I feel most folks consider chess that way because chess is a good storytelling tool to indicate a character is educated, or even that the character is actually intelligent. You don't tell the...
Exemplary
I feel most folks consider chess that way because chess is a good storytelling tool to indicate a character is educated, or even that the character is actually intelligent. You don't tell the audience "this person is smart." Well, good stories don't do that. They don't have other characters wander in and say "wow, you're smart Jeb."
What they will do is try to find things that push the audience to draw the conclusion they want drawn. So things that push an assumption of "oh, that character is smart" are peppered into the story. You'll see how the character has a library, and maybe books are put in places that indicate they're actively being read. There might be a lack of sports or similar hobbies, because those are tropes that tend to push not in an intelligence direction but more in an everyman or athletic direction.
And we'll see how the character plays chess. There'll be a chess board, and not one that's packed up. Or one that's usually set up ready to start playing. Often they'll show the board in mid game of some kind.
Tropes like that permeate through cultures and start to have this kind of influence. Like how glasses are considered smart and/or nerdy and/or weird and/or outcast. You put a character in glasses and have them stammer a bit, but when they do talk they have deep information on subjects, and the audience starts to assume "okay, smart but odd." Which trickles out into reality, and people start treating actual real people who wear glasses like that too because they see so many movies and plays and shows and so on where those characters are those things.
In a similar fashion, when you want the audience to conclude a character is a good negotiator, or a risk taker, you make it clear they're a good poker player. Audiences associate poker with these traits, so when it's made clear the lead is an accomplished, possibly successful, poker player, the audience will be far more accepting when the character is depicted as being able to "read" people, or when the character is willing to take chances.
Basically, people are dumb. Or at least lazy. The brain throws up the "obvious" thoughts when things appear or occur in life, and most folks just take that first mental reaction and let it run. So you see chess, your head pops out connections to stories you've experienced, and you think "oh, if my kid played chess, my kid would turn out smart because chess makes you smart."
Chess makes you good at recognizing chess patterns on a chess board. And if you're good at chess, you're good at remembering patterns so you can use your recollection to play into or out of positions that occur during gameplay. No offense to chess players; every game is like that.
Why do games become boring sometimes? You figured out enough of the patterns that you're no longer delighted or intrigued by finding them during gameplay. It's why most people find tic-tac-toe when they're a kid, and usually move on from it in less than a year.
It's also why chess masters can play dozens or more of games simultaneously against school kids or something; it doesn't take someone who has a ton of chess pattern knowledge much effort to glance at a board, see an obvious pattern they've seen thousands of times, and do what they've learned to do in those game states.
The glasses example is a good comparison because it's at least theorized that the connection between them and intelligence has its roots in what I believe to be a pretty big factor in the...
The glasses example is a good comparison because it's at least theorized that the connection between them and intelligence has its roots in what I believe to be a pretty big factor in the association for chess as well -- wealth. When glasses were new, only the wealthy could afford them. Similarly, the resources and free time to not only play chess but to master it has been limited to the wealthier classes of society (arguably until recently). Wealthy people have also always had advantages in pursuing advanced or high-quality education compared to those with less means, and this effect gets bigger the further back you go. So I suspect the association begins here, and then grew stronger and more pervasive through reinforcement in fiction and the like as you describe in your comment.
Baldesar Castiglione, Etiquette for Renaissance Gentlemen, 1528 A.D.
Signore Gaspare replied: "And what do you say about the game of chess?"
"That is certainly a refined and ingenious recreation,' said Federico, "but it seems to me to possess one defect; namely, that it is possible for it to demand too much knowledge, so that anyone who wishes to become an outstanding player must, I think, give to it as much time and study as he would to learning some noble science or performing well something or other of importance; and yet for all his pains when all is said and done all he knows is a game. Therefore as far as chess is concerned we reach what is a very rare conclusion: that mediocrity is more to be praised than excellence."
Baldesar Castiglione, Etiquette for Renaissance Gentlemen, 1528 A.D.
(I lol’d.) That being said, I wouldn’t call this a case of being sore losers – I highly respect chess players, in the same way I hold respect for top (physical) athletes. The work they put into...
(I lol’d.)
That being said, I wouldn’t call this a case of being sore losers – I highly respect chess players, in the same way I hold respect for top (physical) athletes. The work they put into their craft is (awe-)inspiring, borderline insane to wrap your head around the sheer amount of time dedicated, and in both cases I personally could never do it (nor want to).
Does that mean top chess players should decide on governmental policy, be university professors, or do whatever else we expect smart people to do? Well, no.
Where athletes forge their bodies, I think chess players mostly train their memory and pattern recognition. So chess knowledge, in my eyes, very likely doesn’t universally translate to smartness. It’s just that we’ve come to associate it as an indirect factor, as discussed in the top comment.
I've been teaching chess to 4-6 year old kids for a decade now. My own anecdotal experience is as follows: Most kids can learn to passably play chess at an early age. Of those, some of them will...
I've been teaching chess to 4-6 year old kids for a decade now. My own anecdotal experience is as follows:
Most kids can learn to passably play chess at an early age. Of those, some of them will enjoy playing it more than others. Of those that enjoy playing it, a handful will actually be good players, because they are already attentive to patterns, have good memory, and strong cognitive skills.
So what it really means is that chess doesn't make kids smarter, it just allows smarter kids to demonstrate their intelligence in other ways.
My star chess students consistently are ahead in math, reading, and writing skills. It's just another indicator of intelligence.
Yeah, that's similar to what I was going to say - my dad taught me at an early age. And part of it was just learning how to think, not just how to play chess. It was very formative to me personally.
Yeah, that's similar to what I was going to say - my dad taught me at an early age. And part of it was just learning how to think, not just how to play chess. It was very formative to me personally.
I feel most folks consider chess that way because chess is a good storytelling tool to indicate a character is educated, or even that the character is actually intelligent. You don't tell the audience "this person is smart." Well, good stories don't do that. They don't have other characters wander in and say "wow, you're smart Jeb."
What they will do is try to find things that push the audience to draw the conclusion they want drawn. So things that push an assumption of "oh, that character is smart" are peppered into the story. You'll see how the character has a library, and maybe books are put in places that indicate they're actively being read. There might be a lack of sports or similar hobbies, because those are tropes that tend to push not in an intelligence direction but more in an everyman or athletic direction.
And we'll see how the character plays chess. There'll be a chess board, and not one that's packed up. Or one that's usually set up ready to start playing. Often they'll show the board in mid game of some kind.
Tropes like that permeate through cultures and start to have this kind of influence. Like how glasses are considered smart and/or nerdy and/or weird and/or outcast. You put a character in glasses and have them stammer a bit, but when they do talk they have deep information on subjects, and the audience starts to assume "okay, smart but odd." Which trickles out into reality, and people start treating actual real people who wear glasses like that too because they see so many movies and plays and shows and so on where those characters are those things.
In a similar fashion, when you want the audience to conclude a character is a good negotiator, or a risk taker, you make it clear they're a good poker player. Audiences associate poker with these traits, so when it's made clear the lead is an accomplished, possibly successful, poker player, the audience will be far more accepting when the character is depicted as being able to "read" people, or when the character is willing to take chances.
Basically, people are dumb. Or at least lazy. The brain throws up the "obvious" thoughts when things appear or occur in life, and most folks just take that first mental reaction and let it run. So you see chess, your head pops out connections to stories you've experienced, and you think "oh, if my kid played chess, my kid would turn out smart because chess makes you smart."
Chess makes you good at recognizing chess patterns on a chess board. And if you're good at chess, you're good at remembering patterns so you can use your recollection to play into or out of positions that occur during gameplay. No offense to chess players; every game is like that.
Why do games become boring sometimes? You figured out enough of the patterns that you're no longer delighted or intrigued by finding them during gameplay. It's why most people find tic-tac-toe when they're a kid, and usually move on from it in less than a year.
It's also why chess masters can play dozens or more of games simultaneously against school kids or something; it doesn't take someone who has a ton of chess pattern knowledge much effort to glance at a board, see an obvious pattern they've seen thousands of times, and do what they've learned to do in those game states.
The glasses example is a good comparison because it's at least theorized that the connection between them and intelligence has its roots in what I believe to be a pretty big factor in the association for chess as well -- wealth. When glasses were new, only the wealthy could afford them. Similarly, the resources and free time to not only play chess but to master it has been limited to the wealthier classes of society (arguably until recently). Wealthy people have also always had advantages in pursuing advanced or high-quality education compared to those with less means, and this effect gets bigger the further back you go. So I suspect the association begins here, and then grew stronger and more pervasive through reinforcement in fiction and the like as you describe in your comment.
Man, I come to Tildes for interesting and thought provoking discussion.
It's no fun when you solve the whole topic in the first post!
yeah, it makes me wonder why i even made this comment!
Baldesar Castiglione, Etiquette for Renaissance Gentlemen, 1528 A.D.
Huh, so sore losers have been complaining about tryhards for at least half a millennium now.
(I lol’d.)
That being said, I wouldn’t call this a case of being sore losers – I highly respect chess players, in the same way I hold respect for top (physical) athletes. The work they put into their craft is (awe-)inspiring, borderline insane to wrap your head around the sheer amount of time dedicated, and in both cases I personally could never do it (nor want to).
Does that mean top chess players should decide on governmental policy, be university professors, or do whatever else we expect smart people to do? Well, no.
Where athletes forge their bodies, I think chess players mostly train their memory and pattern recognition. So chess knowledge, in my eyes, very likely doesn’t universally translate to smartness. It’s just that we’ve come to associate it as an indirect factor, as discussed in the top comment.
I cant wait to shout this at someone over voice chat during a game
Oh I am definitely busting this out on the tf2 server next time I'm on. What a great quote!
Same way I feel about Warhammer.
There's plenty of Warhammer games. Which one?
40k and Age of Sigmar. I haven't tried Old World yet.
I've been teaching chess to 4-6 year old kids for a decade now. My own anecdotal experience is as follows:
Most kids can learn to passably play chess at an early age. Of those, some of them will enjoy playing it more than others. Of those that enjoy playing it, a handful will actually be good players, because they are already attentive to patterns, have good memory, and strong cognitive skills.
So what it really means is that chess doesn't make kids smarter, it just allows smarter kids to demonstrate their intelligence in other ways.
My star chess students consistently are ahead in math, reading, and writing skills. It's just another indicator of intelligence.
Yeah, that's similar to what I was going to say - my dad taught me at an early age. And part of it was just learning how to think, not just how to play chess. It was very formative to me personally.