AT BIRTH. If you manage to avoid childhood disease and going to war, three score years and ten is about average

nope. 1800's median lifespan( not average; the median is the midpoint of the data and thus is less changed by outliers.) is 30-40, those who survived childhood (my data started at twenty) could expect to live to about 60, not 70. (note: all the chess players mentioned were male, so I used male statistics. female life expectancy was around 70 after childhood in the 1850's.)

if you say that, why didn't you quit chess.com?

or did you just join o spread fake news?