Log In

PLAY
LEARN
Chess.com

SHARE

FORUMS

Sign Up - It's Free!

Search

MORE

General Chess
Forums Discussion

Post New Forum Topic

Chess and logical thinking?

Previous
Sqod

123

Next

4 hours ago Quote #41

ipcress12 wrote:

WK: As I recall, people suffering brain damage which wiped out their emotional
responses were unable to make any decisions at all.

True.
----------

^ Ads keep Chess.com free. Upgrade to remove ads!

Report ^

(p. 84)
Search Forums

Scientists are now understanding the

true nature of emotions. First, emotions tell us what is good for us and
what is harmful. The vast majority of things in the world are either harm-

Jump to Forum Category..

ful or not very useful. When we experience the emotion of "like," we are
learning to identify the tiny fraction of things in the environment that are
beneficial to us.
In fact, each of our emotions (hate, jealousy, fear, love, etc.) evolved
over millions of years to protect us from the dangers of a hostile world and
help us to reproduce. Every emotion helps to propagate our genes into the
next generation.
The critical role of emotions in our evolution was apparent to neurologist Antonio Damasio of the University of Southern California, who
analyzed victims of brain injuries or disease. In some of these patients, the
link between the thinking part of their brains (the cerebral cortex) and the
emotional center (located deep in the center of the brain, like the amygdala) was cut. These people were perfectly normal, except that they had difficulty expressing emotions.
One problem became immediately obvious: they could not make
choices. Shopping was a nightmare, since everything had the same value to
them, whether it was expensive or cheap, garish or sophisticated. Setting an
appointment was almost impossible, since all dates in the future were the
same. They seem "to know, but not to feel," he said.
In other words, one of the chief purposes of emotions is to give us values, so we can decide what is important, what is expensive, what is pretty,
and what is precious. Without emotions, everything has the same value,
and we become paralyzed by endless decisions, all of which have the same
weight. So scientists are now beginning to understand that emotions, far
from being a luxury, are essential to intelligence.
Kaku, Michio. 2011. Physics of the Future: How Science Will Shape Human Destiny and
Our Daily Lives By the Year 2100. New York: Doubleday.
Sqod

3 hours ago Quote #42

Most Recent Posts

BULLET ZONE: The Miracle of APRIANTO's
Opening
by Ronald-Opening 32 hours ago
Endgame study for Pion15
by Pion15 32 hours ago
new forced format
by St3in
32 hours ago
andriod app update pushed out yesterday
by mdinnerspace
32 hours ago
London Chess Classic 2015
by fabelhaft 32 hours ago
iphone App is closing abruptly
by eyalwu 32 hours ago
I would like to have a Strategic plan for my
games
by xman720 32 hours ago
How to develop your knowledge?
by ylblai2 32 hours ago
Chess and logical thinking?
by Sqod 32 hours ago
e4
by X_PLAYER_J_X 32 hours ago

Unanswered Posts
New Unread Posts
Today's Hot Topics

Whip_Kitten,
Are you doing a serious study of logic and chess, or are you just wondering? If you're
doing a serious study, I'd recommend you do an exercise our professor had us do in one
class I took: study the 15-Puzzle before you study chess. Here's what a 15-Puzzle looks
like, for those who haven't seen one:

I used to have one of those made of plastic. The tiles slide around and the goal is to get
it from a scrambled state into left-to-right numerical order, from 1 to 15, with the
lower right square empty.
This puzzle is much simpler than chess, but like chess (and unlike tic-tac-toe, checkers,
and go) you "win" by having a certain type of configuration at the end. Because no
captures are possible (unlike checkers and chess), and because there is no promotion
(unlike checkers and chess), and because all the pieces are identical and move in the
same way (unlike checkers and chess), and because there is such an extreme lack of
space for mobility (unlike checkers and chess), it's much simpler. Like chess (and unlike
tic-tac-toe and go) you're moving unique pieces around, in this case the equivalent of
rooks that are all on the same side and have very constrained space.
Now if you ask the same questions about logic and try to decide whether this puzzle
involves syllogisms, predicate logic, fuzzy logic, or some other kind of logic, it's easier to
see that logic simply isn't involved. You're simply moving physical objects--tiles--and
noting which tiles are in your way as you focus on a single goal, like how to move the "8"
to the lower right-hand corner in the photograph above. It's visualization, pure and
simple. Even an animal can solve that problem in its simpler forms, like a bird shoving a
piece of bark out of the way to get to the insect it sees or hears hiding underneath, or a
rabbit putting a boulder between itself and a charging coyote. Humans just add more
steps to the process. Clearly it's not symbolic logic. It might be some new form of logic,
however. If you're doing a serious research project we can discuss that possibility
further.
Whip_Kitten

3 hours ago Quote #43

Just asking. Nothing serious.

Those confounded 15 square puzzles tie my feeble mind into knots. Probably should try
them again.
Here's a logic-based game: http://www.web-games-online.com/mastermind/
Fiveofswords

99 minutes ago Quote #44

BigKingBud wrote:
Fiveofswords wrote:

looking at this forum would make one suspect that chess makes people
stupid. i dont agree with this. i feel these people were already stupid
and hoped learning chess would conceal their failings.
So chess made us all stupid, but it made you a HUGE dick?
I had no idea that everyone knew how well hung i am. You think thats because of chess?
Fiveofswords

88 minutes ago Quote #45

i think its an absurd myth that 'logic' and 'emotion' are somehow at odds and at opposite
sides of some spectrum. Everyone has emotions. And some people are capable of being
objective regardless. People who are incapable of being objective are simply mentally
disabled.
Fiveofswords

83 minutes ago Quote #46

actually the whole concept smacks of anti intellectualism. I see it all the time. When
you explain to somewhat that their opinion on some issue is simply wrong (especially
religion) and its totally clear and they have zero counterargument that is remotely
feasible, they tend to accuse you of being overly logical...and having broken emotions or
something. So you are basically subhuman in their mind...a robot or something...just
because you are right. Its bs. Everyone human is a human, even humans that are smarter
than you.

^ Ads keep Chess.com free. Upgrade to remove ads!

Report ^

BigKingBud

80 minutes ago Quote #47

Fiveofswords wrote:
BigKingBud wrote:
Fiveofswords wrote:

looking at this forum would make one suspect that chess makes
people stupid. i dont agree with this. i feel these people were
already stupid and hoped learning chess would conceal their
failings.
So chess made us all stupid, but it made you a HUGE dick?
I had no idea that everyone knew how well hung i am. You think thats because of
chess?
There is a "huge hanging dick" in this forum alright, and it isn't inbetween your legs.
Whip_Kitten

77 minutes ago Quote #48

You know, we were all having a nice conversation. Is it too much to ask that one thread,
just one thread simply be people being nice to each other?
Fiveofswords

66 minutes ago Quote #49

Whip_Kitten wrote:

You know, we were all having a nice conversation. Is it too much to ask that one
thread, just one thread simply be people being nice to each other?
yes. because this is a chess forum. that is what my original comment was all about.
Sqod

37 minutes ago Quote #50

Whip_Kitten wrote:

Just asking. Nothing serious.

Darn. I was hoping to get into some really deep discussion here! Anyway, let me add
another comment...
One can see the parallels between the 15-Puzzle and chess in certain events on the
chessboard. One type of example is in certain tactical themes like interference and
obstruction. Another type of example is in openings where a desired position requires a
preliminary motion. Here are some examples of the latter:

(1) Caro-Kann Defense

White wants to play Bf4, but Black "blocks" that move temporarily with ...Qc7, which
covers the desired f4-square. This in turn requires White to make a supportive
preparation move (Ne2) first. It happens that White has to wait yet another move,
thanks to an attacking distraction, but White finally gets to play his desired Bf4. This is
analogous to a tile being in the way of another tile, which requires some preliminary
motions to remove the obstruction.
8

1. e4 c6 Caro-Kann Defense.
2. d4 d5 3. exd5 Exchange

Variation.
3... cxd5 4. Bd3 Nc6 5. c3

Qc7 6. Ne2 Preparation

step.

6... Bg4 Temporary

distraction.
7. f3 Bd7 8. Bf4 Completion

step.

1
a

J # , . @

(2) Sicilian Defense

White wants to play d4, but if he plays it immediately, he'll get his queen chased off with
...Nc6 after d4 ...cxd4 Qxd4. Black is preventing an immediate and convenient d4, which
requires the preparation move Nf3. Again, it's like backing away by one move from the
goal of moving a tile into its desired place, to take care of an indirect "blockage."
8

1. e4 c5 Sicilian Defense.
2. Nf3 Preparation step.
2... d6 3. d4 Completion

step.
6

1
a

J # , . @

Note the parallels with the 15-Puzzle:

(1) The tactics don't (yet) involve capture, only piece placement, like tile placement.
(2) To overcome the problems of piece/tile placement, one must visualize moving
objects.
(3) To solve the problem, one must work around obstructions of the intended goal.
(4) Backtracking from a desired goal is the standard practice. (Note also that I originally
asked you first what your goal was, such as whether it was writing a Prolog program.)
Almost all intelligent problemsolving procedures start with a goal, then backtrack.
There is a parallel to mathematical proofs, too, since math proofs are usually discovered
by manipulating the form of the goal, then presenting the formal proof in the forward
direction. This is also how humans often can solve tactical puzzles so quickly: they
visualize possible mating positions given the pieces available, then visualize how lines
might be cleared or blocked to get the desired configuration.
To relate this to the OP's original question, think of how to overcome problems in
everyday life. Chess (and the 15-Puzzle) teaches us that we sometimes have to make a
preparation step before we can move into the state of our life that we want. It also
teaches us that sometimes delaying threats occur while we're preparing, but if we nullify
those quickly and efficiently, eventually we'll achieve our desired state. It also teaches
us that sometimes it takes multiple such preparation steps.
Ever see the movie "Gravity"? Remember the scene where the lady astronaut is about to
commit suicide because the shelter can't be moved, then she realizes that there is
another way to produce mobility? That step happened after they solved the first step of
how to get to a shelter. That's a good example of problemsolving where the solution
came in a sequence of steps that had to be followed in order, and where each new
blockage had to be dealt with before reaching the primary envisioned goal, which was to
get back to earth safely. Chess is teaching us the essence of how to solve real-life
problems in general, but we need to add wisdom to incorporate its lessons into our daily
lives.

Fiveofswords

26 minutes ago Quote #51

mathematicians all think logic is a branch of mathematics and philososphers all think
mathematics is a branch of logic. The people studying objectivity immediately expose
their own bias.
Whip_Kitten

22 minutes ago Quote #52

Sounds like the process of hooking up at a club.

I imagine someone who is more interested in a deeper discussion than me will pick up on
the discussion. I've been reminded of Rubik's Cube and how arranging one side affects
all the other sides. I think that was the point of ERno Rubik inventing his cube--to teach
his architecture students that how alterations affect 3D space.
Sqod

21 minutes ago Quote #53

Fiveofswords wrote:

mathematicians all think logic is a branch of mathematics and philososphers all

think mathematics is a branch of logic. The people studying objectivity
immediately expose their own bias.

Nonsense. We all know that philosophy and mathematics are just branches of chess.
Fiveofswords

17 minutes ago Quote #54

Whip_Kitten wrote:

Sounds like the process of hooking up at a club.

I imagine someone who is more interested in a deeper discussion than me will

pick up on the discussion. I've been reminded of Rubik's Cube and how arranging
one side affects all the other sides. I think that was the point of ERno Rubik
inventing his cube--to teach his architecture students that how alterations
affect 3D space.
if people try to apply any logic at all about hooking up at a club...then I dont see it.
They seem to prefer hooking up with the dumbest idea possible and they get drunk
enough to not worry so much about it.
Whip_Kitten

15 minutes ago Quote #55

It was double entendre. must work around obstructions to get goal, etc....

Previous

Back to Top

Post your reply:

Log In

or

Join

Home | Why Join | Chess Topics | About | FAQs | Help & Support | Site Map
Privacy Policy | Legal | 2015 Chess.com Chess - English

123

Next