I play quite a bit of chess. I also develop software, so theoretically I practice complex multi-step thinking and hopefully I grok multi-component systems.
Unfortunately I think chess does not help me at all in my job. I wish it did!
Chess is highly specific. Most players tend to learn and improve on those specifics. I know that bishops are more valuable than knights in an open position. I know several openings to a depth of ~30 ply. I know many theoretical endgames. These things do not help me at all in any arena besides chess.
The whole point of the game is multi-step thinking.
If I make a move, I need to prepare for the inevitable response, which might or might not be obvious to my opponent. The game is inherently more and more complex after each move.
While things might not carry over directly in a provable way, there's a reason chess has survived as a game for hundreds of years - because there's definitely ways the game improves your thinking processes, pattern recognition, and abstract decision making skills.
>While things might not carry over directly in a provable way, there's a reason chess has survived as a game for hundreds of years - because there's definitely ways the game improves your thinking processes, pattern recognition, and abstract decision making skills.
No, you need science. This is Appeal to Tradition fallacy.
Chess was the 'in' game for the upper class/nobility through history. That is the reason it survived.
Wouldn't great chess players be fantastic outside of the chess world? Wouldn't kingdoms who had chess beat regional powers that didn't have the technology? Wouldn't chess players defeat their political rivals?
Science is not a good tool to win an argument with. Are you trying to argue that abstract logic games like chess have no impact on how people otherwise live? This is a crazy stance, I hope you agree.
>. Are you trying to argue that abstract logic games like chess have no impact on how people otherwise live?
Yes, they don't have an impact from everything I've read.
Again, it should be easy to prove. Why not see how the best chess players in the world do outside of chess?
You'd think with all those abstract logic skills we'd have them running companies, universities, and being secretary of state. Instead all seem to be stuck as chess players.
>Science is not a good tool to win an argument with.
Feelings are better? No bud. It sounds like you just really want Chess to be useful.
>You'd think with all those abstract logic skills we'd have them running companies, universities, and being secretary of state. Instead all seem to be stuck as chess players.
Sounds like you're not familiar with what Kasparov (undisputed #1 player in the 80s-early 2000s) does outside of Chess.
Guy has told off Putin to his face, and has been a champion of human rights and democracy - getting arrested in his native Russia several times while protesting the one-party state Putin has built to enrich himself. He's also written books on geopolitics.
Magnus Carlson has done alright for himself too. He's won a few poker tournaments, and last season was the best fantasy soccer player on the planet.
>Guy has told off Putin to his face, and has been a champion of human rights and democracy - getting arrested in his native Russia several times while protesting the one-party state Putin has built to enrich himself.
Seems like all of his hard work paid off /s. Weird that he can beat Putin in chess but not IRL
>Magnus Carlson
"At two years, he could solve 500-piece jigsaw puzzles; at four, he enjoyed assembling Lego sets with instructions intended for children aged 10–14.[10]"
Doesnt seem like a chess thing though. I'd hate if someone attributed my success to playing runescape. But at least runescape teaches you economics.
>* Weird that he can beat Putin in chess but not IRL*
Hope this was /s as well. Intelligence doesn't matter when you're up against the Don of the Russian Mafia, a former KGB boss who happens to be worth some $200-300 billion and has outright and undisputed control of the Russian state, which includes a powerful propaganda network and a nuclear-armed military.
>* But at least runescape teaches you economics.*
Need this to be confirmed with science. A computer game based around PvP combat probably teaches you less about economics than a game like chess teaches you about abstract logical thinking and planning.
