23 Nov 04
I'm beginning to think that playing chess is like learning a language. That is why all the great players were great at a very young age. Very few started out at say, teenage years. Most began almost as soon as they could talk and accelerated rapidly, usually beating their fathers first, then other relatives, then those at the clubs. But the key was learning at an early age. The same holds true for learning a language. Anyone who has taught kids another language when they are toddlers knows how easily they pick it up and how difficult it is to teach high schoolers a foreign language. It can be done. But they don't do it particularly well. Psychologists know that something in the brain opens up at an early age allowing language to be learned easily, then closes down again around ten or eleven. Maybe this is why us old guys have so much difficulty progressing, while the kids easily overtake us in a few months. Any ideas about this?
23 Nov 04
1 edit
Originally posted by buddy2i totally disagree, chess is nothing like learning a language.
I'm beginning to think that playing chess is like learning a language. That is why all the great players were great at a very young age. Very few started out at say, teenage years. Most began almost as soon as they could talk and acceler ...[text shortened]... he kids easily overtake us in a few months. Any ideas about this?
learning a language involves learning by imitation and certainly learning by simply viewing thousands of GM games is a poor way tp improve at chess.
although i agree than younger people have an easier time of learning chess because younger minds learn everything better, but not at all because its like a language,
23 Nov 04
Originally posted by buddy2i totaly agree chess is a language just like music is a language.
I'm beginning to think that playing chess is like learning a language. That is why all the great players were great at a very young age. Very few started out at say, teenage years. Most began almost as soon as they could talk and accelerated rapidly, usually beating their fathers first, then other relatives, then those at the clubs. But the key was learn ...[text shortened]... ifficulty progressing, while the kids easily overtake us in a few months. Any ideas about this?
23 Nov 04
Originally posted by Gambitzoidif you would ask any gm what the best way is to improve he will tell you to look though thousands of gm games.
i totally disagree, chess is nothing like learning a language.
learning a language involves learning by imitation and certainly learning by simply viewing thousands of GM games is a poor way tp improve at chess.
although i agree than younger people have an easier time of learning chess because younger minds learn everything better, but not at all because its like a language,
23 Nov 04
Originally posted by GambitzoidActually I think this is an incredibly good way to improve at chess.
i totally disagree, chess is nothing like learning a language.
learning a language involves learning by imitation and certainly learning by simply viewing thousands of GM games is a poor way tp improve at chess.
23 Nov 04
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardChess is nothing like a language.
i totaly agree chess is a language just like music is a language.
A language is used to communicate thoughts and ideas and emotions, music could be considered to be a language is some ways but chess in no ways at all.
Children are faster learners than older people but the difference is not as great as some people would like to make out. However some skills must be developed at an early age otherwise later on you will have no chance of learning anything.
23 Nov 04
Well, a while back I read a short book about psychoanalysis and chess players, and aside from the fact that the author argued that chess was an expression of the players' secret desire to participate in mutual masterbation, I found it quite enlightening; basically the common trait among great chess players is their ability to solve complex problems and an extraordinary ability to memorize. Most exceptional chess players who have real jobs tend to be more scientific than linguistic, I believe.
23 Nov 04
Originally posted by gumbieI like to think there is an idea behind each move I make. And, once the move is made
Chess is nothing like a language.
A language is used to communicate thoughts and ideas and emotions, music could be considered to be a language is some ways but chess in no ways at all.
I also think moves convey emotion. Who, amoung us who take chess seriously, doesn't feel a pang when threatened, when experiencing a loss. I think this is analogous to having our ideas (arguement) invalidated...
* I don't see why a move should be any different than any other arbitrary symbol, word, letter, whatever.
23 Nov 04
Originally posted by buddy2Good point. I agree.
I'm beginning to think that playing chess is like learning a language. That is why all the great players were great at a very young age. Very few started out at say, teenage years. Most began almost as soon as they could talk and accelerated rapidly, usually beating their fathers first, then other relatives, then those at the clubs. But the key was learn ...[text shortened]... ifficulty progressing, while the kids easily overtake us in a few months. Any ideas about this?
🙂
23 Nov 04
Originally posted by buddy2There has been a lot of study put into developing efficent techniques to help adults learn languages. Perhaps these results can be directly applied to learning chess. Since it appears teaching adults is most problematic, if you're a chess teacher (or self-instructing adult student) then this is probably worth looking into when developing a chess course.
Any ideas about this?
On a side note:
If tactics can be considered the syntax of chess and positional play the semantics, then do you think grammar learning techniques can be applied to help with tactics?
Unfortunately the most effective grammar learning techniques I know involve flash cards, and I don't think memorization is a good (or fun) way to study chess (most especially in the begining).
23 Nov 04
1 edit
Originally posted by egsmithYou don't convince me.
I like to think there is an idea behind each move I make. And, once the move is made, the opponent views the move, interprets the idea and presents a counter idea. I would say this is very much like a conversation.
I also think mov ...[text shortened]... different than any other arbitrary symbol, word, letter, whatever.
You could use the same arguments to argue that boxing is a language.
23 Nov 04
Originally posted by schefflerI hadn't realized that engaging in "mutual masturbation" required the "ability to solve complex problems and an extraordinary ability to memorize", I thought the process was relatively simple. Well, time to hit the books!!
Well, a while back I read a short book about psychoanalysis and chess players, and aside from the fact that the author argued that chess was an expression of the players' secret desire to participate in mutual masterbation, I found it quite enlightening; basically the common trait among great chess players is their ability to solve complex problems and an ...[text shortened]... eptional chess players who have real jobs tend to be more scientific than linguistic, I believe.
23 Nov 04
Originally posted by KneverKnightIf the mental processes were similar, GMs would be able to effortlessly speak several languages which is certainly not the case.
Interesting thread. I wonder if any brain scans have been done to see what parts of the brain are used while playing chess and if they match up to the parts used for language.
23 Nov 04
1 edit
Originally posted by gumbieAn arguement is not invalidated simply because it has multiple applications.
You could use the same arguments to argue that boxing is a language.
According to a third party, dictionary.com, language is:
Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.
So of the possible refutations:
1/ chess is not a system
2/ chess moves are not symbols (etc)
3/ chess moves do not contain thoughts
4/ chess moves do not contain feelings
5/ thoughts and feeling are not communicated
I believe yours is four, chess moves do not contain feelings. This appears true for some but not for others (in my opinion chess moves do). But in all fairness and according to the strict definitions you are correct (after all, you found a counter-case in yourself). However, I do believe there are things to be gained in making the analogy.
Would you agree to "chess is similar to a language." 😉