4 ms·

One thing chess taught me -- for better or for worse, I'm not sure -- is that for certain kinds of intelligence there is a very cleanly delineated hierarchy amo

One thing chess taught me -- for better or for worse, I'm not sure -- is that for certain kinds of intelligence there is a very cleanly delineated hierarchy among people. There were chess players that were better than me at the game and they would usually win. There were chess players who were worse than me and I would regularly beat them.

rdtsc 16y ago
I wonder if it just means that Cchess is a very approachable game that can be played at wide range of skill level? It is not a hard game to teach and anyone can start playing immediately. Basically it is a game a 6 year old can play and a game for world championships as well.
happy4crazy 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r Please read the section about her early life. Edit: In case it's not clear: Judit Polgár and her two older sisters, Grandmaster Susan and International Master Sofia, were part of an educational experiment carried out by their father László Polgár, in an attempt to prove that children could make exceptional achievements if trained in a specialist subject from a very early age. "Geniuses are made, not born," was László's thesis. He and his wife Klara educated their three daughters at home, with chess as the specialist subject.
- rudiger 16y ago
  This doesn't refute the original point. It may even reinforce it! Her father and mother imparted some excellent genes, raised their daughters, and taught them in a way no school can. Judit Polgár and her sister were possibly born geniuses. However, it may show that female geniuses (made or born) can be as good as male geniuses (made or born), if given the chance (which I believe).
  - happy4crazy 16y ago
    I guess it depends on what the original point was--I took narrator's point to be that certain people have bigger chess smarts than others, where smarts is something that you're blessed with at birth. I may have read too much into that. And yes, I agree that a sample size of three + massive survivor bias makes for tricky interpretation :) But I think the Polgar story is fascinating; Laszlo had a theory about how to develop genius, and he (rather creepily!) decided to test it out. From Bounce [0]: Realizing that the only way to vindicate his theory was to test it out on his own future children, he started corresponding with a number of young ladies, in search of a wife... A young Ukranian named Klara was one of those women. "His letters fizzed with passion as he explained his theories of to produce children with world-class abilities," Klara, a warm and gentle lady, a perfect counterpart to her husband, tells me. "Like many at the time, I thought he was crazy. But we agreed to meet." What's more, Laszlo would take issue with saying his daughters were born geniuses. As Polgar puts it: "If they had seen the painfully slow progress, the inch-by-inch improvements, they would not have been so quick to call Susan a prodigy." [0] http://www.amazon.com/Bounce-Federer-Picasso-Beckham-Science/dp/0061723762/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1303742665&sr=8-2 http://www.amazon.com/Bounce-Federer-Picasso-Beckham-Science...
- samatman 16y ago
  If Lazlo Polgar had really wanted to test his thesis, he should have adopted, not had biological children. He is pretty clearly an exceptional intelligence of his own, reading his Wikipedia page. That said, chess is simply not an inherent skill. But small differences in native ability can lead to large differences in interest, hence time spent, hence results achieved.
mquander 16y ago
That's a pretty unusual conclusion. I would suppose that chess might teach the opposite -- it's apparent that when you practice chess deliberately, you get better and better, and that improvement is reflected very clearly in your results. Beating other kids or beating your dad is a kind of improvement that is more concrete than the other kinds of things you learn in school at that age. It might help demonstrate the virtue of directed effort. I personally spent some time a few years ago teaching elementary-schoolers chess in a club after school. A lot of them weren't good students, but all of them took a lot of pride in getting better at chess. I think it would be really worthwhile if we had a tool to get the pleasure of self-improvement into kids' heads.
- watmough 16y ago
  One of the great things about the internet is the ability to play chess against anyone online, through any of the many sites such as Yahoo! games etc. I used to play a bit online, and as well as improving my chess just through more play, the pressure of playing under time limits really forced me to develop a strategy, something I'd never realized, despite playing many games over the years. Playing on-line, self-improvement should be pretty clear, just from watching your number of wins and rating gradually improve.
- dabent 16y ago
  I played chess with my co-workers at a former job during lunch. I barely knew the rules when I started and struggled at first. I began to practice somewhat obsessively and I got to the point where I could regularly beat most of my co-workers within a year. It could be argued I have an inclination for something like chess, but the connection between practice and payoff was more apparent playing chess than just about anything else I've ever done. Chess has also taught me to think ahead a few moves and to realize that sometimes a short-term loss is worth it for a long-term gain. All things I see as essential for entrepreneurship. In my youth, I used to just think people were just "good" at something, and there was little they could do to influence it. I did software because I was "good" at it. Over the years, I've realized that an inclination or talent is important, but relentless years of honing one's craft are more important. I've watched a couple of my "smarter" friends waste away due to lack of focus and other people shine seemingly in spite of themselves.
useflyer 16y ago
I've always been an adept chess player, but I never spent the required time to become truly competitive. I agree with you that skill and ability differences lead to predictable outcomes; functionally, how would an educator address this in using chess as a learning instrument? Speculating as a non-educator, dividing the class into skill subsections would lead to more equal and competitive play, most likely increasing both motivation and learning. My co-founder joined our start-up after spending a year traveling through Asia, and brought back with him Chinese Chess. The pieces are incredibly similar to traditional chess, with slight movement variations. We adopted the game as our 3am work-break for a while, and were able to build up a record over a few weeks. Unlike traditional chess in which my win rate would be near-absolute, he was able to win approximately 25% of Chinese games, with his win rate stable over time as we both developed our knowledge of the nuances of the game.

rdtsc 16y ago

I wonder if it just means that Cchess is a very approachable game that can be played at wide range of skill level? It is not a hard game to teach and anyone can start playing immediately. Basically it is a game a 6 year old can play and a game for world championships as well.

happy4crazy 16y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r Please read the section about her early life. Edit: In case it's not clear: Judit Polgár and her two older sisters, Grandmaster Susan and International Master Sofia, were part of an educational experiment carried out by their father László Polgár, in an attempt to prove that children could make exceptional achievements if trained in a specialist subject from a very early age. "Geniuses are made, not born," was László's thesis. He and his wife Klara educated their three daughters at home, with chess as the specialist subject.

rudiger 16y ago
This doesn't refute the original point. It may even reinforce it! Her father and mother imparted some excellent genes, raised their daughters, and taught them in a way no school can. Judit Polgár and her sister were possibly born geniuses. However, it may show that female geniuses (made or born) can be as good as male geniuses (made or born), if given the chance (which I believe).
- happy4crazy 16y ago
  I guess it depends on what the original point was--I took narrator's point to be that certain people have bigger chess smarts than others, where smarts is something that you're blessed with at birth. I may have read too much into that. And yes, I agree that a sample size of three + massive survivor bias makes for tricky interpretation :) But I think the Polgar story is fascinating; Laszlo had a theory about how to develop genius, and he (rather creepily!) decided to test it out. From Bounce [0]: Realizing that the only way to vindicate his theory was to test it out on his own future children, he started corresponding with a number of young ladies, in search of a wife... A young Ukranian named Klara was one of those women. "His letters fizzed with passion as he explained his theories of to produce children with world-class abilities," Klara, a warm and gentle lady, a perfect counterpart to her husband, tells me. "Like many at the time, I thought he was crazy. But we agreed to meet." What's more, Laszlo would take issue with saying his daughters were born geniuses. As Polgar puts it: "If they had seen the painfully slow progress, the inch-by-inch improvements, they would not have been so quick to call Susan a prodigy." [0] http://www.amazon.com/Bounce-Federer-Picasso-Beckham-Science/dp/0061723762/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1303742665&sr=8-2 http://www.amazon.com/Bounce-Federer-Picasso-Beckham-Science...
samatman 16y ago
If Lazlo Polgar had really wanted to test his thesis, he should have adopted, not had biological children. He is pretty clearly an exceptional intelligence of his own, reading his Wikipedia page. That said, chess is simply not an inherent skill. But small differences in native ability can lead to large differences in interest, hence time spent, hence results achieved.

mquander 16y ago

That's a pretty unusual conclusion. I would suppose that chess might teach the opposite -- it's apparent that when you practice chess deliberately, you get better and better, and that improvement is reflected very clearly in your results. Beating other kids or beating your dad is a kind of improvement that is more concrete than the other kinds of things you learn in school at that age. It might help demonstrate the virtue of directed effort. I personally spent some time a few years ago teaching elementary-schoolers chess in a club after school. A lot of them weren't good students, but all of them took a lot of pride in getting better at chess. I think it would be really worthwhile if we had a tool to get the pleasure of self-improvement into kids' heads.

watmough 16y ago
One of the great things about the internet is the ability to play chess against anyone online, through any of the many sites such as Yahoo! games etc. I used to play a bit online, and as well as improving my chess just through more play, the pressure of playing under time limits really forced me to develop a strategy, something I'd never realized, despite playing many games over the years. Playing on-line, self-improvement should be pretty clear, just from watching your number of wins and rating gradually improve.
dabent 16y ago
I played chess with my co-workers at a former job during lunch. I barely knew the rules when I started and struggled at first. I began to practice somewhat obsessively and I got to the point where I could regularly beat most of my co-workers within a year. It could be argued I have an inclination for something like chess, but the connection between practice and payoff was more apparent playing chess than just about anything else I've ever done. Chess has also taught me to think ahead a few moves and to realize that sometimes a short-term loss is worth it for a long-term gain. All things I see as essential for entrepreneurship. In my youth, I used to just think people were just "good" at something, and there was little they could do to influence it. I did software because I was "good" at it. Over the years, I've realized that an inclination or talent is important, but relentless years of honing one's craft are more important. I've watched a couple of my "smarter" friends waste away due to lack of focus and other people shine seemingly in spite of themselves.

useflyer 16y ago

I've always been an adept chess player, but I never spent the required time to become truly competitive. I agree with you that skill and ability differences lead to predictable outcomes; functionally, how would an educator address this in using chess as a learning instrument? Speculating as a non-educator, dividing the class into skill subsections would lead to more equal and competitive play, most likely increasing both motivation and learning. My co-founder joined our start-up after spending a year traveling through Asia, and brought back with him Chinese Chess. The pieces are incredibly similar to traditional chess, with slight movement variations. We adopted the game as our 3am work-break for a while, and were able to build up a record over a few weeks. Unlike traditional chess in which my win rate would be near-absolute, he was able to win approximately 25% of Chinese games, with his win rate stable over time as we both developed our knowledge of the nuances of the game.