02 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Are you saying that chess opening theory is not rationally obtained? that pawn structures, concepts of the center and piece mobility, endgame principles are not scientifically obtained? In every respect of the above chess follows scientific principles and what is more is entirely rational and logical. Furthermore it is constantly and continually be ...[text shortened]... g termed scientific that is why I have amended my question to, is the study of chess scientific.
Are you saying that chess opening theory is not rationally obtained? that pawn structures, concepts of the center and piece mobility, endgame principles are not scientifically obtained?
No, I am not saying these things. What you speak of above are methods and theories and, as I just said in that post, these two things CAN be scientific providing they are rationally obtained.
However, the chess game itself is still just a game and it is just nonsense to just simply say a game is 'scientific'.
Originally posted by humyThat is why I have amended my question to, 'Is the study of chess scientific'. I hope I will not need to repeat this again, for a fourth time.Are you saying that chess opening theory is not rationally obtained? that pawn structures, concepts of the center and piece mobility, endgame principles are not scientifically obtained?
No, I am not saying these things. What you speak of above are methods and theories and, as I just said in that post, these two things CAN be scientific pr ...[text shortened]... e itself is still just a game and it is just nonsense to just simply say a game is 'scientific'.
Now that we have established that the study of chess may be scientific I would like to introduce why I consider it not to be purely scientific. The difference being that chess to a large extent is studied subliminally in that when we look at diagrams of chess positions and try to make sense of them, our cognitive process stores the essential components and solutions subliminally in our sub conscience and when similar positions arise our minds draws on that reservoir of what we have previously learned by experience and renders a decision based on any number of factors. This appears to me to be quite different from the way we learn in other faculties. Do people learn mathematics in the same way? If so, then I could be wrong, but if not then the study of chess is quite different.
02 Jul 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI already covered this I think. A person learning chess by practice, is not scientific study. In fact, a person learning mathematics, is not, typically, scientific study. A person learning physics, is not 'doing science'. Science happens after the person has learned physics, and uses that knowledge to discover things that nobody knew before. Scientific study typically does utilize intuition, subliminal processes etc, however, the science comes in when we find ways to check the correctness of our conclusions.
Now that we have established that the study of chess may be scientific I would like to introduce why I consider it not to be purely scientific. The difference being that chess to a large extent is studied subliminally in that when we look at diagrams of chess positions and try to make sense of them, our cognitive process stores the essential componen ...[text shortened]... e same way? If so, then I could be wrong, but if not then the study of chess is quite different.
So you may discover a fantastic new opening - not yet science.
If you then decide to use a chess program to check for possible flaws in that opening - that could conceivably be called science.
If you find a general method for checking new openings - that is more like science (but I am still more comfortable with calling it mathematics).
02 Jul 14
5 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
That is why I have amended my question to, 'Is the study of chess scientific'. I hope I will not need to repeat this again, for a fourth time.
Now that we have established that the study of chess may be scientific I would like to introduce why I consider it not to be purely scientific. The difference being that chess to a large extent is studied s ...[text shortened]... e same way? If so, then I could be wrong, but if not then the study of chess is quite different.
Now that we have established that the study of chess may be scientific
I think you might still not understand what I am saying. Is what you mean by “study” here a personal study of chess from, say, reading a chess book? Or by learning from, say, another chess player just to improve your own personal chess play? If so, that is not what I meant from a “scientific study” and studying chess this way is not a “scientific study” in the formal sense.
There could be a scientific study into chess because there could be a study into some aspect of chess and study that aspect of chess using scientific method and the conclusions made of that research published and go through peer view etc -but that is “study” in a different and more formal sense because that 'study' isn't just merely you personally studying chess to brush up on your personal chess skills which isn't what is meant by “scientific study” in everyday English. A real and valid “scientific study” typically involves discovering new facts that nobody managed to prove before and typically these results are then published -or at least such a study attempts to ( but can fail to ) do this.
Of course, this partly depends on exactly what you mean by the word 'scientific' and how formal or informal you want the meaning of 'scientific' to be allowed to be; would the mere informal "scientific-like" or "scientific-like way of thinking" be enough to equate with being "scientific"? If so, then I guess you could call ANY personal totally rational thought/theory/study "scientific" no matter what it is about!
02 Jul 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt appears to me whitey that what you are describing is research, you learn a set of principles and then uses those principles to discover new ideas. If this is the case then a musician does exactly the same thing, they learn the well defined rudiments of music and harmony and then compose new melodies. Is this really science? Of course it can be expressed in pure mathematics, after all what is music but the division of time and the resonance of sound vibrations, but is it science, I dunno.
I already covered this I think. A person learning chess by practice, is not scientific study. In fact, a person learning mathematics, is not, typically, scientific study. A person learning physics, is not 'doing science'. Science happens after the person has learned physics, and uses that knowledge to discover things that nobody knew before. Scientific st ...[text shortened]... nings - that is more like science (but I am still more comfortable with calling it mathematics).
I had a friend from Ghana who was sponsored by the Ghanaian government to do research at Glasgow University, he was working on synthesizing chemical compounds trying to find a cure for a particular disease endemic to his country. Was he engaged in learning or simply trying out different combinations of compounds and noting the effect that they had on the disease that he was trying to cure? I would say he was learning in a sense through the process of falsification, what was effective and what was not, which is exactly the same method that a chess player uses when attempting to decide on a particular mode of play.
02 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by humyAgain this appears to me to be what is termed research, the finding of hitherto unknown truths of which the musician as I have intimated above may just as likely engage in as the theoretical physicist.Now that we have established that the study of chess may be scientific
I think you might still not understand what I am saying. Is what you mean by “study” here a personal study of chess from, say, reading a chess book? Or by learning from, say, another chess player just to improve your own personal chess play? If so, that is not ...[text shortened]... hen I guess you could call just about any personal totally rational thought/theory "scientific"!
My main focus is to try to establish the way we learn. I remember my maths teacher, he was a man from South India, Mr Sinha, an excellent mathematician but a poor teacher. We learned by considering an example, then laboriously going through about twenty similar examples with one or two that had a twist near the end. It was entirely mechanical if I am honest. When the examination came the examples were so similar that all one had to do was employ a method. What were we really learning? absolutely nothing, there was hardly any cognitive process at all, it was purely a mechanical exercise.
Chess on the other hand appears to me to require reflection and defies a methodology because of its complexities and thus my conclusion is, that its impossible to study chess the way one studies mathematics and the Russian grandmaster , while being an excellent teacher, is talking pants!
02 Jul 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, scientific study is typically called research.
It appears to me whitey that what you are describing is research,
you learn a set of principles and then uses those principles to discover new ideas.
There is more to it than that as you will note if you read my previous post more carefully. The new ideas must be tested.
If this is the case then a musician does exactly the same thing, they learn the well defined rudiments of music and harmony and then compose new melodies. Is this really science?[/b\
Are the new harmonies ever right or wrong? Does the composer have a method of testing whether his new harmonies are right or wrong? Have you ever heard of a composer being called a researcher?
[b]Of course it can be expressed in pure mathematics, after all what is music but the division of time and the resonance of sound vibrations, but is it science, I dunno.
A composer, is typically not doing science when he composes. Music can however be studied scientifically.
I had a friend from Ghana who was sponsored by the Ghanaian government to do research at Glasgow University, he was working on synthesizing chemical compounds trying to find a cure for a particular disease endemic to his country. Was he engaged in learning or simply trying out different combinations of compounds and noting the effect that they had on the disease that he was trying to cure? I would say he was learning in a sense through the process of falsification, what was effective and what was not, which is exactly the same method that a chess player uses when attempting to decide on a particular mode of play.
No, it is not exactly the same - although I agree there are strong similarities.
02 Jul 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat 'truths' does a musician find?
Again this appears to me to be what is termed research, the finding of hitherto unknown truths of which the musician as I have intimated above may just as likely engage in as the theoretical physicist.
What were we really learning?
How to do certain types of math problems.
absolutely nothing,
So can you, or can you not, now do that type of math problem?
there was hardly any cognitive process at all, it was purely a mechanical exercise.
Memorization is a form of learning.
Chess on the other hand appears to me to require reflection and defies a methodology because of its complexities and thus my conclusion is, that its impossible to study chess the way one studies mathematics and the Russian grandmaster , while being an excellent teacher, is talking pants!
If chess defies methodology, then how do computers beat humans?
I agree however that the Russian was probably talking pants.
02 Jul 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieChess may be better said to be mathematical.
I was listening to a lecture by a Russian Grandmaster Eduard Gufeld in which he stated that chess was purely scientific and I am not entirely sure I agree with him. So being a philosopher and not a scientist I thought I would ask my scientist friends what they thought.
06 Jul 14
Originally posted by humyOkay, but chess is limited to scientific laws on this earth. It also doesn't take math calculations to move a piece on a board. However, mathematics is demonstrated or reproduced all the time when someone calculates.
For something to be called scientific, it either has to be a rationally obtained theory or a rationally obtained method or something correctly defined as a field of scientific study.
Chess is none of these thus is not scientific.
You can have a scientific theory about chess or have a scientifically obtained method to win a game of chess or even ...[text shortened]... chess ( chessology? ) but not chess itself being scientific because chess itself is just a game.
When a 5 year old defeats an International Master at chess, is it because the 5 year is highly skilled in mathematics? What is it that makes the 5 year old proficient at chess?
Why isn't chess scientific?
---------------------------------
<b>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science</b> shows the following:
"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist."
and. . .
There is <i>social science</i>, <i>political science</i>, <i>library science</i>, and <i>computer science.</i>
--------------------------------------
Lastly, if chess is studied using a scientific method, will a person inevitably get better at chess?
11 Jul 14
Originally posted by KingOnPointAs to that last, sure, a person will get better, up to a point, that point being his or her own cognitive limits. I learned way too late and end up a B player, perhaps if I had a coach when I was 5 or so, I might be in IM by now but probably not a GM. If I had the cognitive skills to eventually reach GM status but started at 18 like I did, I don't think most people would reach GM status no matter how scientifically they study in their 20's.
Okay, but chess is limited to scientific laws on this earth. It also doesn't take math calculations to move a piece on a board. However, mathematics is demonstrated or reproduced all the time when someone calculates.
When a 5 year old defeats an International Master at chess, is it because the 5 year is highly skilled in mathematics? What is it tha ...[text shortened]... ly, if chess is studied using a scientific method, will a person inevitably get better at chess?
11 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseHere is an interesting quotation from the book, Moonwalking with Einstein, which was essentially a study of memory and the cognitive process.
As to that last, sure, a person will get better, up to a point, that point being his or her own cognitive limits. I learned way too late and end up a B player, perhaps if I had a coach when I was 5 or so, I might be in IM by now but probably not a GM. If I had the cognitive skills to eventually reach GM status but started at 18 like I did, I don't think most people would reach GM status no matter how scientifically they study in their 20's.
Indeed, the single best predictor of an individual’s chess skill is not the amount of chess he’s played against opponents, but rather the amount of time he’s spent sitting alone working through old games.
This raises a number of interesting factor. I have seen no data which proves that a chess player who learns later in life should be at a disadvantage to someone who learned earlier in life. Secondly it confirms my hypothesis that chess is not learned in the same way as mathematics, but subliminally. Yes you can learn chess principles but the fact that intuition plays a great part during practical play demonstrates the validity that chess is learned at a subconscious level while playing through master games. Immersing oneself in material so that when practical play ensues you have a reservoir of ideas to draw upon in conjunction with your intuition leads to strong play. This is quite different from learning mathematics.