2 ms·
Yup. Just like being great at Chess just makes someone great at Chess, and not much more. I taught my kids to play Chess early on. My first-born was beating 1
by rebootthesystem 10y ago
Yup. Just like being great at Chess just makes someone great at Chess, and not much more.
I taught my kids to play Chess early on. My first-born was beating 12 year old's when he was 6. They had to move him up the age groupings. I insisted they keep moving him up until he lost. Knowing how to deal with losing is very important.
In all cases I pulled my kids from competitive Chess after a few seasons and a good balance between winning and losing. Past a certain point, getting better at Chess requires becoming a human database engine. That, for me, is when Chess demonstrates this idea that getting better at some of these games teaches nothing useful.
BTW, I apply this to the type of programming puzzles typically used in interviews. It's pure nonsense that says nothing about how creative someone can be about solving new problems. Anyone can become a human database with enough effort. True creative intelligence is a quite a different matter.
- CoryG89 10y agoI would disagree. I am not much into Chess, but I used to play a fair amount and consider myself fairly good. At the very least, playing a sufficient amount of Chess against sufficiently skilled opponents will teach you things that are easily generalizable. Just one example, thinking strategically over the long term (several moves ahead), rather than short term (only thinking about your next move).
- rebootthesystem 10y agoNo, I think we agree. The level of proficiency you are describing can be attained by a kid in six months to a year. Going past that to become a human chess database is a waste of time. Example: I taught my kids to ask themselves "Is there a better move?" before making a move. I also taught them to apply that idea to non-chess situations. And they do.