10 comments

  • senthil_rajasek9 minutes ago
    The title is &quot;How geometry is fundamental for chess.&quot; but 60% of this article is about how animals don&#x27;t have a sense for numbers or bad at geometry.<p>Only a couple brief mentions about how chess piece moves are lines and transforms of lines. Other than that the author never establishes the title.<p>I was actually looking for some insight about chess and did not get any.
  • moi23884 days ago
    “ Humans are the only animals that we know that understand geometrical concepts. Things like lines and shapes (triangles, squares, circles etc.).”<p>False.<p>Crows for example understand geometry. I’d wager there are plenty more.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.science.org&#x2F;doi&#x2F;10.1126&#x2F;sciadv.adt3718" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.science.org&#x2F;doi&#x2F;10.1126&#x2F;sciadv.adt3718</a><p>“ These geometrical concepts do not exist in nature. There are no lines and squares. If it&#x27;s obvious then why did it take 4.5 billion years since the development of life to emerge?”<p>What makes you think lines and squares don’t exist in nature? And what on earth does that have to do with how long life took to emerge?!
    • sigbottle24 minutes ago
      &gt; These geometrical concepts do not exist in nature. There are no lines and squares.<p>This probably goes back to the classic debate between rationalism and empiricism. Do we have squares as a priori knowledge, or do we generalize from examples? But then how do we make abstract deductions about things? Do these deductions skew a certain way?<p>Clearly, deductive logic exists, yet also clearly, empiric observations exist. How do you properly marry the two?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;intellectualmathematics.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;rationalism-2-0-kants-philosophy-of-geometry&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;intellectualmathematics.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;rationalism-2-0-kan...</a>
    • Tazerenix1 hour ago
      <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;EbzESiemPHs?si=4UNA7JGPt7OmfnOi&amp;t=206" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;EbzESiemPHs?si=4UNA7JGPt7OmfnOi&amp;t=206</a><p>Here&#x27;s Gromov, one of the greatest geometers of the last 50 years, discussing his viewpoint on this.
      • griffzhowl6 minutes ago
        He always has these brilliant ond original perspectives on even the simplest concepts.<p>He also has this series of talks beginning with the question &quot;What is probability, what is randomness?&quot;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=aJAQVletzdY&amp;list=PLx5f8IelFRgGo3HGaMOGNAnAHIAr1yu5W" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=aJAQVletzdY&amp;list=PLx5f8IelFR...</a>
    • IAmBroom42 minutes ago
      It&#x27;s the usual &quot;until we prove animals do _X_ we can safely assert only humans do _X_&quot; trope of biology.<p>As we learn that animals do things like have homosexual relationships, giggle when tickled, and understand basic rules of economics... biologists are learning to phrase it as &quot;until we prove animals do _X_ we cannot be sure if animals do _X_&quot;, which is much safer.<p>(Also, there are trillions of lines in nature - WTF? Squares are somewhat rarer, except on the ground in wombat territory...)
  • jibal1 hour ago
    Chess geometry is not the same as physical geometry. See, e.g., <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;R%C3%A9ti_endgame_study" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;R%C3%A9ti_endgame_study</a>
  • fogleman14 minutes ago
    Kinda disappointing article. Not much substance regarding the link between geometry and chess, as suggested by the title.<p>&gt; Shapes are hypothesized to be formed by a programming language in the brain.<p>And what does this even mean? What does it mean for there to be a &quot;programming language&quot; in the brain?
  • NickC2519 minutes ago
    I was never particularly good at geometry.<p>I&#x27;ve beaten over 2500 ELO in Crazyhouse on Lichess (2518 to be exact). Currently rated around 1900.<p>Am I missing something?
  • plmpsu4 days ago
    I found this article very interesting.<p>I would&#x27;ve also appreciated a discussion of how intuition of geometry might apply to chess playing abilities and how it might not be sufficient for playing chess well.<p>As a side note, I appreciated the small typos as a further signal that this was written by a human.
  • d4rkn0d3z4 days ago
    Geometry is fundamental, period.
  • nurettin4 days ago
    If you watch any Hikaru Nakamura content, you will see him draw &quot;classic right angle triangle&quot;s with three pieces, &quot;classic wooden shield&quot;s (a cross showing the scope of a centralized bishop), so he definitely uses some kind of geometry while playing.<p>Not sure if he just recognizes the shapes as they appear or tries to make them appear, would be nice if he came here to answer.
    • chatmasta2 hours ago
      This is called “chunking” [0] — identifying grouped assortments of pieces as a single semantic unit - and has extensive research [1] behind it.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.chessprogramming.org&#x2F;Chunking" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.chessprogramming.org&#x2F;Chunking</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC4361603&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC4361603&#x2F;</a>
  • khelavastr4 days ago
    Someone call Bernard Parharm lmao.
  • TacticalCoder57 minutes ago
    [dead]