I think playing Chess as kid did wonders for me in life and as an adult.
Speaking only for myself, I am a competitive person and generally play to win any board game (as opposed to say golf which I suck at and play for pure leisure)
A couple notable things Chess did for me:
1) taught me to think about multi-layered cause and effect (something I use daily in my life as a manager) - ie how to create and execute a strategy
2) boosted my Confidence in making a decision and owning the outcome (something I believe a lot of people struggle with).
3) Taught me to be aware of my state of mind. I lost countless games I “should not have” for endless reasons I felt were preventable. Today I am hyper aware of my state of mind and will deploy fixes to get me to a better state depending on the issue (need more rest, stop the distractions, white board it out)
4) inspired me. Nothing like playing against a great player and seeing the beauty of a strategy unfold all the while your pieces and strategy slowly disintegrate into a blazing flame of glory. I saw the possibilities of what I could accomplish with study and practice
5) I could add a lot to this list...
Now did any of the above improve my GPA or SAT scores? Not directly but I do think it’s undoubtedly helped my career. No question in my mind that I am teaching my son chess just like my father did for me.
Chess came from India where it was used by the ruling class to learn important skill like emotional management.
As the rulers had all power, it was incredibly very easy for them to get mad at someone and engage in destructive activities. Chess helped the new princes learn emotional management and act better when met with situation like, strategy failing, loss of your resources etc...
Later the game was brought to middle East by Arab traders from where it went to Europe and new world.
I guess if you accept IQ as a proxy for general cognitive ability, this would suggest the article is right.
On the other hand, I still find it very counter intuitive. The ability to plan ahead and the spatial thinking are things I though would transfer well to other domains (arguably both are not things that an IQ test, or the academic tests from the article, would measure well though).
It isn't assumed that IQ is a proxy go general cognitive ability, it is known that it correlates to some degree with many positive outcomes and abilities.
So you can look up how well it correlates with what things, and what it doesn't, and get an idea of what it is predictive of.
It isn't anywhere near perfect of course, you can't capture the whole of a person's cognitive ability in one number, but then it is only a "proxy" as you said.
IQ tests can have a lot of type 2 error (scoring lower than one’s theoretical maximum).
I wouldn’t put too much weight on a low score for someone who is demonstrably intelligent.
Edit: He was doing it while on stream (multitasking) while being watched (probably increased stress), while talking out his answers. For most folks who tried to do the same, the results would be much lower a score taken under typical conditions.
That test is terrible. He bombed the test because he didn't understand the format that the grid is a series of 3 geometric equations (one per row) like A XOR B = C
Skills from chess certainly would translate to other fields, but that is true for any activity. The question is whether chess is better than alternative than other things.
Chess is all about memorizing patterns of many kinds to then recognize them and reapply on the spot.
What all great chess players have in common is an amazing memory and the will to think and work on chess all day long (which is more astonishing to me than the memory side).
This line of thinking ends up being applied only to chess, while what you are saying is true about most fields that need human expertise and judgement.
LeBron James is famous for being able to remember every shot he makes. There are cricketers who can tell you ball-by-ball plays from memory. Roger Federer remembers most of his matches. I have seen technical founders have an uncanny ability to 'remember' their code bases and figure out what to change. Boxers remember fights and sparring sessions in crazy detail. Mathematicians can do the same with papers they read ages ago.
I feel that memory and understanding co-evolve. The more you understand something, the better you remember it. The more knowledge you are able to memorize, the better you are able to understand and assimilate and create new ideas.
I am commenting because I have seen several smart people give this line about chess being about memory without realizing their professional expertise involves a great deal of memory too. In my experience, this is probably because when kids play chess, there is always this one kid trying to memorize opening and dazzle other people. Ultimately, those kids do not go on to become grandmasters. But yet, the people who lose to them think they lost because they did not memorize an opening.
Professional chess, you mean; I think that's worth mentioning.
Thar description would put me off entirely: whilst it's a game I've enjoyed and taught to several others (I've helped at a school chess club, for example). My memory is terrible - I play by analysing a tree of possible outcomes, or more casually by strategic feel (positional play) which is far less intense and still enjoyable for me.
To be decent at chess also requires an ability to methodically think through the implications of each possible move.
Although this might seem like stating the obvious, I don't think it necessarily can be taken for granted that everyone is equally strong at this kind of thinking.
Maybe it's just due to impatience, or maybe there are actually differences in people's ability to keep these details straight so that they don't lose track of what they have and haven't considered, or maybe it's something else. Even if it's just impatience, conquering that impatience might be one of the factors in intelligence. And there might even be differences in brains (perhaps anxiety) that could affect how much patience one has for this kind of mental effort.
This is true but as someone who played chess as a child and who was never trained, chess forced me to think ahead. At that time I simply enjoyed the game and frankly did not know all things like patterns etc. All of us who played never read any books about the game, we simply played move by move.
Their dedication and mental stamina (maintaining focus over multiple long games) is a big factor.
Their proficiency is like any game that you might practice to extreme: whether speed-cubing or competitive video games. Getting really good (fast), even for simple games like Tetris, Solitaire or Minesweeper is just training your brain to quickly recognise some very specific patterns.
It’s only a bit surprising because it makes perfect sense if you think about it: memory is where the future happens, not just the past. You need a good working (I guess the human term would be short-term) memory to plan ahead. The better it is, the better plans you can make because you can analyze more futures/longer futures.
I think at casual levels chess is mostly about carefully parrying, till the opponent makes a mistake, perhaps alertness is more important than memorising patterns at that level..
There is also the The Theory of Steinitz, that says that one can only win in chess as a result of opponent's mistakes.
Far more important than whether or not chess makes you smarter is... that teaching chess helps kids appreciate thinking ahead. This doesn't make them smarter per se, but it helps them realize that they should be using their smarts. Learning to think ahead about what will likely happen is an incredibly important life skill.
Eh? I read the introduction/summary of the linked article, it appears to say not that there's a failure to transfer, but that it depends on the game:
> Enhancing perceptual and attentional skills requires common demands between the action video games and transfer tasks
Adam C. Oei and Michael D. Patterson*
Division of Psychology, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
Despite increasing evidence that shows action video game play improves perceptual and cognitive skills, the mechanisms of transfer are not well-understood. In line with previous work, we suggest that transfer is dependent upon common demands between the game and transfer task. In the current study, participants played one of four action games with varying speed, visual, and attentional demands for 20 h. We examined whether training enhanced performance for attentional blink, selective attention, attending to multiple items, visual search and auditory detection. Non-gamers who played the game (Modern Combat) with the highest demands showed transfer to tasks of attentional blink and attending to multiple items. The game (MGS Touch) with fewer attentional demands also decreased attentional blink, but to a lesser degree. Other games failed to show transfer, despite having many action game characteristics but at a reduced intensity. The results support the common demands hypothesis.
Given that this linkage appears to be misleading, it's hard to take the conclusions of the article seriously; what else are they misleading the reader about?
The research is still showing that training with video games is only improving the video game skill, the "common demands." It is not transferring to improved overall cognition. That is in line with what the article says.
I wasn't familiar with the term "attentional blink." From Wikipedia:
"The Attentional blink (AB) is a phenomenon that reflects temporal limitations in the ability to deploy visual attention. When people must identify two visual stimuli in quick succession, accuracy for the second stimulus is poor if it occurs within 200 to 500 ms of the first."
Of course it cannot make you smarter. Intelligence is innate. chess is a skill/ability in which ones proficiency may be positively correlated with IQ but in and of itself does not make you smarter. There are no exercises or activities that have been shown to actually rise IQ, unfortunately.
(note that of the many possible definitions of intelligence, I'm using IQ here to align with research terminology)
There are definitely activities that have been shown to increase IQ, even when attempting to correct for confounders, although not by a dramatic amount.
For example, spending an additional year in school increases IQ by 1-5 points, depending on which study you believe. [0]
Similarly, having a healthy diet as a child "increases" IQ, although you could equivalently phrase it as malnutrition decreasing IQ.
One question is whether you can learn non-cognitive skills from chess that transfer to other fields eg. tenacity, dealing with loss, the ability to sit and think for long periods of time. I probably had some of the most memorable failures of my sheltered life on the chess board, starting from when I got suckered with a 4 move checkmate in the first week I learned how to play.
Some of these skills (I would add: patience, focus, controlling anger, planning a few steps ahead) definitely transfer and are especially valuable to teach to children. But all these apply at the beginning already, for champion-level play the famous Morphy quote applies:
"The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life."
Risk taking, patience, dealing with loss/intentional sacrifice, and thinking ahead are skills learned in chess - things I only realized several days ago, when picking it up again as a fun mobile game without in-app purchases.
I suck at it, but by being less afraid to lose, by realizing you have to sacrifice pieces intentionally to win, I have enjoyed the game more.
It is definitely a game I would promote to my future children.
I have been playing chess since 10. Whether smarter or not, it has made me cautious and planning way ahead for many of my endeavors. Thinking through each move, weighing every chance and pouncing on the slightest opportunity to win it all has certainly made me feel a lot more confident in myself.
“The chess community is probably right in criticising the recent study, as it suffers from several methodological shortcomings that probably invalidate the results.” A remarkably self-undermining statement, and at odds with the tone of finality in the rest of the article.
Playing chess does not make you smarter but studying chess does. You see when you decide to study chess theoretically you come to a point where you want to figure out a system to increase your chances of winning. Chess is very dynamic and complex, uncountable positions can be reached so the system you come up with should consider all of those factors. Chess theorist (not necessarily GM players who mostly memorize patterns) are able/trying to grasp complexity in a systematic way. The skills learned from studying chess can be applied to studying the stock market, distributed systems and other inherently complex systems.
I think part of the reason why we don’t see chess having a predictive impact is because the ability to generalize a specific skill must also be acquired for that to happen. Basically, being able to extrapolate a narrow skill to more general problems, is in its own right a skill.
[+] [-] lefstathiou|5 years ago|reply
Speaking only for myself, I am a competitive person and generally play to win any board game (as opposed to say golf which I suck at and play for pure leisure)
A couple notable things Chess did for me:
1) taught me to think about multi-layered cause and effect (something I use daily in my life as a manager) - ie how to create and execute a strategy
2) boosted my Confidence in making a decision and owning the outcome (something I believe a lot of people struggle with).
3) Taught me to be aware of my state of mind. I lost countless games I “should not have” for endless reasons I felt were preventable. Today I am hyper aware of my state of mind and will deploy fixes to get me to a better state depending on the issue (need more rest, stop the distractions, white board it out)
4) inspired me. Nothing like playing against a great player and seeing the beauty of a strategy unfold all the while your pieces and strategy slowly disintegrate into a blazing flame of glory. I saw the possibilities of what I could accomplish with study and practice
5) I could add a lot to this list...
Now did any of the above improve my GPA or SAT scores? Not directly but I do think it’s undoubtedly helped my career. No question in my mind that I am teaching my son chess just like my father did for me.
[+] [-] econcon|5 years ago|reply
As the rulers had all power, it was incredibly very easy for them to get mad at someone and engage in destructive activities. Chess helped the new princes learn emotional management and act better when met with situation like, strategy failing, loss of your resources etc...
Later the game was brought to middle East by Arab traders from where it went to Europe and new world.
[+] [-] pmoriarty|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jooize|5 years ago|reply
What is that?
[+] [-] pattusk|5 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx3h70GoaoM
I guess if you accept IQ as a proxy for general cognitive ability, this would suggest the article is right. On the other hand, I still find it very counter intuitive. The ability to plan ahead and the spatial thinking are things I though would transfer well to other domains (arguably both are not things that an IQ test, or the academic tests from the article, would measure well though).
[+] [-] gameswithgo|5 years ago|reply
So you can look up how well it correlates with what things, and what it doesn't, and get an idea of what it is predictive of.
It isn't anywhere near perfect of course, you can't capture the whole of a person's cognitive ability in one number, but then it is only a "proxy" as you said.
[+] [-] imaliesiera|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csa|5 years ago|reply
I wouldn’t put too much weight on a low score for someone who is demonstrably intelligent.
Edit: He was doing it while on stream (multitasking) while being watched (probably increased stress), while talking out his answers. For most folks who tried to do the same, the results would be much lower a score taken under typical conditions.
[+] [-] sukilot|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmonitor|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jfkebwjsbx|5 years ago|reply
What all great chess players have in common is an amazing memory and the will to think and work on chess all day long (which is more astonishing to me than the memory side).
[+] [-] qxf2|5 years ago|reply
LeBron James is famous for being able to remember every shot he makes. There are cricketers who can tell you ball-by-ball plays from memory. Roger Federer remembers most of his matches. I have seen technical founders have an uncanny ability to 'remember' their code bases and figure out what to change. Boxers remember fights and sparring sessions in crazy detail. Mathematicians can do the same with papers they read ages ago.
I feel that memory and understanding co-evolve. The more you understand something, the better you remember it. The more knowledge you are able to memorize, the better you are able to understand and assimilate and create new ideas.
I am commenting because I have seen several smart people give this line about chess being about memory without realizing their professional expertise involves a great deal of memory too. In my experience, this is probably because when kids play chess, there is always this one kid trying to memorize opening and dazzle other people. Ultimately, those kids do not go on to become grandmasters. But yet, the people who lose to them think they lost because they did not memorize an opening.
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|5 years ago|reply
Professional chess, you mean; I think that's worth mentioning.
Thar description would put me off entirely: whilst it's a game I've enjoyed and taught to several others (I've helped at a school chess club, for example). My memory is terrible - I play by analysing a tree of possible outcomes, or more casually by strategic feel (positional play) which is far less intense and still enjoyable for me.
[+] [-] adrianmonk|5 years ago|reply
Although this might seem like stating the obvious, I don't think it necessarily can be taken for granted that everyone is equally strong at this kind of thinking.
Maybe it's just due to impatience, or maybe there are actually differences in people's ability to keep these details straight so that they don't lose track of what they have and haven't considered, or maybe it's something else. Even if it's just impatience, conquering that impatience might be one of the factors in intelligence. And there might even be differences in brains (perhaps anxiety) that could affect how much patience one has for this kind of mental effort.
[+] [-] unlimit|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dwd|5 years ago|reply
Their proficiency is like any game that you might practice to extreme: whether speed-cubing or competitive video games. Getting really good (fast), even for simple games like Tetris, Solitaire or Minesweeper is just training your brain to quickly recognise some very specific patterns.
[+] [-] baq|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] billfruit|5 years ago|reply
There is also the The Theory of Steinitz, that says that one can only win in chess as a result of opponent's mistakes.
[+] [-] dwheeler|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TulliusCicero|5 years ago|reply
Eh? I read the introduction/summary of the linked article, it appears to say not that there's a failure to transfer, but that it depends on the game:
> Enhancing perceptual and attentional skills requires common demands between the action video games and transfer tasks Adam C. Oei and Michael D. Patterson* Division of Psychology, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Despite increasing evidence that shows action video game play improves perceptual and cognitive skills, the mechanisms of transfer are not well-understood. In line with previous work, we suggest that transfer is dependent upon common demands between the game and transfer task. In the current study, participants played one of four action games with varying speed, visual, and attentional demands for 20 h. We examined whether training enhanced performance for attentional blink, selective attention, attending to multiple items, visual search and auditory detection. Non-gamers who played the game (Modern Combat) with the highest demands showed transfer to tasks of attentional blink and attending to multiple items. The game (MGS Touch) with fewer attentional demands also decreased attentional blink, but to a lesser degree. Other games failed to show transfer, despite having many action game characteristics but at a reduced intensity. The results support the common demands hypothesis.
Given that this linkage appears to be misleading, it's hard to take the conclusions of the article seriously; what else are they misleading the reader about?
[+] [-] boomboomsubban|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] istjohn|5 years ago|reply
"The Attentional blink (AB) is a phenomenon that reflects temporal limitations in the ability to deploy visual attention. When people must identify two visual stimuli in quick succession, accuracy for the second stimulus is poor if it occurs within 200 to 500 ms of the first."
[+] [-] paulpauper|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HALtheWise|5 years ago|reply
There are definitely activities that have been shown to increase IQ, even when attempting to correct for confounders, although not by a dramatic amount.
For example, spending an additional year in school increases IQ by 1-5 points, depending on which study you believe. [0] Similarly, having a healthy diet as a child "increases" IQ, although you could equivalently phrase it as malnutrition decreasing IQ.
[0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brainstorm/201806/ho...
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MagnumPIG|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twelve40|5 years ago|reply
what does this sentence mean?
[+] [-] aaron695|5 years ago|reply
It contradicts this basic premise.
[+] [-] Gatsky|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] new2628|5 years ago|reply
"The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life."
[+] [-] unethical_ban|5 years ago|reply
I suck at it, but by being less afraid to lose, by realizing you have to sacrifice pieces intentionally to win, I have enjoyed the game more.
It is definitely a game I would promote to my future children.
[+] [-] saucymew|5 years ago|reply
Owning the results and preparing for the next game taught me a life outlook: Win or lose, there's always a new game waiting if you still want to play.
[+] [-] WarOnPrivacy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abhayhegde|5 years ago|reply
It is an addiction.
[+] [-] putzdown|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cy6erlion|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanthedev|5 years ago|reply
Seems obvious to me if you play a game that makes you use your brain, it will help you in the long run.
If you just use your brain to consume trash it will become trash.
Garbage in, garbage out.
[+] [-] bluedino|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agarv|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sireat|5 years ago|reply
Nice guy, played blitz against him online after he already had left professional chess.
[+] [-] agarv|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pizzabearman|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asimpletune|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sam_lowry_|5 years ago|reply
Bet seriously, I have seen famous programmers in person. And famous sportsmen. A disproportionate number of them are dull IRL.
So, do play chess. Just do not build your life around. And do let your parents lock you up to reach world-best results.
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|5 years ago|reply
>This is why so many parents around the world are keen to get their children playing chess //
Did they study this or is it assumed. I taught my kids to play because it's fun and I hoped they'd enjoy playing.
[+] [-] mrfusion|5 years ago|reply
Is there a name for that strategy or maybe it will backfire against better players.
[+] [-] massysett|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mellosouls|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imaliesiera|5 years ago|reply