This man comes to your girlfriend and slaps her ass.
What do you do?
Give me one reason why don't you play chess and get dem intellectual gains.
>>35481764
"Intellectual gains" aren't possible since your intellect is determined by your genetics. Environmental factors can decrease it but not increase it
>>35481764
>This man comes to your girlfriend and slaps her ass.
What do you do?
Tell my girlfriend to vacate and start to ask him questions regarding his knowledge of jews and their mischevious plans
>>35481773
That's like saying you are at your natty max just because you have a natty max. While 0.7 of your IQ is hereditary, the rest is environmental and can definitely be improved. A 5-10% of IQ improvement is a lot.
http://www.quadcitychess.com/benefits_of_chess.html
Some sources.
>>35481785
Topkek
>>35481764
act like im about to choke him with my right heand and choke em with the left. and then i give his ass the business
>>35481764
Nothing. Maybe hold her back if she's about to kill him.
She doesn't need my help to rough up some pathetic shit
>>35481764
>Give me one reason why don't you play chess and get dem intellectual gains.
Because playing chess doesn't improve your intellect, it just makes you better at chess.
>>35481819
>chess-playing experimental group showed a significant advancement in spatial, numerical and administrative-directional abilities, along with verbal aptitudes, compared to the control group. The improvements held true regardless of the final chess skill level attained
>chess consistently (1980-1987) promoted self-esteem after a year of exposure
:^)
So, who wants to learn how to play?
>>35481837
>people who are actively engaged in a hobby that's highly regarded and seen as intellectual have higher self-esteem and more developed skills related to that hobby than people who do nothing all day
Amaze. You'd get more brain exercise playing Starcraft.
>>35481939
>you could get just as built slinging hay all day instead of going to the gym
Anon, I can put up strawmen too...
>>35482119
>misapplying the phrase strawman
The chess isn't doing much for you. A game like Starcraft is also a hell of a lot more complex and strategic than chess.
>>35482119
i wondered if you browse fit before i realised where i was
>>35482145
>A game like Starcraft is also a hell of a lot more complex and strategic than chess.
>>35482212
It has everything Chess has and more.
Or take a look at a game like Quake 3.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdkDjsBiO58
It makes chess look like tic tac toe. Way more variables to consider and keep track of while making quick decisions in real time, strategy changes heavily depending on the map being played, great hand-eye coordination required to fully act out your plans, which adds even more to the strategy as the possibility of fucking up a shot means you have to learn not only the skills associated with shooting, like predicting erratic movement patterns and calculating velocity and projectile paths in a split-second, but also how to decide when a fight is worth the risk and how to balance between two major objectives, which is killing your enemy and keeping control of the item spawns on the map, which also requires its own set of skill in maneuvering quickly.
But despite that, none of these games will raise your intelligence. Your intelligence is already determined. The most this kind of stimulation can do is allow you to test how well your brain works. Decades of chess can't turn you into Stephen Hawking, it's just one of many activities that exposes your brain to critical thought. If that's your goal, pretty much anything that requires you to think will be a benefit. If you start off a dumbass, it's not going to make you smart though.
>>35481764
Kill him. Bye chess player. Im just kidding. Or am I?
>something computers can do better than humans
>intellectual
This is what chessfags actually believe
>>35482365
Chess is strictly strategy, requiring deep, deep thought, where both opponents have a huge amount of time to make a move, thereby not giving any excuses if your plan doesn't pan out (unless it's speed chess). Adding "hand-eye coordination" provides an element for fun's sake, but it takes away from the competition between strategies. Adding more and more elements to the game can also detract, if both players are of similar skill level, by making prediction of another's moves more of a gamble, as well as initial positions. How fast you click detracts even more.
No, I don't think a person's intellect would benefit more from a game like that more than chess. Besides, in chess, you can add those fast elements by adding a clock when you're good enough, judging your opponent's nerves, as well as both of your use of time.
>>35485807
By that logic, anything with math involved isn't intellectual. The fact that a computer can beat anyone makes it more apparent that this is a game of computational strategy, as opposed to reflex and chance.
>>35485895
>implying computers can come even close to developing new mathematics
>even proof checkers like Coq are still just assistants
Do you even know what math is?
>>35485960
Right, because developing new mathematics is involved in whatever game you propose. I certainly didn't mean to say computers are better and quicker at computing odds and strategies in a game.
My point still stands. Because computers can do it better, that pretty much just means a game tests which person can think more like a computer, which is invaluable.
But this does lend some discussion to comparing games like chess and go. Certainly more than chess versus Starcraft.
>>35486138
You said
>anything with math involved.
I'll leave it up to the reader to try to spin this as just
>computing odds.
On the other hand chess is just another one of those things that follows a finite set of rules. There are only so many games of chess you can play, and once a quantum computer can enumerate all possible moves within reasonable time there'd be literally no body that can beat it. The only intellectual part of chess is analyzing your human oponents' patterns, akin to sports.
>>35482365
http://www.quadcitychess.com/benefits_of_chess.html
http://www.quadcitychess.com/benefits_of_chess.html
http://www.quadcitychess.com/benefits_of_chess.html
http://www.quadcitychess.com/benefits_of_chess.html
http://www.quadcitychess.com/benefits_of_chess.html
>>35481764
>girlfriend
>>35481773
If intellect is genetic what the fuck are schools for?
Clearly he didn't have much intellectual gains since he slapped my gf's ass.
>>35482365
Quake is muscle memory and twitch reflexes
Starcraft is APM and learning ideal build timings for the first 5 minutes
Neither are really intellectual and I say this as someone who used to play both regularly
>>35482119
Study is from the 80s, rts games rape your brain in a way chess never could
>>35486275
With a computer big enough, that can be said of anything excluding uncountable infinities. And yes, there's a finite set of games that can be played, but the number is far larger than any brain and modern computer can handle, considering that there are more possible games than atoms on Earth. So that's hardly worth considering.
If you think recognizing opponent patterns is the only thing intellectual about chess, then I'd say you've never played a serious game, and certainly not competitively. Memorizing past games, developing new strategies for those you've never seen, making sacrifices that seem idiotic unless you can think 5, 10, 15 moves ahead, with your spatial reasoning/memory allowing you to keep track of the board without having the theoretical outcome in front of you physically, etc. Developing that particular skill set has a lot of carryover, and is quite, QUITE intellectual.
It's like a sport? Maybe if you take out the reflex and chance factors from sports.
>>35486275
As far as reading comprehension, if we're gonna be pedants about it, yeah, I should've said "any GAME with math involved." I figured that was implied considering the topic.
>>35486523
>"the same things can be said about anything with a computer big enough" in response to a post already demonstrated that that's wrong
>what is the creative process
>what is the halting problem
>what is Post's theorem
>says chess is more than about analyzing moves
>proceeds to list things that are part of the analysis
>says chess is just sports without the chance and reflexes
>implying chance doesn't play a role in chess games due to human ignorance of all outcomes
>basically saying chess is less than sports
This is the sort of people advocating for chess.
>>35486594
Chess involves math as much as blackjack, unless you're taking about knight's tours or Hamiltonian paths, which are mathematically interesting but totally useless in games
>>35486622
>low-quality bait
>>35486667
>I have no argument so I'll call his post bait
>>35481764
I'd challenge him to meet me in the ring.
https://youtu.be/kK5TQSKmS3o
I love chess man. I am actively trying to get better as of now. I'm not good (fide ~1400) but I also never had any formal instruction until recently.
>>35486693
>equates analyzing opponent strategies to developing strategies
>Isn't an ardent determinist despite apparent computer background
>equates chance with one's strategy being superior to the other's
>games more deeply dependent on forethought and strategy are not as good as games with more reflex and chance in the context of intellect
Again, quit baiting, mate.
>>35486988
>implying you can even begin to know how to develop your strategies without analyzing first
>dragging ridiculous philosophical perspective into this
>assuming I'm a CSfag
>implying it's always the case that one's strategy is always superior than the others
>what are no-win situations
>what is game theory
Try harder, fagboy.
>>35481764
I slap his ass, of course.
Then gf slaps my ass and the circle will be complete.
>>35486453
You could just as well say chess is memorizing strategies, similar to starcraft with its template strategies and build orders, but without everything else that makes starcraft crazy.
>>35487082
>again equates analyzing opponent strategy with developing an original strategy
Just give that one up, mate.
>can't recognize the relation between predictability and computational theory
>Equates "apparent background" with assuming a truth
>Assuming anyone was talking about someone playing a game while not knowing what they're doing
>Stalemates?
>A way of mathematically determining a superior course of action most of the time, if not every time in chess, thus the existence of the perfect game
You shouldn't try at all.
A computer can rape you in chess, besides the development of an AI that's not a good sign of the 'intellectuality' of your hobby.
>>35487306
>implying they're not related
>implying any "equating" is done
>setting up strawmen
Just fuck my shit up pham.
>a garbled mess of word salad
Fuck so I was the one baited. Good job mate.
>>35487345
Partially.
>>35481764
I used to. Played my first ELO ranked tournament and got an estimated ~1950. Was quite into it. The A week later I lost my virginity and got together with that girl. Suddenly chess mattered less. When the novelty wore off and I dumped her 8 months later, chess had faded into the background to just the ocassional online game (where it still remains). That was in 2008.
>>35485822
>Chess is strictly strategy
Right, but not necessarily more strategic than other modern games.
>Adding "hand-eye coordination" provides an element for fun's sake
In that Quake 3 match, Rapha actually doesn't have that great of aim compared to other tournament players, and Cooller is one of the best in that department. You even see him hit some crippling railgun shots on Rapha in that match that could easily turn the match in Cooller's favor if he wasn't going against someone who was so good at adapting and rethinking his strategy on the fly. Despite that, Rapha won the match and wins nearly every Quake 3/Live tournament he joins because his strategy is better, and he knows what he can rely on his aim for and when he can safely take a fight or try to chip damage. It adds more strategy to the game than guaranteed moves that have no chance to fail and don't require any extra thought to carry out. Lift the pawn and move it diagonally to take the stationary piece, compared to engaging in something like a lightning gun duel, which is like a mini-chess where you're trying to predict and track the enemy's movement while dodging his beam. Hand-eye coordination comes with its own set of reasoning and logistical skills.
>Adding more and more elements to the game can also detract, if both players are of similar skill level, by making prediction of another's moves more of a gamble, as well as initial positions.
That's like saying Sun Tzu wasn't really a good strategist because armies fighting a war have a chance to fuck up on the battlefield and not carry out your strategy as well as you want them to. Part of the genius of strategy is being able to work with what you're given and weigh the risks of using it in a situation, judging whether or not you should go through with your plan or wait and try to set up something that's more in your favor, and especially to be able to adapt your strategy depending on the situation.
>>35487625
>Comparing chess and quake
apples and oranges friendo. Unless you're talking blitz (5 or 3 minutes per player) or even bullet (1 minute).
>>35487625
Having more or less chance, and hedging as necessary, doesn't make it less strategic, but the reward/punishment response will be a lot less consistent, and you might end up losing to someone you had no business losing to, or winning against someone who did have a better strategy with a better chance of winning. It rewards good strategy so far as the other person's isn't better, and both players are privy to the entire board's layout, so there's no excuse other than not creating better strategy. Hand-eye coordination is hand eye coordination, not strategy. you can argue their similarities, but in the end, it's just seeing whose reflexes are more honed after dozens of trial and error sessions. Don't get me wrong, that shit's fun, and certainly let's you see who can learn quicker, but its depth of strategy is just a bit more complex than learning common rockpaperscissor patterns.
>>35481764
Just a remainder that you can get master level ELO by memorizing a lot of patterns and opening
>>35486314
Education. There's plenty of well educated people who are very stupid.
>>35481764
no need faggot
>1800 elo but haven't played in a few years
>i'm doing a PhD in Machine learning
i'm jsut cruising along you plebians
>>35481764
>Poetry
>Sketching
>Armchair historian
>Armchair author
>Armchair actor (ayylmaothespian)
As far as intellectualism goes, I'm not too bad. Though I could use a little padding here and there when it comes to numbers and math.
My scientific knowledge is actually extensive, though it comes from being well-read, rather than being born with any natural talent. I have a friend of mine who devours astrophysics for breakfast, and that's actually really impressive.
I speak Korean, but only because it's the language my parent's speak, and I know for a fact I don't have the patience to learn any substantial language skills; I once failed Japanese in Highschool and almost failed it again during Summer school.
I know much more than the average human in regards to the human body. I have /fit/ to thank for that.
I read voraciously, and I remember reading Shakespeare for fun when I turned around 7 years old, though I didn't understand much of it, I just liked to read about violence and sex, which is also why I managed to finish reading the Bible.
Yeah, mentally speaking, I'm pretty up-and-at-em. Also, I binch 2pl8's, m8. What's he gonna do? Joke about my one rep max?
>>35481764
>Implying I have a girlfriend
Kek
