Originally posted by egsmithhow would i communicate, "would you like fries with that?" in chess?
An arguement is not invalidated simply because it has multiple applications.
According to a third party, dictionary.com, language is:
Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.
So of the possible refutations:
1/ chess is not a system
2/ chess moves are not symbols ...[text shortened]... ined in making the analogy.
Would you agree to "chess is similar to a language." 😉
in french i could say "voulez-vous des frites aussi?" or something like that
in spanish "Quieres papas fritas con eso?" or something like that
how would you would express that by moving pieces on a board.
........................
Stop Trying! You can't do it, you idiot!
Chess may be a form of art, and I believe it is because you can express beauty and some emotion, but chess is certainly not a language anymore than checkers or monopoly is.
Originally posted by Gambitzoidyou can not express everything with words... for instance: I could never tell you what i feel when i listen to mozarts 25th but i could let you hear it.... and let you experience it for yourself
how would i communicate, "would you like fries with that?" in chess?
in french i could say "voulez-vous des frites aussi?" or something like that
in spanish "Quieres papas fritas con eso?" or something like that
how would you ...[text shortened]... is certainly not a language anymore than checkers or monopoly is.
Originally posted by GambitzoidThe simple answer is you wouldn't. It doesn't make sense within the system of "chess." But, if you wanted to expand the system to include such messages, I am sure you could work something out.
how would i communicate, "would you like fries with that?" in chess?
Actually, communication theory (what we are devolving to), is an extremely interesting subject. You can find more information on it here:
http://www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-discourses/theory.htm
Notice specifically the sections on arguementation and critical thinking. I think these would benefit you most.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardmozarts 25th is not language it is a work of art.
you can not express everything with words... for instance: I could never tell you what i feel when i listen to mozarts 25th but i could let you hear it.... and let you experience it for yourself
hence chess can convey some emotion because it is an are but cannot be used for efficient communication because it is not a language.
Language is a form of symbolic communication that can be used to transmit concrete and abstract information. Additionally, the message being sent has to be understood by the receiver, ideally in as unambiguous a way as possible.
Moving a piece to a certain square only sends a message in the context of the game i.e. concrete information ('this Pawn is threatening your Queen', or 'this Bishop move is not only threatening your Rook, but is also setting up a pin' etc.).
Chess cannot possibly communicate abstract information ('this Knight move means "let's meet at midnight by the light of the silvery moon"'😉.
If chess is a language, it's a basic one.
I think the "communication of ideas" would fit chess. It's like a subtle conversation in which a lot is left unsaid and you have to figure it out, like why on earth would he put a bishop there? Aha, it leads to mating my king three moves down the line. Then I counter that idea with another. there is a grammar you have to learn ie. the rules of piece movement, checkmate, en passant, etc. And you compose your game using these elements. Some problems are even referred to as "compositions," justlike music or poetry. Without knowing anything about the brain, I would guess the part of the brain used to develop language is the same used to develop chess playing ability. Which brings me back to my original premise: that children are better at learning chess because there's a door open in the mind which closes later on. As an example, there have been cases where children have been deprived of a language (wolf boy in France, etc.) and no matter how teachers have tried couldnt get these kids above a very limited level in language. If that part of the brain is the same used in chess, it explains why people who learn the game later (like me) struggle while playing children who hardly glance at the board. To them it's just talking, to me it's figuring out which tense i'm in what ending to apply, which vocabulary to use.
Jebus....the original post gave the opinion "learning chess is LIKE LEARNING a language", not that chess was like a language, and in that respect he was right, puberty seems to be the cut-off age at which a person can pick up a language and speak it fluently without an accent, or become great at chess. After that, you might be very good, but not great. (Please don't pain me with exceptions to the rule, I know there are plenty)
At any rate, all you people that are decrying how chess is not a language obviously didn't READ THE POST, and therefore suck.
Originally posted by Dodger11but it not like learning a language anymore than learning boxing is like learning a language. learning anything becomes harder after adolescence. that isnt a property inherent only in chess and languages. my argument is that all learning is harder after a certain age and there is no special link between learning chess and learning a language anymore than there is a link between learning to drive and learning about philosophy. language and chess have no special link.
Jebus....the original post gave the opinion "learning chess is LIKE LEARNING a language", not that chess was like a language, and in that respect he was right, puberty seems to be the cut-off age at which a person can pick up a language and speak it fluently without an accent, or become great at chess. After that, you might be very good, but not great. (P ...[text shortened]... at are decrying how chess is not a language obviously didn't READ THE POST, and therefore suck.
My contention is there is a link between chess and language. I realize that learning something later on in life is more difficult because of the experiential factor. I'm saying there's a developmental signal in a child's brain that turns off between 8-11. Language specialists have known this for years. That's why modern schooling emphasizes a very early introduction of foreign language, way before adolescence, as early as possible. I think music and chess and language are very similar to the brain. If you don't get an exposure before 8-11, you'll likely have difficulty for the rest of your life. the chess prodigies themselves don't know why it happens. You'll notice they don't say, for ex, "I got good after studying thirty books" or "I got good because my teacher was good." When Fischer was asked how he became so good at chess, he said, "I dunno. One day I just got good." Somebody in a post suggested that the best way to learn a language might be the best way to learn chess for adults. I thought that a good insight. It suggests "total immersion." The way the military teaches language. If you're trying to learn Russian, that's all you speak from day one. If you speak English you're punished. the teachers speak Russian only. all the books are russian, etc. Few of us are willing to give up all that we enjoy for chess, but if we did, who knows?
Here is an interesting sidenote. Fischer, while preparing to play against Spassky, was in iceland, and the phone in his room rang. the caller spoke icelandic, of course. Long story short, several hours later, Fischer was able to repeat in PERFECT Icelandic, complete with accent exactly what the caller said when he picked up the phone. He had never heard or spoken a word of the language before this in his life.
Apparently, a new foreign language wasn't a problem for Bobby.
Originally posted by GambitzoidYou've just joined Gambitzoid's blacklist of 'People who try to prove things which Gambitzoid doesn't agree with in an unsporting way'!! Oh, I crack me up.
Stop Trying! You can't do it, you idiot!
Gambit, so are you saying that an untouched tribal society on a pacific island who have never heard of processed food or McD's and so don't understand the concept of 'fries with that', aren't speaking a language?
Buddy2, I think all babies are in 'learn' overdrive and can pick up absolutely anything if it is presented to them in a fashion which they may understand. This process starts slowing down with the introduction of tv, ie: passive learning. Then the discovery of alcohol starts retarding this process at 15, then the discovery of sweet Mary Jane at 18 puts this retardation into overdrive. Obviously age has an an affect too.
D