Chess, a game of logic or knowledge?

Effectively, a player uses spatial logic as well as combinatorial logic to evaluate a given move out to a "sufficiently far" point in the game. Analysis compares the calculational result of various tested move sequences to determine the relative best move according to that player's criteria. Criteria typically involve material and positional factors but the weighting of these factors will vary from player to player.



I've never heard of spacial logic and combinational logic. Are you pulling those terms from your rear?

Originally posted by Eladar
I've never heard of spacial logic and combinational logic. Are you pulling those terms from your rear?

Spatial and combinatorial, not "spacial" and "combinational".

So, you don't know what logic is, and you aren't familiar with the terms "spatial logic" and "combinatorial logic". Why don't you try consulting a dictionary or performing a Google search before insulting others?

"Spatial-temporal reasoning is the ability to visualize spatial patterns and mentally manipulate them over a time-ordered sequence of spatial transformations.

"This ability is important for generating and conceptualizing solutions to multi-step problems that arise in areas such as architecture, engineering, science, mathematics, art, games, and everyday life."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial-temporal_reasoning

Note the reference to "games".

"Combinatorial logic is a concept in which two or more input states define one or more output states, where the resulting state or states are related by defined rules that are independent of previous states."

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci826118,00.html

Spatial and combinatorial, not "spacial" and "combinational".



Oh know, the spelling police!


"Spatial-temporal reasoning is the ability to visualize spatial patterns and mentally manipulate them over a time-ordered sequence of spatial transformations.


So now logic is spelled "reasoning". Got it.


Just did a wiki search for logical reasoning:

In logic, three kinds of logical reasoning can be distinguished: deduction, induction and abduction. Given a precondition, a conclusion, and a rule that the precondition implies the conclusion, they can be explained in the following way:

Deduction means determining the conclusion. It is using the rule and its precondition to make a conclusion. Example: "When it rains, the grass gets wet. It rained. Therefore, the grass is wet." Mathematicians are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.
Induction means determining the rule. It is learning the rule after numerous examples of the conclusion following the precondition. Example: "The grass has been wet every time it has rained. Therefore, when it rains, the grass gets wet." Scientists are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.
Abduction means determining the precondition. It is using the conclusion and the rule to support that the precondition could explain the conclusion. Example: "When it rains, the grass gets wet. The grass is wet, therefore, it may have rained." Diagnosticians and detectives are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning


Maybe you can update it to include some sort of chess connection between logic and reasoning.

Originally posted by Eladar
[b]Spatial and combinatorial, not "spacial" and "combinational".



Oh know, the spelling police!


"Spatial-temporal reasoning is the ability to visualize spatial patterns and mentally manipulate them over a time-ordered sequence of spatial transformations.


So now logic is spelled "reasoning". Got it.


Just did a wiki search for can update it to include some sort of chess connection between logic and reasoning.[/b]

Obviously, spatial logic is deductive in chess. Apparently you couldn't grasp that because it wasn't spelled out explicitly for you, even though I did talk about starting with premises and applying well-defined rules to reach a conclusion, being careful to explain at each step what I meant by premises, rules of reasoning, and conclusions, with respect to chess.

Edit: Logic IS a type of reasoning. The fact that you continue to regard the two as mutually exclusive, justifies my claim that you don't know what "logic" is.

Please stop wasting my time with your trolling and/or fatuous self-indulgence.

OK then, it seems that I am beating a dead horse. At the very least I can take from this thread that the overall point of view is that knowledge is logic. I've always thought that they were different things.

People also agree that it is a game of calculation, which can be described as a developed skill or a kind of logic. I suppose it is not a skill for all of chess, I don't think it is a great skill needed for playing CC.

Originally posted by Eladar
OK then, it seems that I am beating a dead horse. At the very least I can take from this thread that the overall point of view is that knowledge is logic. I've always thought that they were different things.

People also agree that it is a game of calculation, which can be described as a developed skill or a kind of logic. I suppose it is not a skill for all of chess, I don't think it is a great skill needed for playing CC.

Knowledge, what we know, is data or information. Logic is just one way in which we deal with information. In chess I would say that intuition, luck (spotting an opportunity not probability) and personal taste matter as much as the other two.

Originally posted by Diophantus
Knowledge, what we know, is data or information. Logic is just one way in which we deal with information. In chess I would say that intuition, luck (spotting an opportunity not probability) and personal taste matter as much as the other two.

Wow, redefinitons! Is it any wonder I'm so confused?

Knowledge is knowing what to do and why. It isn't just data.

" I will, therefore, take occasion to assert that the higher powers of the reflective intellect are more decidedly and more usefully tasked by the unostentatious game of draughts than by all the elaborate frivolity of chess. In this latter, where the pieces have different and bizarre motions, with various and variable values, what is only complex is mistaken (a not unusual error) for what is profound." – Edgar Allan Poe


GRANNY.

Originally posted by Eladar
OK then, it seems that I am beating a dead horse. At the very least I can take from this thread that the overall point of view is that knowledge is logic. I've always thought that they were different things.

People also agree that it is a game of calculation, which can be described as a developed skill or a kind of logic. I suppose it is not a skill for all of chess, I don't think it is a great skill needed for playing CC.

Please STOP these false dichotomies and silly overgeneralizations. Nobody has said that logic and knowledge are the same thing. Nobody has said that chess is a game ONLY of calculation. All of these things come into play.

OK

mfw this thread

😕

What does mfw stand for?

I like mathematics since I was 7 years old. Even now I still like it. I picked up chess when I was 9 years old. During that time we were told that who are good in mathematics can play chess better. Why? I think it obvious. Both subjects are about using logic to make decisions.

Not surprising I started to beat experienced players of my age after three games. I rarely been beaten in chess until I was 25 years old.

One day I was challeged by FIDE 1800 guy. As you can expected, I was badly beaten. I tried three times but never came close to even a draw. That guy recoqnized I can be a good chess player but lack of "knowledge". I didn't know what he meant by knowledge. He adviced me to read the chess book for the beginner to understand what he meant. I did.

Just after a few months I acquired a new knowledge... "The principle of chess opening". Specifically what I knew were (1) Try to move your center pawn at fast as possible. Develop your minor pieces before trying to attack your opponents unless your are sure I can get clear advantage. (3) Don't move the pieces that you have already moved unless you are forced to do so. (4) Castling. All shall be done fewer that 17moves. I didn't know so much about what name of the defence I was playing. My moves were coordinated to comply with this new knowledge that I had just learned.

I challeged that FIDE 1800 guy again. Still I was beaten. But he could see how I improved. He invited me to become one of his club players. (I managed to become 1st board player for his second team in less than 2 months).

Back to out topic "Chess, a game of logic or knowledge?". My answer to this question is the game of logic. Knowledge is only a part of logical thinking process. It is a collective set of logical thinking process that we have structured to help us to make our decision effective and efficient.

Thank you for reading.

No problem for reading.

So to sum up what you've said, you have great natural ability with chess. This means you have the brains, patience and the vision to play chess well. Yet you were unable to defeat a person because he had more knowledge than you have. No matter how you apply your logical thinking, you can't defeat him because he has so much more knowledge of the game than you do, but you believe chess is a game of logic anyhow.

Got it.

Thanks for the input.

If player A wins over player B it only means that A did less mistakes (in quantity and/or quality) than B. You can't deduce anything intelligent out of this fact in terms of the question what Chess "is" (logic and/or knowledge).

A better question would be what causes B to make more mistakes than A. It could be lack of knowledge, it could be lack of logical reasoning. But it could also be lack of visualisation, or lack of concentration, lack of calmness etc. etc. etc. thousand reasons.