1. Joined
    22 Aug '06
    Moves
    359
    05 Mar '08 01:32
    Originally posted by icantwrite
    I've been reading a lot of these forums and it looks like a lot of people are implying or straight out saying that you have to be pretty good at maths to be good at chess. I was just wondering if this is correct?

    I mean technically I thought that chess was more about pattern recognition, so would expect you'd need to have a more visual intelligence. I ...[text shortened]... e of intelligence, so I'm curious as to what is really correct.

    Visual or mathematical...
    I never got a passing grade in a math class in High School (I only took college-prep math classes.) I eventually reached expert-level in chess (peak published USCF rating of 2002).
  2. SubscriberHelder Octavio Borges
    Luso-brasileiro
    Cajamar, SP
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    71695
    05 Mar '08 01:43
    In maths you need to be right,
    in chess only more right than your opponent.


    John Nunn
  3. Joined
    24 Jan '08
    Moves
    1805
    05 Mar '08 02:154 edits
    Originally posted by Helder Octavio
    [b]In maths you need to be right,
    in chess only more right than your opponent.


    John Nunn[/b]
    That's a great quote.

    Playing chess requires a certain set of skills, and there are many different ways to learn those skills. If you have a strong maths background you may be able to learn those skills a little bit quicker, although not being a mathematician doesn't stop you from playing good chess. [I finished my maths degree last year, so you can check out my rating and decide which pile of anecdotal evidence you can add me to 🙂 ]

    It seems to me that a lot of people won't play chess seriously because it is 'nerdy' but if you are already a mathematician then you are already too much of a nerd to care!

    And for the OP, there is a great deal of pattern recognition in maths (at all levels), its just that a lot of people don't recognise it as pattern recognition...
  4. Joined
    03 Dec '07
    Moves
    1189
    11 Mar '08 02:48
    de Groot studies suggested spatial relations, e.g., pattern recogntion,
    figure manipulation were primary in chessplay. there is no strong
    correlation tween math skills and chess skills. One of 20th century's
    greatest mathematicians was lousy at chess: Norbert Wiener.
  5. Sigulda, Latvia
    Joined
    30 Aug '06
    Moves
    4048
    11 Mar '08 15:48
    I think chess improves math more than math improves chess. Since I started to play chess, I find it easier to calculate with bigger numbers. But that is just arithmetics. However, in chess you build up your pattern-recognition skill which is actually very important when solving mathematical exercises such as equations.
  6. Standard memberwormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    We're All Gonna Go!
    Joined
    10 Sep '05
    Moves
    10228
    11 Mar '08 16:01
    Originally posted by kbaumen
    I think chess improves math more than math improves chess. Since I started to play chess, I find it easier to calculate with bigger numbers. But that is just arithmetics. However, in chess you build up your pattern-recognition skill which is actually very important when solving mathematical exercises such as equations.
    you only build pattern recognition for the things you train for, eg. the exact (and very similar) chess positions you used in the training. -it has been shown that even GMs don't recognize random positions any better than an amateur.

    so it doesn't really carry over to anything else.


    study habits naturally do carry over, and I believe it's the most important way chess can influence a person's other activities. and it works just as much from math (or any other discipline) to chess as the other way around.
  7. Joined
    12 Mar '03
    Moves
    44411
    11 Mar '08 19:251 edit
    Originally posted by wormwood
    .... it has been shown that even GMs don't recognize random positions any better than an amateur.
    There wouldn't be recognisable chess-related patterns in random positions, would there? That brings recognition back to pure graphical memory, which has nothing to do with being a GM or an amateur in chess.

    edit. but some of Tal's games certainly come close 🙂
  8. Sigulda, Latvia
    Joined
    30 Aug '06
    Moves
    4048
    11 Mar '08 19:321 edit
    Originally posted by wormwood
    you only build pattern recognition for the things you train for, eg. the exact (and very similar) chess positions you used in the training. -it has been shown that even GMs don't recognize random positions any better than an amateur.

    so it doesn't really carry over to anything else.


    study habits naturally do carry over, and I believe it's the most i it works just as much from math (or any other discipline) to chess as the other way around.
    Well, I certainly feel an improvement in math since I started playing chess. For me it has helped greatly to develop pattern recognition. Or maybe the ability to more quickly memorize patterns.
  9. Joined
    17 May '06
    Moves
    1054
    12 Mar '08 23:04
    I heard that what separates a good and a great player is the ability to visualize the chessboard in your head and some positions ahead.
  10. Standard memberWiabj
    The Black Swan
    Oss
    Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    120092
    12 Mar '08 23:15
    It is not absolute necessary to be great in math for this wonderful game. It's a educated and width broaded mind and vision you must have over different kinds of interests. For me, myself I am intersted in my work (not important), my wife and three children (very important), Vacations (!) and my Msc study. What I want to say is that balance is the most important.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree