4
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by SexualPolytope@lemmy.sdf.org to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world

Sure, playing chess needs intelligence, dedication, and good chess players are smarter than an average person. But it's waaaay exaggerated in movies. I'm a math researcher, and in any movie, my department will be full of chess geniuses. But in reality, only about 10% of them even play chess.

top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago

Being skilled at a game has little bearing on your intelligence beyond maybe "above average". Intelligence is often best reflected in learning speed.

[-] exasperation@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Paul Morphy, chess genius and sometimes described as best in the world in the mid-1800s:

"The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life."

[-] Takumidesh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

If you want to beat all of your friends at chess:

learn how to mate in endgames with a few different combinations of pieces.

Castle early and on the same side of your opponent.

Learn to defend scholars mate.

Focus on piece development early on, get you back rank pieces out (bishops knights)

Fight for the center

When attacking a square, just count how many other pieces are attacking and defending that square and see if you have more than your opponent, this is a great way to quickly analyze an attacks value.

Trade when you have a piece advantage, this is like taking a math question and simplyifing the terms. It greatly simplifies the game and brings it in to the the end game with an advantage.

Learn any one opening system just a few branches that can consistently bring you into tactics (static analysis of the board state) even or with a slight advantage.

These tips can be accomplished in a week and will dominate anyone who 'just knows the rules'

[-] Zizzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

People need to stop putting chess on a pedestal. Its a game. General intelligence has no bearing. Its a specific skillset you can hone by practice and research, just like any other game.

[-] slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

It is a super deep game for how simple it is, i think that's the "genius" part. But remembering openings in chess and their names doesn't make you a genius, it makes you a genius in chess.

[-] MimicJar@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Exactly, Chess is Mario Kart.

Anyone can learn how to play Chess. Anyone can learn how to play Mario Kart.

You slap a controller in someone's hand tell them "A" is go and they can play Mario Kart. Sure they have to learn the track, where to collect power ups, where the shortcuts are, and eventually they have to learn about and master drifting.

But being a genius in Mario Kart doesn't make you a genius. No heist movie ever said, "And this genius over here? They scored first place in 200cc Special Cup."

[-] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 2 weeks ago

Almost anything where memorization is the primary skill is going to be dominated by people with specific interest, rather than general high intelligence (certainly doesn't exclude it, but it's just statistics). Gotta look for something frequently requiring novel problem solving and adaption to filter for high probability of high general intelligence.

Then there's also a lot of games requiring very narrow intellectual ability. Being able to parse a specific ruleset, or doing a specific kind of math fast, without needing to be able to handle anything novel. You'll certainly find some "interesting individuals" around those kinds of games.

[-] GoodLuckToFriends@lemmy.today 1 points 2 weeks ago

Being able to parse a specific ruleset, or doing a specific kind of math fast

Oh man, I would love competitive tabletop games, where the goal isn't to min/max your build, but to min/max your build after being given a brand new system and 45 minutes to read the rules.

[-] SexualPolytope@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Lol, I can relate. My friends are always surprised how good I am at a game when I'm playing for the first time (mostly card games, and board games). But I quickly get bored, so never get to be actually good at any of those.

Same with language. I can pick up a little bit of any language fairly quickly, but to actually learn it, I basically need to be forced e.g. live in a place where most people don't speak anything else.

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Would be hilarious if Hollywood moved away from chess to show someone being smart and instead showed them yelling at teammates in League of Legends.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 0 points 1 week ago

I know someone who is pretty good at chess but also thinks vaccines are fake, Musk is a genius, and Ukraine belongs to Russia.

So not all chess players are smart.

[-] expr@programming.dev 0 points 1 week ago

Do you know their rating? Tbh most people's idea of being "pretty good at chess" is actually not very good at all (I don't mean that as an insult, more lack of familiarity with the game).

That's not to say that it's impossible for someone to think those things and be a strong chess player, but it's probably not super common. I've actually ran into a couple people at a local chess club with "interesting" ideas about vaccines and uh... let's just say they were not hard to beat (I think I mated one guy in like 12 moves). And btw, I'm not even a super strong chess player myself (~1134 USCF). But like, they probably would seem really strong to someone that just occasionally plays chess at family gatherings or whatnot. Chess is a game with a low skill floor and very high skill ceiling, so you have a huge range in ability.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 points 1 week ago

2000 ish, apparently.

[-] fartsparkles@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Chess is mostly a memorisation game for gambits / openers and subsequent sets of follow-on moves.

After that, it’s mentally simulating the board state a few moves ahead, varying pieces and guesstimating probability of what move the opponent will make. A lot of that you start to memorise, especially since other chess enthusiasts will often play well-known gambits / strategies.

Intelligence often correlates with memory but they’re not one and the same. I grew up knowing a competitive chess player and remember the time they referred to their “hambag” (handbag). English was their mother tongue…

[-] TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago

The person who taught me chess was constantly perplexed by my bizarre tactics. He found it refreshing and interesting. Obviously, I had no idea what I was doing, and I got nuked to oblivion on a regular basis. Maybe he was expecting to see some popular moves, but was only faced with whatever sketchy tactics I could come up with.

[-] makyo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah I was sorta interested in pursuing Chess more at least as a hobby a few years ago. Learning about the 'meta' strategy was kind of intimidating and discouraging. The basic strategy is interesting to me but learning and memorizing different games just sounds awful to me. I guess it's like most things - the more you learn about it the more you realize there is a lot more to it than what you initially thought it was.

[-] Geetnerd@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Chess requires dedication, conviction, and patience. Anyone with average intelligence can learn the game to the point of competence in 30 minutes.

It requires much more time to become an expert, or master.

And most people don't have that much time to expend on it. That's not something to be ashamed of.

[-] floo@retrolemmy.com 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Much of the game of chess, particularly becoming an expert or a master, relies on memorizing every possible move and, then, every possible counter move. Mastery of chess is almost always reliant upon that memorization.

The game itself is not that complex, and most people can learn how to play chess fairly quickly. Much of the apparent wizardry of chest mastery is actually just a sign of excellent memorization of every possible move and it’s possible counter moves.

There’s not a lot of creativity in chess

[-] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

I think DeGroots work in the 30s and 40s shows otherwise. Grandmasters know rather quickly what they were going to do in general as they orient to the board state. Then they explore a small set of moves and explode them into a few moves into the future and pick the best candidate. Finally, they spend time verifying their selection.

They have good memories, for sure, but for real game states. This is a quote from Herb Simon, an important early researcher in psychology and computer science:

The most extensive work to date on perception in chess is that done by De Groot. In his search for differences between masters and weaker players, de Groot was unable to find any gross differences in the statistics of their thought processes: the number of moves considered, search heuristics, depth of search, and so on. Masters search through about the same number of possibilities as weaker players-perhaps even fewer, almost certainly not more-but they are very good at coming up with the “right” moves for further consideration, whereas weaker players spend considerable time analyzing the consequences of bad moves.

De Groot did, however, find an intriguing difference between masters and weaker players in his short-term memory experiments. Masters showed a remarkable ability to reconstruct a chess position almost perfectly after viewing it for only 5 sec. There was a sharp drop off in this ability for players below the master level. This result could not be attributed to the masters’ generally superior memory ability, for when chess positions were constructed by placing the same numbers of pieces randomly on the board, the masters could then do no better in reconstructing them than weaker players, Hence, the masters appear to be constrained by the same severe short-term memory limits as everyone else, and their superior performance with “meaningful’ positions must lie in their ability to perceive structure in such positions and encode them in chunks.

[-] SexualPolytope@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 weeks ago

I'd argue that there is a certain kind of creativity in coming up with those moves. But since it's mostly a solved game now, modern players probably don't experience it anymore.

[-] floo@retrolemmy.com -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I’m certainly happy to hear that climate change is “solved” now, but that doesn’t really address the problems I raised. Particularly, what is the OP’s opinion on the advancements in green initiatives/goals that Apple has made as discussed in the article?

[-] SexualPolytope@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 weeks ago
[-] floo@retrolemmy.com -1 points 2 weeks ago

If you can’t make sense of your own proposition, repeated to you, then don’t be surprised when nobody else can make sense of it either

[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

ITT: I don't play chess. I don't like chess. Friend play chess, he dumb, I am smart. I agree. You hear of Rubik's cube?

Your skill at chess is indeed very good at predicting one thing: your chess rating. I have been playing every day for almost 2 years and I take lessons, but I started as an adult after finishing my PhD in actual rocket science and supervising a research lab in that area for 10 years. Consequently, I will never be as good as the 10 year olds playing with coaching since they were 6. I have met exactly one good player through my connections to that lab in 17 years. So here are some perspectives on chess if you played in high school or you "learned how to play in 30 mins and think it's boring":

  1. It's a game with layers. The first layer is knowing how the pieces move, the second layer is memorizing openings, and the third layer is some basic knowledge of tactics (I.e., forks, skewers, pins, removing the defense, etc etc) and THEN you learn the game. Most people never learn the game unless you went out of your way to do so.

  2. For reason 1, "good at chess" is a hugely subjective statement. You knew a few people who can beat all your friends? Cool. I was that guy and it took me MONTHS to get to what the chess world calls "intermediate": 1200-1400 ELO. Your friend is probably rated 700 to 750. You have probably never met more than a handful of good chess players in your life unless you were in a university club or better.

  3. You do not have to be typically smart to be good at chess, but it doesn't hurt. Top GMs are sometimes impressively smart or impressively... Uh... susceptible to misinformation cough Kramnik cough. But what they CAN do is master the shit out of board positions, visualization, and prediction.

Case in point, Hikaru Nakamura, arguably world #2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WsEQuoOz-c&t=490

Or you can watch him play blindfolded chess against actual good players, or speedrun 1 minute games winning hundreds in a row while talking about his pineapple shirt. He's alternatingly pretty entertaining and kind of annoying to listen to.

If you are that kind of smart, the visualization and memory kind, yeah you're probably going to also be a good chess player. Otherwise, there's not a lot of traceability that I've seen research on.

All that said, this thread is absolutely annoying to see the whole world show up and talk out of their asses about it.

/end rant

Edit:

More Hikaru craziness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhDYSNbPs_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXDol9GqK64

[-] expr@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

Completely agree. Just a bunch of people who clearly don't play the game and know nothing about it talking out of their asses.

IMO you can't have a serious opinion about the game without having actually played it competitively. If you're just somebody that's casually played a couple games with friends and family, your opinion about the game isn't really relevant.

[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

"show me your non-provisional rating and then we can talk". Yeah I agree. But then this is the internet and everyone is an expert at being an expert lol

[-] Flamekebab@piefed.social 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The pared-down nature of chess really puts me off. I'm sure there's some elegant simplicity in it but I mostly find it dull. I like an element of randomness in my games.

Chess doesn't feel like a gateway to other, more fun games, and if it's not a fun game for me, why would I pursue it? I'm fairly sure it doesn't build skills that translate to anything else.

I also get that there are layers to it, although I'm adding that as apparently that's not so self-evident as to be taken as read. I can see where the path leads and find it no more appealing than the obnoxiously boring gambling machines in casinos, or Dota2, or athletics. Learn the meta, build an understanding of the underlying concepts in order to be able to build more complex strategies based on a combination of instinctive statistical analysis and assessment of your opponent, etc. etc.. I get it, I'm just not interested.

Edit: oh that's interesting, some of you have gone into my profile and systematically downvoted my older comments. That's what I get for not just blocking a Lemmy.ml user as soon as they chimed in.

[-] seven_phone@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago
[-] Flamekebab@piefed.social -1 points 2 weeks ago

If you're going to throw around an insult like that I'd like to see some working. I find chess boring, I'm not a fucking fascist.

this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2025
4 points (100.0% liked)

Showerthoughts

33971 readers
604 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS