4 ms·

Play chess. It helps you think strategy before execution. It also helps you keep focussed on the bigger picture. In the last 2 years, I have gone from being r

Play chess. It helps you think strategy before execution. It also helps you keep focussed on the bigger picture. In the last 2 years, I have gone from being ranked 800ish points to now 1200 on chess.com and it has definitely developed my thinking.

kortilla 6y ago
This is a... tactical view of thinking. Getting better at chess doesn’t help you deal with biases, logical errors, etc. Something as simple as the gamblers fallacy doesn’t show up in chess.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  I had a similar thought: chess doesn't teach you to clarify thoughts, cut through to the central points, and reason clearly about things that may at first seem 'fuzzy'. These are the things I associate with 'good thinking', and are much of what philosophers do (morality, free will, consciousness, truth, etc). See also the Hierarchy of Disagreement, and old HackerNews favourite - https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_disagreement https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_disagreement
person_of_color 6y ago
There was research in brain training apps. The conclusion of the study was that they simply made you better at them, rather than generalizing to other tasks. How is that different to Chess?
- T-A 6y ago
  It isn't: https://theconversation.com/does-playing-chess-make-you-smarter-a-look-at-the-evidence-76062 https://theconversation.com/does-playing-chess-make-you-smar...
- disambiguation 6y ago
  of course training and only training to be good at a game won't lead to wisdom/insights, but anything can be generalized to other tasks if you take the time to reflect on it. I think Chess is ripe with lessons that apply to common, real life scenarios. Off the top of my head: - early/mid/end game; you apply a different strategy based on the stage of the game you are in, relates to software product lifecycles. - tempo; when your moves don't just profit, but set you up with momentum to continue making more good moves. - zugzwang; being in a position where any move you make results in a loss. - The value of your position can exceed the value of your material based on context. - You can still play a game where you're down to a draw. The list goes on :)
  - viklove 6y ago
    Seems like starcraft would be an even better game to play then, considering that it has all of this, but also forces you to think in realtime. Come to think of it, the information asymmetry in starcraft that is lacking in chess would teach you a lot more lessons as well.
paedubucher 6y ago
Gary Kasparov was a chess grand master, and, obviously, not a great strategists. Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, is not known for his chess abilities.
- thanatropism 6y ago
  To be fair, this is a bit of a strawman. The marginal utility of almost anything (cross fit, big muscles, abstract maths, jazz trumpet ability...) tapers off at the highest levels. OP is saying that there are gains in going from Elo 800 ("total novice, inconsistent playing tending to lose") to 1200 ("plays at baseline level consistently"), not that you should dedicate your life to chess to the exclusion of everything else. I'd be willing to bet that Putin has a recorded Elo somewhere at least in the 1400s. For comparison, pros have 2000+ scores, the greatest champions (and computers) 2600+. A 400 point difference roughly means you're 10 times better.
lowdose 6y ago
Chess is a zero sum game and is very limited in it's application in life. Chess probably has had an overall negative effect on the course of history by excluding the win-win possibility. Strategy through the lens of chess results in local maxima and is thereby the worst approach to achieve better long term outcomes.
amelius 6y ago
You might as well solve crossword puzzles.

kortilla 6y ago

This is a... tactical view of thinking. Getting better at chess doesn’t help you deal with biases, logical errors, etc. Something as simple as the gamblers fallacy doesn’t show up in chess.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
I had a similar thought: chess doesn't teach you to clarify thoughts, cut through to the central points, and reason clearly about things that may at first seem 'fuzzy'. These are the things I associate with 'good thinking', and are much of what philosophers do (morality, free will, consciousness, truth, etc). See also the Hierarchy of Disagreement, and old HackerNews favourite - https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_disagreement https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_disagreement

person_of_color 6y ago

There was research in brain training apps. The conclusion of the study was that they simply made you better at them, rather than generalizing to other tasks. How is that different to Chess?

T-A 6y ago
It isn't: https://theconversation.com/does-playing-chess-make-you-smarter-a-look-at-the-evidence-76062 https://theconversation.com/does-playing-chess-make-you-smar...
disambiguation 6y ago
of course training and only training to be good at a game won't lead to wisdom/insights, but anything can be generalized to other tasks if you take the time to reflect on it. I think Chess is ripe with lessons that apply to common, real life scenarios. Off the top of my head: - early/mid/end game; you apply a different strategy based on the stage of the game you are in, relates to software product lifecycles. - tempo; when your moves don't just profit, but set you up with momentum to continue making more good moves. - zugzwang; being in a position where any move you make results in a loss. - The value of your position can exceed the value of your material based on context. - You can still play a game where you're down to a draw. The list goes on :)
- viklove 6y ago
  Seems like starcraft would be an even better game to play then, considering that it has all of this, but also forces you to think in realtime. Come to think of it, the information asymmetry in starcraft that is lacking in chess would teach you a lot more lessons as well.

paedubucher 6y ago

Gary Kasparov was a chess grand master, and, obviously, not a great strategists. Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, is not known for his chess abilities.

thanatropism 6y ago
To be fair, this is a bit of a strawman. The marginal utility of almost anything (cross fit, big muscles, abstract maths, jazz trumpet ability...) tapers off at the highest levels. OP is saying that there are gains in going from Elo 800 ("total novice, inconsistent playing tending to lose") to 1200 ("plays at baseline level consistently"), not that you should dedicate your life to chess to the exclusion of everything else. I'd be willing to bet that Putin has a recorded Elo somewhere at least in the 1400s. For comparison, pros have 2000+ scores, the greatest champions (and computers) 2600+. A 400 point difference roughly means you're 10 times better.

lowdose 6y ago

Chess is a zero sum game and is very limited in it's application in life. Chess probably has had an overall negative effect on the course of history by excluding the win-win possibility. Strategy through the lens of chess results in local maxima and is thereby the worst approach to achieve better long term outcomes.

amelius 6y ago

You might as well solve crossword puzzles.