4 ms·

Why does society glorify such pointless games? They are harmful too. Chess has probably made millions feel stupid for no reason really.

jacquesm 16y ago
That 'pointless game' is not glorified by society but is enjoyed by those that play it because it is not a pointless game but actually helps you to understand stuff and develop your skills at strategic and analytical thinking. Chess has never made anybody feel 'stupid', no more than that any hammer ever killed someone. People make other people feel stupid, mostly the people with a little more skill than you. People do stuff like that all the time, it's petty behaviour but you can't blame the game of chess for that. The harmful part here is in part the person that allows the judgment of others to have such devastating effect on them, it takes two to play the 'your stupid' game, and if you let your skills at chess and others' opinions of you weigh that heavily then I would suggest you either lighten up or you get better at chess ;) The thing I personally don't like about chess (and which is my main reason for no longer playing it competitively) is the people that memorize book openings and use that as a substitute for original play. I don't want to play some canned opening to the mid game, I want to enjoy a game with the person on the others side of the board. My standard solution to that is to make a really bad but totally off the books opening. This puts me at an instant disadvantage but it certainly makes the game more interesting ;) edit: regarding the 'stupid', here is a quote from the article, arguably from the worlds very best chess player straight to you: "Excelling at chess has long been considered a symbol of more general intelligence. That is an incorrect assumption in my view, as pleasant as it might be."
- jackfoxy 16y ago
  Fischer advocated randomizing the back row to eliminate canned openings. I like that idea.
  - bockris 16y ago
    Chess960 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960
- amichail 16y ago
  Taking a game seriously that computers are better at is silly. It's better to focus on things that humans are better at.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    You are missing some or all of the point here. Computers are not 'better' at chess than humans, they are simply faster and have access to more and more perfect forms of memory. Humans learn a few simple rules and combine that with a motivation to win and suddenly 'know how to play chess' with some ability after a few hours, days or weeks. To become a master at the game takes a lot more study but in general people can learn how to play chess with some ease. You are the one who is taking it seriously! Games are meant to be enjoyed, not to be taken too serious and even the big 'names' from chess play the game as a way to pit their wits against others. The way they arrive at their solutions is totally unrelated to the way computers arrive at theirs. Imagine if you showed up to a chess contest armed with a veritable library of chess books, a history of all the grand master games ever played, their openings and evaluation of the mid games that came out of those openings and a near infinite number of assistants that are willing to play your current board position through large number of variations to see the possible outcomes of potential moves. I think the key to continued enjoyment in spite of the fact that computers are 'better' at this is that they indeed arrive by a way that between humans would be considered cheating. Be impressed by how much resistance our humble brains can put up in the face of such an onslaught and realize that we are the ones that are 'better' at it because no computer that ever got 'taught' chess was any good at all. It takes the combined elements of vast pre-programmed storage and brute force to make it to the higher classes in chess and that has nothing to do with 'playing chess'.
    - amichail 16y ago
      I have more respect and interest in creative activities that are far beyond what computers can do.
      - nl 16y ago
        You mean like chess, circa 1994?

jacquesm 16y ago

That 'pointless game' is not glorified by society but is enjoyed by those that play it because it is not a pointless game but actually helps you to understand stuff and develop your skills at strategic and analytical thinking. Chess has never made anybody feel 'stupid', no more than that any hammer ever killed someone. People make other people feel stupid, mostly the people with a little more skill than you. People do stuff like that all the time, it's petty behaviour but you can't blame the game of chess for that. The harmful part here is in part the person that allows the judgment of others to have such devastating effect on them, it takes two to play the 'your stupid' game, and if you let your skills at chess and others' opinions of you weigh that heavily then I would suggest you either lighten up or you get better at chess ;) The thing I personally don't like about chess (and which is my main reason for no longer playing it competitively) is the people that memorize book openings and use that as a substitute for original play. I don't want to play some canned opening to the mid game, I want to enjoy a game with the person on the others side of the board. My standard solution to that is to make a really bad but totally off the books opening. This puts me at an instant disadvantage but it certainly makes the game more interesting ;) edit: regarding the 'stupid', here is a quote from the article, arguably from the worlds very best chess player straight to you: "Excelling at chess has long been considered a symbol of more general intelligence. That is an incorrect assumption in my view, as pleasant as it might be."

jackfoxy 16y ago
Fischer advocated randomizing the back row to eliminate canned openings. I like that idea.
- bockris 16y ago
  Chess960 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960
amichail 16y ago
Taking a game seriously that computers are better at is silly. It's better to focus on things that humans are better at.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  You are missing some or all of the point here. Computers are not 'better' at chess than humans, they are simply faster and have access to more and more perfect forms of memory. Humans learn a few simple rules and combine that with a motivation to win and suddenly 'know how to play chess' with some ability after a few hours, days or weeks. To become a master at the game takes a lot more study but in general people can learn how to play chess with some ease. You are the one who is taking it seriously! Games are meant to be enjoyed, not to be taken too serious and even the big 'names' from chess play the game as a way to pit their wits against others. The way they arrive at their solutions is totally unrelated to the way computers arrive at theirs. Imagine if you showed up to a chess contest armed with a veritable library of chess books, a history of all the grand master games ever played, their openings and evaluation of the mid games that came out of those openings and a near infinite number of assistants that are willing to play your current board position through large number of variations to see the possible outcomes of potential moves. I think the key to continued enjoyment in spite of the fact that computers are 'better' at this is that they indeed arrive by a way that between humans would be considered cheating. Be impressed by how much resistance our humble brains can put up in the face of such an onslaught and realize that we are the ones that are 'better' at it because no computer that ever got 'taught' chess was any good at all. It takes the combined elements of vast pre-programmed storage and brute force to make it to the higher classes in chess and that has nothing to do with 'playing chess'.
  - amichail 16y ago
    I have more respect and interest in creative activities that are far beyond what computers can do.
    - nl 16y ago
      You mean like chess, circa 1994?