Chess playing makes you good at life playing?

[Lupe]

I read that Chess playing teaches you lifelessons which may take years to learn in real life. If so, doesn't the same apply to any kind of sports, like martial arts such as TKD or Aikido? (Maybe to a lesser extent?)

Is there a better way to learn life lesson than the hard way or the Chess way?

[Jthorn]

Life lessons exist in pretty much everything. The same principles govern all!
Kasparov has actually written a book titled "how life imitates chess".
And another chess player, Josh Waitzkin is saying exactly what you do. He started playing chess when he was 6 and he observes how he could relate the chess problems to his life and vice versa -how he 'd figure out solutions for chess puzzles by making observations around him. Then later on he took martial arts and he was able to learn very quickly and become Tai Chi Push Hands world champion thanks to what he had learned by playing chess. And when he would play chess again, he found himself thinking in tai chi terms. He also has written a book, titled "the art of learning".

There is no "better" way. You can only do what you love and apply what you learn through it to everything else.

[magi13]

Originally Posted by Lupe

I read that Chess playing teaches you lifelessons which may take years to learn in real life. If so, doesn't the same apply to any kind of sports, like martial arts such as TKD or Aikido? (Maybe to a lesser extent?)

Is there a better way to learn life lesson than the hard way or the Chess way?

Aikido or Tai Chi are both defensive martial arts, while the later is balanced. These two are good and their philosophy is centered on balance and harmony.

Kendo is also another good martial art to learn. Or Escrima if you have this available in your country.


Another way is to visualize the what you wish to experience, add details at the same time create different simulations.

[Titus]

The first thought I had after seeing the thread name was that being good at either of the two (life and chess) requires sound strategies.

In both life and chess, knowing what not to do, knowing what to do, and doing what you have to do at the right time, will get you success.

"The best CEOs I know are teachers, and at the core of what they teach is strategy." -- Michael Porter

[Titus]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Chess strategy is concerned with the evaluation of chess positions and setting up goals and long-term tactics for future play. During the evaluation, a player must take into account the value of the pieces on the board, pawn structure, king safety, position of pieces, control of key squares and groups of squares (e.g. diagonals, open files, black or white squares), and the possible moves the opponent will make after any move made.

Life strategy is very similar to chess strategy. Therefore, we could conclude that chess playing can make one better at life "playing." At least in principle that is.

[Brutha]

If you are really into a mental game like chess you begin to see everything in terms of chess. Not because life is so chess like but because your brain is so tuned into chess.

As a result you will see certain things that you have seen before and at the same time you won't see some other things.

Life strategy is very similar to chess strategy.

Chess is a game where you have in principle complete information and where the game boil down to a single goal.
Life strategy is about dealing with uncertainty and about valuing competing goals against each other.

[Lupe]

Thank you Brutha.

[Trezker]

If you find Chess doesn't get you excited, I recommend trying Go.
It has much simpler rules, but also vastly greater depth than Chess.

It also has a ton of proverbs that work both in life and Go.
Sensei's Library: Go Proverbs

"Check escape routes first"
"A rich man should not pick quarrels"
"Greed for the win takes the win away"
"Give your opponent what he wants"
"Strengthening your own weak group makes your opponent's weaker"
"Lose Your First 50 Games as Quickly as Possible"

And finally a really good one.
"When in doubt, tenuki"
Tenuki means to play elsewhere. This means taking initiative, it is worth a lot and you don't risk making a bad move.

[Ralph]

I think any kind of sport or hobby that you're passionate in does the job. The only necessary condition is that it must include growth. I even learn a lot from playing Warcraft III over Battle.net.

Just find something that inspires you and requires growth and dive into it with your whole heart. It's all it takes to grow in life.

[Eric Roosevelt]

The funny thing is you can learn the lessons of chess without playing a single game. That's because the exact same lessons will appear again and again, whatever game you're playing. It doesn't matter if it's chess, karate or something more serious like the "relationship game". You could jolly well read about them as well. Steve Pavlina wrote an article called "Life Lessons From Poker".

Life Lessons From Poker

If you want to read specifically about chess, you could check out this article on chess.com.

Life Lessons from Chess - Chess.com

Enjoy.

[Jthorn]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Chess is a game where you have in principle complete information and where the game boil down to a single goal.

Far from it!

Life strategy is about dealing with uncertainty and about valuing competing goals against each other.

What makes you think chess is any different?

[Brutha]

What makes you think chess is any different?

Chess is a game of complete information in which there only one goal and that means capturing the king.
If you read deeper in the variant tree than your opponent, you win. That why computers usually beat humans in chess nowadays.
You know the rules of chess and can read them. You don't know the rules of life.

In chess you know all the figures on the board and you know the rules. While there might be some cases where the mind of your opponent can matter because he could make mistakes that you provoce, if you find the optimal move on the board you still win regardless of what your opponent thinks.

[Jthorn]

Chess between two humans is far from a game of complete information.
It's not always about calculating accurately ahead, that's just one aspect of the game. You can never calculate all variations and neither can computers at the moment, nor will they for a very long time, although of course they will always have an advantage in that part. Chess most definetely *is* a game of uncertainty and making decisions with incomplete information. If you 're only willing to attack when you can see the mate, then you will never do it. A good player will heed his intuition and often take risks based on it, without having seen more than a couple of moves ahead.

The ultimate goal may be to capture the enemy king but there are many ways to try and achieve it. And you might opt for simply preventing your opponent from doing so. You might try to attack in the middlegame, or head for an endgame, you might attack on the kingside or the queenside, you might try to consolidate or to create counterplay, you might try to control the dark squares or to bust open the center. All of these are different, competing goals and there is no right or wrong.
More often than not, there are more than one good moves in a position and if both players play them then the game will be a draw. Winning is all about the opponent making more mistakes than you.

[Jthorn]

Kasparov actually presents chess strategy in terms of time, material and quality (and that's just one of the many useful lessons you can get out of it). To give you an example, a player understands that by sacrificing a piece he 'll gain enough time to build up an overwhelming attack, while his opponent doesn't sense that and ultimately loses. There 's no calculation involved whatsoever.
Things get even more fun when you take psychology into account.

[Trezker]

Originally Posted by Jthorn

You can never calculate all variations and neither can computers at the moment, nor will they for a very long time, although of course they will always have an advantage in that part. Chess most definetely *is* a game of uncertainty and making decisions with incomplete information.

Not quite true. If I recall correctly computers can now easily beat the strongest human players. The solution space for chess isn't that big.

In Go on the other hand, computers can't even beat a mediocre player.

[Jthorn]

Originally Posted by Trezker

Not quite true. If I recall correctly computers can now easily beat the strongest human players. The solution space for chess isn't that big.

In Go on the other hand, computers can't even beat a mediocre player.

They can rival them, but humans still got the upper hand. Like I said, chess will not be solved for quite some time yet.
Computers can calculate billions of positions and find the ones where they 're up in material or otherwise have an advantage, based on their evaluation criteria. That's great for sharp tactical positions and they will destroy humans there. In quiet positions however, where none of the varations lead to anything noticeable and players are striving to manoeuver their pieces to strategically optimal positions, computers are pretty much worthless. Humans with their intuition, experience and ability to see the bigger picture without calculation will crush them in this department, while the very strongest computers are making silly nonsensical moves.

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by Jthorn

They can rival them, but humans still got the upper hand.

Maybe. All I can recall is the chess program Deep Blue beating Garry Kasparov in 1997. And I'm pretty sure the software has developed since then.

I think chess is certainly a very complex game, but not a game of infinite choices. The options are limited to the fixed number of chess pieces and squares on the chess board, after all. There's nothing to say that life itself isn't a game of complete information as well, by the way. But it's certainly more complex. Life includes incredible amounts of complexities, of which the game of chess itself is only one tiny part.

[Jthorn]

There's a lot to be said about that deep blue match. Read up on it if you really want. Suffice to say that human intervention may have taken place. Also Kasparov had already beaten deep blue one year before and after that, he was denied a rematch and the project was completely scrapped. So his claim that IBM was only interested in beating him to advertise the fact seems very valid to me, especially since most people like you seem to have got the impression that now computers can beat humans.

It is said there are more possible chess moves than atoms in the universe, so are you really sure about your claim?
And the question isn't which is more complex, life or chess. The point is that all complexities are similar in nature and when you learn to deal with those in chess or in any other activity for that matter, you 're better equipped for life as well.

[echo]

Its funny how life does actually imitate chess. And yes, martial arts, anything that has a progressive, constructive system to it all go by the same frame of rules of cause and effect.

The way to look at anything like that is exactly how you would look at a chess match. It's all about knowing what will happen after any certain other thing happens. The better you get at foreseeing such things, the better you are at mastering what you accomplish therein.

[sirkinm]

Originally Posted by Ralph

I think any kind of sport or hobby that you're passionate in does the job. The only necessary condition is that it must include growth. I even learn a lot from playing Warcraft III over Battle.net.

Just find something that inspires you and requires growth and dive into it with your whole heart. It's all it takes to grow in life.

The first time I got my hands on a handgun at a firing range, I realized I was a pretty good shot -- it was just like playing Metal Gear Solid.

Recently I've been playing a lot of Street Fighter 4, and there is a lot of strategy in that as -- anticipating opponents and reacting appropriately. I feel like it's mentally stimulating (though late at night it's a little too stimulating, and it's hard to sleep).

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by Jthorn

Suffice to say that human intervention may have taken place.

There seems to be little evidence for that.

But even if IBM cheated, programs are now beating humans on a regular basis. I can give you a list if you want. The defeat of Vladimir Kramnik by the chess software Deep Fritz in 2006 is a good example.

It is said there are more possible chess moves than atoms in the universe, so are you really sure about your claim?

My claim was that life itself has a more complex "game-tree" than a game of chess (i.e. more available choices). We know this because the game of chess is actually contained within the game of life. It's basically a mathematical subset. On the other hand, I agree with you that chess is a very complex game. No disagreements there.

And the question isn't which is more complex, life or chess. The point is that all complexities are similar in nature [...]

All complexities are similar in the sense that they all have a huge amount of available choices, but that doesn't necessarily make them similar in nature. There are different rules for different games, and different types of information.

[Jthorn]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

There seems to be little evidence for that.

But even if IBM cheated, programs are now beating humans on a regular basis. I can give you a list if you want. The defeat of Vladimir Kramnik by the chess software Deep Fritz in 2006 is a good example.

You mean where he lost a drawn game due to overlooking mate in one? In any case, you have to remember that computers also have the advantage of being completely unaffected by emotions and fatigue, although this has nothing to do with how solvable chess is.

My claim was that life itself has a more complex "game-tree" than a game of chess (i.e. more available choices). We know this because the game of chess is actually contained within the game of life. It's basically a mathematical subset. On the other hand, I agree with you that chess is a very complex game. No disagreements there.
All complexities are similar in the sense that they all have a huge amount of available choices, but that doesn't necessarily make them similar in nature. There are different rules for different games, and different types of information.

And the point is that these differences are a non-issue. You can solve many maths problems through the same methods, even if the numbers are different. Since as you put it chess is a subset, it's evident that they are of the same essence, as are all the other activities that make up our life.
You can apply Kasparov's model of time, material and quality into business or politics and it 'd make perfect sense.
A great athlete manages to stay poised under fire. An elegant lady keeps her grace under pressure. How different are those situations really?

[Brutha]

Chess between two humans is far from a game of complete information.
It's not always about calculating accurately ahead, that's just one aspect of the game. You can never calculate all variations and neither can computers at the moment, nor will they for a very long time, although of course they will always have an advantage in that part. Chess most definetely *is* a game of uncertainty and making decisions with incomplete information.

Information is not about the ability to calculate.
A situation where you don't have all relevant information and can't calculate is different from a situation where you do have all relevant information and can calculate.

To speak in military terms everything that is unknown in chess is a known unknown. In life there are unknown unknowns (what Nassim Taleb would call the Black Swan).

The problem in thinking in terms of games is that you start to think that every unknown in life is also a known unknown.

A great athlete manages to stay poised under fire. An elegant lady keeps her grace under pressure. How different are those situations really?

Saying that you should keep your grace under pressure doesn't really help you.

[vMike]

Originally Posted by Jthorn

You mean where he lost a drawn game due to overlooking mate in one? In any case, you have to remember that computers also have the advantage of being completely unaffected by emotions and fatigue, although this has nothing to do with how solvable chess is.

True, but it's a fact now. Top grandmasters don't play any more matches against computers to spare the embarassment.
While the strongest humans currently approach 2800 rating mark (Kasparov had the highest one in 1999 at 2851), the strongest computer program Rybka is rated at 3300+. This is a staggering difference, I'm rated 2200 and if I were to play someone 500 points above me I'd be ... well, easily defeated.


I do think chess contributes some to the development of many useful character traits, but frankly I'd rather have spent the time pursuing mastery in some martial art.

[ken nubo]

You learn life lessons by going out there and living it -- pure and simple. Forget chess, wtf lol. Cause chess doesn't teach me how to make monies on the internet


__________________
Here's how you can make $400 by the end of the week on the Internet, cold hard cash -- the methods are free!