Forums

95% of people get this wrong, Are Chess Players Different?

Sort:
fburton
fburton
Feb 28, 2013
0
#61

Not necessarily, if you allow the possibility of quantum effects.

waffllemaster
waffllemaster
Feb 28, 2013
0
#62
ajttja wrote:

if you counted...

9-15 you are an average person who is not that great at chess

16 you either a average chess player or a non chess player who has a good perseption of the (board?)

17+ you're hallusinating or your drunk

I don't think it works like that :p

9 and maybe 10 are the only other reasonable answers besides 16 I think... well maybe 15 as one poster showed he didn't see the 3x3.

For example if you answered something like 13 it means you understood the task, but were too lazy to do it right.

TheLastSupper
TheLastSupper
Feb 28, 2013
0
#63
waffllemaster wrote:

Oh and by the way, I'm pretty sure 95% of people don't get this wrong.

90% of the statistics are made-up.

LegoPirateSenior
LegoPirateSenior
Show your flair!
Feb 28, 2013
0
#64
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:

These Facebook-style hooks are so ridiculous. A California city with no 'e'??? First one I thought of was San Francisco, next was Cupertino. After that, I had to think longer to come up with one at had an e.

Typed without really stopping for thought: Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Tracy, Santa Clara, Hillsborough, Pacifica, Oakland, Santa Cruz, Santa Margarita...

waffllemaster
waffllemaster
Feb 28, 2013
0
#65
hoynck wrote:

Okay, let us tease ourselves, being chess players.
In general 'we' are more capable than common people are, to solve such puzzles.
Why? Because we are trained and talented to break down complex things in seperate 'chunks' and understand them, on their own and in relation to each other. And we can do so very swift, no matter if it concerns technical problems, or questions of a philosophical or sociological nature. Overall we are just a bit smarter than the rest.
But also often very unpractical and a bit autistic.
Als I wrote in the OP (original post) of the succesful forum thread 'Are we a bunch of weirdos': "... strong chess players are level headed, very swift in organizing thoughts about nearly everything - even if they did not have a clue about it before they were asked..."
I think every large organisation (public or commercial) would benefit from hiring one or more chess players to just walk around a bit, with no specific task. Free to quietly take a look and listen everywhere, on the work floor and in board meetings.
And just let them advise 'about practical play and strategics'. Get some of the standard consultants out and get some strong chess players in.

This was actually done at one time in the United States.  Chess players were thought to be all around intellectual types that were specifically good at decision making and risk assessment so some companies took to hiring titled players to "walk around with no specific task" as you say (along with scientists, engineers, mathematicians, etc.)

They found out chess players are just good at chess and this practice was abandon relatively quickly. Tongue Out

I think people on a chess forum do well at this task because it's very visual.  You have to visualize the squares and remember which you've counted, this is the primary skill involved IMO.

waffllemaster
waffllemaster
Feb 28, 2013
0
#66
LegoPirateSenior wrote:
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:

These Facebook-style hooks are so ridiculous. A California city with no 'e'??? First one I thought of was San Francisco, next was Cupertino. After that, I had to think longer to come up with one at had an e.

Typed without really stopping for thought: Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Tracy, Santa Clara, Hillsborough, Pacifica, Oakland, Santa Cruz, Santa Margarita...

I've never even been to California... so I think like this... Los Angeles?  Crap.  Sacremento? No umm... San Francisco?... yay I got lucky... because those are the only 3 I can name anyway lol.

Seraphimity
Seraphimity
Feb 28, 2013
0
#67
I concur!  Chess quickens the eyes and sharpens the mind. Chess as a confidence builder is great because it validates a persons thinking process.  You are right in your assumptions or wrong and you either win or lose because of it.  It is of course more complicated then that but I agree with your sentiment hoynck of " break down complex things in seperate 'chunks' and understand them, on their own and in relation to each other. And we can do so very swift, no matter if it concerns technical problems, or questions of a philosophical or sociological nature"

we do this so often and for so long a period of time even organizing thoughts for say conversational purposes become easier..

not sure however about a certian paranoia I'm developing and if this is normal or just a function of my over analyzing,, lately I really do have to check myself as even trivial matters are given far more attention then deserving but I suppose in chess you can never have to much threat assesment..

asvpcurtis
asvpcurtis
Show your flair!
Feb 28, 2013
0
#68

got 16 as well

TetsuoShima
TetsuoShima
Feb 28, 2013
0
#69
[COMMENT DELETED]
Scottrf
Scottrf
Feb 28, 2013
0
#70
jcampos8782 wrote:

No, what is weak is your grammar.

But we're on a chess website and his skill their isn't even comparable to yours, so swings and roundabouts.

TetsuoShima
TetsuoShima
Feb 28, 2013
0
#71

lol i got 22 im the craziest guy on earth. but its still an old hat all people get it wrong

jcampos8782
jcampos8782
Feb 28, 2013
0
#72
Scottrf wrote:
jcampos8782 wrote:

No, what is weak is your grammar.

But we're on a chess website and his skill their isn't even comparable to yours, so swings and roundabouts.

Apparently there is some sort of inverse relationship between grammar and chess ability, because your grammar sucks as well. 

DrStrangeLuft
DrStrangeLuft
Feb 28, 2013
0
#73

I see 1 full square, 9 sixteenth squares, 5 quarter squares, and 1 three-quarter square = 16. That is what I get.

Conflagration_Planet
Conflagration_Planet
Feb 28, 2013
0
#74

All I see is 15.

Elubas
Elubas
Feb 28, 2013
0
#75

I usually just don't want to bother -- I get it, "the whole thing can be counted as a square too, not just the parts," I do, but, I really just don't care -- too tedious for it to be a satisfying puzzle.

Conflagration_Planet
Conflagration_Planet
Feb 28, 2013
0
#76
Elubas wrote:

I usually just don't want to bother -- I get it, "the whole thing can be counted as a square too, not just the parts," I do, but, I really just don't care -- too tedious for it to be a satisfying puzzle.

I counted the whole thing, but still only see 15. Mental block, I guess.

Conflagration_Planet
Conflagration_Planet
Feb 28, 2013
0
#77
Conflagration_Planet wrote:
Elubas wrote:

I usually just don't want to bother -- I get it, "the whole thing can be counted as a square too, not just the parts," I do, but, I really just don't care -- too tedious for it to be a satisfying puzzle.

I counted the whole thing, but still only see 15. Mental block, I guess.

Crap! I see 16 now, so never mind.

wtf_BobbyF
wtf_BobbyF
Feb 28, 2013
0
#78
FirebrandX wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:

I also counted 16.

I always tell myself I'll come up with a general method for these things, but I never do.  It's fun to just sit there and visualize :p

The "system" if you will, is to start with the biggest square and work your way down to the smallest. Makes these puzzles really easy.

 

I do it backwards, i count the small ones first and work my way up to the biggest... btw i also counted 16

EDIT: i just saw that the answer is already posted 

Nazgulsauron
Nazgulsauron
Feb 28, 2013
0
#79

Took me 20 seconds or so to see the 16th too.

Mandy711
Mandy711
Feb 28, 2013
0
#80

I counted only 15.