1 edit
Originally posted by phlebasThis may sound strange, but although I agree that chess can be interpreted as a game of logic, I think good players don't have to be logical people. Math or computer science people who work on logic, or who are even experts in it, are not necessarily logical people, there's no correlation. It's like the difference between a philosopher and some who studies&teaches philosophy.
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Chess is a game of logic, you don't have to be intelligent to be logical.
Having said that knowing the rules helps too 🙂
Originally posted by philidor positionNot so strange. Indeed you must have at least a smidgeon of IQ combined with logic and an excellent memory or we could teach a monkee chess. I know some highly intelligent people who play poorly no matter how hard they try. There are others who are not so bright, but combine logic, tactical ability, strategize very well and play methodically.
This may sound strange, but although I agree that chess can be interpreted as a game of logic, I think good players don't have to be logical people. Math or computer science people who work on logic, or who are even experts in it, are not necessarily logical people, there's no correlation. It's like the difference between a philosopher and some who studies&teaches philosophy.
There are those who combine high IQ, strategic brilliance, great memory, excellent logic and profound knowledge in other areas. Reuben Fine comes to mind. The best player never to make world champ in imo. At one point rated high enough to challenge. Also a well known psychiatrist and brilliant writer.
1 edit
Originally posted by Goshenthat's not true either. In fact I've heard from several sources (one being Carlsen) that chess players are known for their lousy memory. Carlsen kept forgetting his coat in the game arena for example. people have different strengths of memories for different things.
And I'm very sure every good player (including the one's on here) has a very powerful memory.
Originally posted by scacchipazzouhm, sorry but I have to ask, have you read his psychoanalytical interpretations of chess?
Reuben Fine comes to mind. The best player never to make world champ in imo. At one point rated high enough to challenge. Also a well known psychiatrist and brilliant writer.
Originally posted by philidor positionI meant chess related memory. openings, patterns, their own games, etc.
that's not true either. In fact I've heard from several sources (one being Carlsen) that chess players are known for their lousy memory. Carlsen kept forgetting his coat in the game arena for example. people have different strengths of memories for different things.
You can train your memory to remember things (..er...obviously Einstein).
Like dates of battles. births, etc.
Chess players memories are triggered by certain patterns/blocks.
They have been well known test carried out with strong players which you can also
try your self.
Look at a standard postion for 30 seconds and you should be able to re-create it
on a board with 90%-100% accuracy.
Then place the pices at random on a board (use about 20 pieces) and you
will struggle to retore the postion
Emotions also play their part.
We appear to recall our over the board losses more than we do our wins.
(unless of course the win was v someone special or clinched a first prize..etc).
The ability to recall and play out entire games is something I've only seen
good players do.
I recall talking to Graham Morrison (FM) about an interesting game he played
about 20 years ago.
I was astounded when he produced it move for move there and then.
I can show you dozens of games I have won with opening traps but an entire
game lasting over 30 moves played over 20 years ago - never.
The Carlsen case where he forgets his coat is absent mindness something
which many intelligent people suffer from.
This is different from having a poor memory.
Rueben Fine's book about Fischer's Conquest of the World Title was panned
as the worst chess book ever written by B.H.Wood.
A bit harsh as the game notes are OK. It was section about Fischer treating
his King as his willy and not wanting anyone to touch it that upset BHW.
Fine's idea that chess tournaments are full of guys defending their willies
is as humerous as it is nonsense.
1 edit
Originally posted by philidor positionEnlighten us with a few quotes. Never forget Fine was writing mostly in the forties. Don't judge him by todays standards. His was a brilliant mind.
uhm, sorry but I have to ask, have you read his psychoanalytical interpretations of chess?
If you mean: "Fine's idea that chess tournaments are full of guys defending their willies" This may be nonsense. So what? A lot of what Freud wrote is now considered nonsense. You would not say Freud was not brilliant? Greenpaen says he wrote the worst chessbook ever. That may be but he also wrote one of the best ones ever also. Have you read "Basic Chess Endings"?
3 edits
Originally posted by scacchipazzoNo, Freud was brilliant, I believe I'm one of the few hardcore freud fans alive today 🙂.
Enlighten us with a few quotes. Never forget Fine was writing mostly in the forties. Don't judge him by todays standards. His was a brilliant mind.
If you mean: "Fine's idea that chess tournaments are full of guys defending their willies" This may be nonsense. So what? A lot of what Freud wrote is now considered nonsense. You would not say Freud was ...[text shortened]... be but he also wrote one of the best ones ever also. Have you read "Basic Chess Endings"?
I'll be cheap and share one quote mentioned in amazon reviews: "The profuse phallic symbolism of chess provides some fantasy gratification of the homosexual wish, particularly the desire for mutual masterbation. This is, of course, completely repressed. Checkmate may be seen as rendering the father impotent, again part of the homosexual complex."
This is from his "The Psychology of the Chess Player."
I don't want to sound like the casual redneck making fun of freudian theses, and I'm sure every single male on earth has his share of suppressed homosexual wishes, but such application of these to random activities seems way too easy in my opinion, and being easy is not a good sign in this area.
However, I'm in no place to belittle the guy, I just think his "psychoanalytical interpretations of chess" weren't brilliant. He may be a very intelligent person in other areas, or brilliant in many different aspects, one being chess, obviously.
(I didn't read Basic Chess Endings but I have it and I'm sure it's excellent.)
2 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34Kasparov has a story about this, it was in "how life imitates chess." I don't remember now the whole storyline, but it was something like he only got a look at 8 positions set up on different boards in something like a cocktail for a few seconds, they were taken from important events like strong tournaments or WC matches or something like that and he recognized them, remembering correctly all players and occasions.
The ability to recall and play out entire games is something I've only seen
good players do.
I recall talking to Graham Morrison (FM) about an interesting game he played
about 20 years ago.
I was astounded when he produced it move for move there and then.
I remember reading Anand say "show me a random position from a Kramnik game and I'll reproduce you the whole game" or something along the lines of that, the interview was close to their WC match.
I was also amazed how Kramnik and Anand discussed the games in post mortem press conferences, throwing out complicated variations on command and even responding to each other, so it's not only their thoughts during the game they can remember, but they can visualize and calculate immediately what the other player mentions.
These guys are good at this stuff, that's sure 🙂
Originally posted by PatzerLarsIt can't be coincidence, I never heard of that; but I have thought before that the likes of a Nordic Giant M. Carlsen, a Russian Casanova G. Kasparov and an American badass R.J. Fischer are quite grotesquely shaped which makes them better suited for chess (in some way 😕). On the other hand there are Topalovs, Cheparinovs and Nakamuras of whom one cannot imagine their royal highness is all that great. 😕
Wasn't Fine the one who said that the king in chess is an analogy of the penis (on a psychoanalytical level) ?
(should this message be alerted for stupidity?!)