Answers.Body: <p>To paraphrase G. H. Hardy, while chess problems can be beautiful, they are trivial. The best and most difficult mathematics is "significant" mathematics, i.e. mathematics that helps you solve other problems and impacts other fields of math. So being good at chess probably won't help you much with math. Also, at least according to Hardy, chess is a primarily psychological game, as opposed to math which is purely logical (paraphrased from his <em>Mathematician's Apology</em>).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-11-16T03:49:48.893Z
Answers.Text: what is meant by chess being primarily psychological. Certainly this cannot be true.
Answers.UserDisplayName: CognisMantis
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-11-22T02:16:57.513Z
Answers.Text: @PaulBurchett I think you're overestimating the number of such papers that are published - I wouldn't be surprised if the annual output in published, indexed math journals can be counted on two hands.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Steven Stadnicki
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-11-22T10:32:32.290Z
Answers.Text: Wrong in the above, I think.  There have been over a thousand written on the $n$-queens problem alone.  Divide that by roughly 100 years of relevance, also noting they're more relevant now, more than ever.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-11-22T10:56:38.043Z
Answers.Text: THe contention that mathematics is reducible to logic is wrong.  It misses the computational aspects of mathematics.  I just noticed this part of your comment, I think.
  
  @Rene G
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-06-28T20:32:24.540Z
Answers.Text: If they're so trivial then why are such problems rewarded with mathematics papers?
  
  Often it's difficult to say when one is doing math or doing chess.  As mentioned above, one can abstract these problems on to any square board, rectangular board, or even consider them on beehive type boards, cylindrical boards, torus boards, etc.  In fact, recently, I submitted a paper whose solution was found first by someone else without referring to chess at all, but instead an interesting linear algebra problem!  Even though the problems are equivalent, would you call this a chess-related problem?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-06-28T20:42:15.803Z
Answers.Text: Correction for the fourth sentence above:  an interesting = by using, problem should be erased entirely!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-06-18T23:05:24.363Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-06-18T23:05:24.363Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Elliot Gorokhovsky
Answers.Body: <p>Consider this, what if playing tournament chess led to blindfold play?  Then, along these lines, better blind play led one to visualize, even multi-task chess/math problems while doing routine tasks, like while driving for example. One would, at the least have more time to come up with new ideas! Did I mention I can do this?! </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-06-21T23:55:04.843Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-06-23T15:49:21.700Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2014-06-23T15:49:21.700Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.Body: <p>I was a tournament player who was far better than 90% of those who play competitively.
  I also did 5 years of graduate school work in math. I found nothing of math value from playing chess. Your mileage may vary.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-09T22:13:15.190Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-10T10:42:33.993Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-12-10T10:42:33.993Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Answers.Body: <p>To the extent that "chess-related math" requires any expertise in chess beyond the rules(*), tournament play is probably not as useful as solving and composing chess problems/studies.  Typical positions in tournament play are too complicated to evaluate with mathematical certainty, while problems and studies should and usually do have rigorous proofs of correctness that are comprehensible to human players and problemists.</p>
  
  <p>(*) Sometimes one needs no expertise beyond (say) how the Knight moves (as for questions involving the Knight's tour, or dominating the 8-by-8 board with a minimal number of Knights).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-07-29T17:58:18.663Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-07-29T17:58:18.663Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Noam D. Elkies
Body: <p>A question of personal interest.  Is "visualization" of various types of boards and graphs helped along by competitive, tournament play? Of course, I'm assuming play beyond simply knowing how the pieces move.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-06-23T16:15:11.897Z
Comments.Text: How could the answer to this be no?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Alan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-06-24T13:11:53.993Z
Comments.Text: There are studies that hold playing tournament chess has no transferable skills to other domains.  See the following for that discussion. http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/5069/why-is-it-a-good-idea-to-teach-chess-in-schools/5136#5136
  
  Do you think tournament chess helps with math?  Well at least some if you take the answer as yes.  This flies in the face of some who say that chess will help with chess and nothing else.
  
  Phase one has been reached.  Result has been labeled as trivial!
Comments.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-06-24T13:26:16.180Z
Comments.Text: You said CHESS related math not just calculus or some generic math. How could knowing how to play chess, having hours of practice visualizing how pieces interact with each other, do anything other than benefit you? I was once asked a question by a calculus professor regarding a chess board and removing squares. After class I was the only one to come up to him and immediately tell him the solution. It was simple, because I play chess. The question had to do with a Knight's tour and removing two opposite corner squares. I knew the answer was impossible because sqaures were same color
Comments.UserDisplayName: Alan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-06-24T14:11:05.413Z
Comments.Text: Perhaps the field is only chess-related in the sense that the only skill that is required is to know how to move the pieces with no real sense for chess strategy.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-07-29T18:11:45.130Z
Comments.Text: I once discovered that I can solve crossword puzzles in my mind without actually writing in the words. I can keep so much stuff in my mind. This is probably the result of playing chess intensely. On the other hand, being a mathematician, I can also perform a lot of mental tasks in my mind. These are similar abilitites. There may be some neurological overlap so that training one of them helps develop the other.
Comments.UserDisplayName: MichalRyszardWojcik
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-07-31T04:55:14.563Z
Comments.Text: It is not your question, but a book of chess/math puzzles was recently discussed (in Russian), from the Moscow Center for Continuous Mathematical Education. http://chess-news.ru/node/21860
Comments.UserDisplayName: Post-It-Note
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-08-28T20:25:55.017Z
Comments.Text: You assume that a chess player visualizes at all. Surely a very strong player will, but *my* playing can only be described as "sense of smell" (The Who, Tommy) and still, I'm a FIDE Master...
Comments.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Tags: <mathematics><visualization>
Title: Does playing tournament chess help one in the field of chess-related math?
ThreadText: # Does playing tournament chess help one in the field of chess-related math?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-04-03)
  
  A question of personal interest. Is "visualization" of various types of boards and graphs helped along by competitive, tournament play? Of course, I'm assuming play beyond simply knowing how the pieces move.
  
  **Tags:** mathematics, visualization
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: How could the answer to this be no?  
  > **username_0**: There are studies that hold playing tournament chess has no transferable skills to other domains.  See the following for that discussion. http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/5069/why-is-it-a-good-idea-to-teach-chess-in-schools/5136#5136  Do you think tournament chess helps with math?  Well at least some if you take the answer as yes.  This flies in the face of some who say that chess will help with chess and nothing else.  Phase one has been reached.  Result has been labeled as trivial!  
  > **username_1**: You said CHESS related math not just calculus or some generic math. How could knowing how to play chess, having hours of practice visualizing how pieces interact with each other, do anything other than benefit you? I was once asked a question by a calculus professor regarding a chess board and removing squares. After class I was the only one to come up to him and immediately tell him the solution. It was simple, because I play chess. The question had to do with a Knight's tour and removing two opposite corner squares. I knew the answer was impossible because sqaures were same color  
  > **username_0**: Perhaps the field is only chess-related in the sense that the only skill that is required is to know how to move the pieces with no real sense for chess strategy.  
  > **username_2**: I once discovered that I can solve crossword puzzles in my mind without actually writing in the words. I can keep so much stuff in my mind. This is probably the result of playing chess intensely. On the other hand, being a mathematician, I can also perform a lot of mental tasks in my mind. These are similar abilitites. There may be some neurological overlap so that training one of them helps develop the other.  
  > **username_3**: It is not your question, but a book of chess/math puzzles was recently discussed (in Russian), from the Moscow Center for Continuous Mathematical Education. http://chess-news.ru/node/21860  
  > **username_4**: You assume that a chess player visualizes at all. Surely a very strong player will, but *my* playing can only be described as "sense of smell" (The Who, Tommy) and still, I'm a FIDE Master...  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2016-07-29. Score: 7 | Accepted answer
  
  To the extent that "chess-related math" requires any expertise in chess beyond the rules(\*), tournament play is probably not as useful as solving and composing chess problems/studies. Typical positions in tournament play are too complicated to evaluate with mathematical certainty, while problems and studies should and usually do have rigorous proofs of correctness that are comprehensible to human players and problemists.
  
  (\*) Sometimes one needs no expertise beyond (say) how the Knight moves (as for questions involving the Knight's tour, or dominating the 8-by-8 board with a minimal number of Knights).
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2014-06-18. Score: 5
  
  To paraphrase G. H. Hardy, while chess problems can be beautiful, they are trivial. The best and most difficult mathematics is "significant" mathematics, i.e. mathematics that helps you solve other problems and impacts other fields of math. So being good at chess probably won't help you much with math. Also, at least according to Hardy, chess is a primarily psychological game, as opposed to math which is purely logical (paraphrased from his *Mathematician's Apology*).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: If they're so trivial then why are such problems rewarded with mathematics papers?  Often it's difficult to say when one is doing math or doing chess.  As mentioned above, one can abstract these problems on to any square board, rectangular board, or even consider them on beehive type boards, cylindrical boards, torus boards, etc.  In fact, recently, I submitted a paper whose solution was found first by someone else without referring to chess at all, but instead an interesting linear algebra problem!  Even though the problems are equivalent, would you call this a chess-related problem?  
  > **username_0**: Correction for the fourth sentence above:  an interesting = by using, problem should be erased entirely!  
  > **username_6**: what is meant by chess being primarily psychological. Certainly this cannot be true.  
  > **username_7**: @username_0 I think you're overestimating the number of such papers that are published - I wouldn't be surprised if the annual output in published, indexed math journals can be counted on two hands.  
  > **username_0**: Wrong in the above, I think.  There have been over a thousand written on the $n$-queens problem alone.  Divide that by roughly 100 years of relevance, also noting they're more relevant now, more than ever.  
  > **username_0**: THe contention that mathematics is reducible to logic is wrong.  It misses the computational aspects of mathematics.  I just noticed this part of your comment, I think.  @Rene G  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_0 on 2014-06-21. Score: 1
  
  Consider this, what if playing tournament chess led to blindfold play? Then, along these lines, better blind play led one to visualize, even multi-task chess/math problems while doing routine tasks, like while driving for example. One would, at the least have more time to come up with new ideas! Did I mention I can do this?!
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2019-12-09. Score: 1
  
  I was a tournament player who was far better than 90% of those who play competitively.
  I also did 5 years of graduate school work in math. I found nothing of math value from playing chess. Your mileage may vary.
  
  
  ---
  
  