The classic games of strategy are still here with us for a reason. They are great and still played today by many people because they represent for us not just a fun diversion, but sometimes life lessons as well. What we can potentially learn from the board and absorb into our minds in the course of mastering these "games" are fundamental truths about life itself. Though of course, one never truly "masters" a great game, but learns something each time to add to their total wisdom and experience, just as in the game of life. In fact, pretty much all the classic games are metaphors for life in some way. Let us discuss various aspects of these games, and more, on this thread... (Also includes strategy, insight and the tactical aspects of solving crossword puzzles, the rubix cube, scrabble techniques, etc.)
I never really played chess, though I loved doing chess puzzles. I think the hardest puzzle I ever did was mate in four. Anything beyond that is impossible.
Would it be fair then to conclude then that those who play a lot of chess, those who become adept at the game, become adept at life?
^ It teaches strategic thinking. Certainly a good thing, but doesn't make you adept at everything that life throws at you, unfortunately...
^ Quite. Frankly, I would suggest there might be an inverse relationship between proficiency at life and proficiency at chess. Monopoly however...
I remember being very excited as a kid when the very first 'computer/electronic' chess games came out. Very basic. Then it actually made it to PCs. Not as fun/interesting as playing against a person. I don't play very much these days. Maybe one game in the last 2 years.
I think it is generally a much better use of time to play the classic strategic/logic games over video games. It trains your brain much more, in terms of thinking and developing insight and solving problems, whereas videogames develop your reflexes. Having good reflexes is a great thing, but all in all, I would rather sharpen my abstract reasoning skills over my hand-eye coordination. Just my preference.
I like to play chess and poker. but, I also like to play video games, so I have no opinion on which is best, really.
It didn't translate into clear thinking in life for Bobby Fisher, Paul Morphy, or Steinitz did it? Perhaps what is needed is a survey of chess players vs non chess players in terms of logical thinking efficiency in non chess matters. Otherwise all we have is unsubstantiated personal opinion. Has such an investigation ever been made? There is a claim of an interrelationship between music and math ad chess. But the examples provided were too few for a cogent generalization. My opinion based on personal observation of chess player's non-chess related behavior is that it doesn't translate significantly into logical thinking in non chess matters. But again that's just my personal opinion.
I do not think that Bobby Fischer was mentally stable in the first place, and the other names you mention I am sure had some other issues that was not related to chess in their personal lives. Chess in general does improve or at least has the potential to improve one's abstract and logical reasoning ability to some small extent. It seems self-evident to me, by the fact that you need to logically deduce the best moves, plan ahead before you act, etc. So it may not make a huge difference in improving reasoning ability, but it does train a few particular aspects of it, effectively providing some level of mental excercise. I guess the argument could be, if someone were to spend 3 hours a week playing challenging games of chess, or 3 hours a week watching sitcoms on tv, which activity would probably be more beneficial for their general thought processes over time?
I assume that you mean it's impossible for you at the moment-right? I like doing chess puzzles too, but not the ones that are totally irrelevant to chess middle game or endgame positions that arise from actual play.
Big NL Hold'em fan over here. Super pissed when the DOJ took away internet gambling. Doesn't seem like it's going to get fixed anytime soon either. Despite its popularity, it's still considered by many a game of luck, rather than skill and strategy. And when luck does come into play, I can honestly say it's a rarity. This game requires a lot of math, a lot of self-confidence/trust, and you have to be able to trust your instincts when the timing is right.
My favourite holiday is Halloween Nothing can be compared with this feeling of fairytale, this magic and creepy atmosphere. It's so exciting! I would be so great to play some games connected with this day. I've been surfing the net for a while and I had found this game called "Halloween Fortune". Here is a basic information (software provider, main category, min/max bet, etc.) about this kind of game, list if best casinos where you can try to play it... It seems pretty nice, but I'm still hesitating about casino... Which one exactly should I choose? Have anybody already tried it? Any advices?
I play(ed) a lot of these sort of games, some at high levels. To me, strategy basically comes down to: 1. The risks and reward of any given situation 2. What you think will happen (your read, if you like) 3. What your opponent thinks will happen The most important factor is number 1, by a mile. In almost all competitive games, the bad players are the ones that take pointless risks for minimal gains. They value the mindgames too much and end up throwing resources away because they have a crude understanding of strategy. Risks and rewards to me, are the base of the strategy cake. Reads are like icing and sprinkles -- they can be important, but not as important as R & W. Some games are more icing-based than others, like poker. But still, even the best players try to minimise their risks. Note that risks and rewards are pretty cold and factual type of thing. If you move your queen to a certain spot, your opponent can take it -- no ifs and buts about it. Even if your opponent is blind, the risks and rewards are the same. This is why I think people get too grandiose about these games being microcosms of life, like people will learn things outside of risk and reward analyses. They often don't. This is also why a lot of these top players can be useless with people -- people aren't as predictable or measurable.
Much of chess is not about actually thinking in a conventional sense, it is knowing decent openings and letting it play itself out with decent positional awareness. "Go" is much tougher because it is a higher level game with far more options. Sort of lost interest in Chess when I realized that most players were not any fun and people around me did not like to actually play... it also seemed to be one of "those" games that I should leave to others.
Larsen would agree with you @Inks . I'm a latecomer to chess, having only become serious about it in the past three years at the age of 28 or so. I can't tell you about Sicilian versus French Defense or any other of the opening permutations, but some players laughed in the face of being positional, such as Tal. But even Fischer said that chess is dead with so many memorizing their lines, especially playing as white. Don't mean to sound critical, but unless you mean that chess doesn't measure general intelligence for anyone who approaches it regardless of experience, what is thinking in the conventional sense?
It does not measure intelligence - not in this day and age. Most chess players work from scripted openings with a desired position and layout that unfolds in the first 8 or so moves. The trades are the same and the mid-game is only when actual thought comes up, because they are not scripted. I saw two high-level masters playing the other day and it took them so long to make simple and clear cut moves which had no drawback. Material gain with no loss and not even a positional threat... even the AI showed that he was playing conservatively and only misread once. No blunders, no major errors, but he lost because he was not willing to risk anything - and hesitated even with a free piece. Said a lot about the player - all the work was done, so it was just a simple end-game conclusion that even I could see. When I play RTS - yes my openings are usually the same as most chess players, scripted by the needs and my expectations. Retained my 98% win rate on Tournament Desert on Zero Hour because I had a 35 second rush which I still remember. Dozer, 2x supply, sell command, 2 War Factory, Flame Tank 3x Battlemaster Tanks... usually enough to get them on the down with the Flame Tank, then the Battlemasters or Gatling tanks cleaning up the rest. Most games over in a minute and thirty.
