Slashdot Mirror
Chess Players 'Are Paranoid Thrillseekers'
Tardigrade submitted a brief little article that claims that chess players are paranoid thrillseekers. It's a fairly amusing little piece and definitely
makes me wish that my high-school chess club would have got into epic
battles with the groups that were capable of stretching us into pretzel
shapes, if only for the thrill. Maybe I'm just being paranoid.
Personally, I suck at chess, and even I know what an absorbing game chess is. It is a battle, and one does not forget that, especially if you consider yourself an intelligent person. It's a war of mind vs. mind, may the most intelligent (and least easily distracted) being win.
While it lacks the immediacy of video games, and the brutality of (mock?) physical combat, chess is a war waged in miniature, where one must consider logistics and the strength and position of both your forces and your opponent's in order to come to a victory. Even when your forces are decimated it is possible to achieve victory by the use of clever tactics.
But what really makes this not news is that any game can have this sense of immediacy. While realtime games have a little bit more of it, they work in generalities, where chess works in absolutes: You know exactly how the field will act, you know exactly what each piece is capable of. It's like fighting a war on a perfectly ordered (and symmetrical) battlefield with identical forces and perfect intelligence, a situation no one will ever be in, within the confines of reality. But if you focus, any game can become your reality - For a while.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
When I was a kid, strategic encounters of all sorts were likened to chess matches, so it seemed to me that getting good at chess would just make me a more savvy competitor in all sorts of situations.
;-)
After a while, I began to understand that the way to win in chess was to become "fluent" in the patterns of chess itself, and that those patterns didn't really have any important analog elsewhere.
Once it appeared that putting a lot of effort into mastery of chess wasn't doing anything for me besides making me better at chess, I gave it up.
Shortly thereafter I replaced it with programming. Talk about "out of the frying pan, into the fire...."
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Hmmm. Possibly this is true for North America, however, the best players in the world are from the former Soviet Union and as far as I remember the game was highly valued even by the worst hooligans on the streets. Is that weird to you?
You can't handle the truth.
Surely this is the same for anyone who's any good at nearly anything? For example, re-writing as:
...makes exactly the same amount of sense. Aren't they just saying that to be good in most things you need to have a mind? Why should Chess be unique in this?
More competitive F1 drivers have been shown to score highly for unconventianal thinking and paranoia
Cheers,
Ian