Instigator / Pro
0
1517
rating
9
debates
44.44%
won
Topic
#5269
THBT: Chess utilizes the highest forms of intelligence.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,650
Contender / Con
0
1716
rating
566
debates
68.29%
won
Description
Definitions:
Chess- A board game of strategic skill for two players, played on a checkered board. Each player begins the game with sixteen pieces that are moved and used to capture opposing pieces according to precise rules. The object is to put the opponent's king under a direct attack from which escape is impossible ( checkmate ).
Highest- Higher in station, rank, degree, importance.
Forms- Versions or variations.
Intelligence- 1. The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. 2. The capacity of a person , for learning, reasoning, understanding.
Rules:
bop is shared
1. 1 forfeit = loss of conduct point. 2 = concession
2. No kritiks
3. Definitions are just examples of what the topic is about.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Chess
Chess is a popular game of strategy, having been around for centuries and retaining its relevance. For determining who is superior in physicality, we have sports. Which range from boxing, weight-lifting, running, and swimming. These competitions are a way to test the potential and limitations of athleticism and those who are the best are at the top of the hierarchy, in the context of sports. A battle of brawn is the recreational tradition that allies and enemies use to challenge themselves to do better.
There aren’t very many ways to quantifably measure the intelligence of people in such a competitive way. So the ultimate battle of wits was invented.: Chess
A game that pits two people against each other and forces them to rely on their greatest mental faculties to avoid defeat and secure a victory.
Framework
I’ll define and set the standard that judges will use to vote on this debate. There will be two areas that both sides must argue, since the BOP is shared.:
- What forms of intelligence are used, and why they are the highest.
- How chess applies its use and whether it is an accurate way of detecting/measuring said forms of intelligence.
This means that Pro defines all the common versions of intelligence, establishes which specific versions are used in chess that are the highest, and how chess uses them and whether chess is a good way of testing people in those areas based on their performance.
By accepting this debate, Con must argue that chess does not use the highest forms of intelligence, chess’s use of said forms is ineffective, and chess is a useless method of testing people in the areas of intelligence it uses.
Intelligence
Here are the different versions of intelligence, but not limited to.:
- Memory: The power or process of reproducing or recalling what has been learned and retained.
- Attention: A condition of readiness for such attention involving especially a selective narrowing or focusing of consciousness and receptivity.
- Problem-solving: The process or act of finding a solution to a problem.
- Critical thinking: The act or practice of thinking critically (as by applying reason and questioning assumptions) in order to solve problems, evaluate information, discern biases.
- Language: Human speech including the units, nature, structure, and modification of language.
- Spatial Reasoning: The understanding of how objects can move in a 3-dimensional world.
- Executive Function: A set of mental skills that include working memory, flexible thinking, and self-control.
- Intuition: The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
- Pattern Recognition: Identification of similarities within a particular data set, sequence, or even in comparison to other problems and solutions.
- Calculation: An assessment of the risks, possibilities, or effects of a situation or course of action.
These are examples of different variations of intelligence, but all the forms are not limited to this list. Intelligence is a spectrum of a variety of different abilities & factors, each with separate functions and purposes. Sometimes, different forms may borrow or share traits as the other forms on the list. But all different forms of intelligence are synonymous with cognitive abilities. Chess, specifically, tests the highest forms of the spectrum.: Intuition, pattern recognition, and calculation.
Intuition
Intuition is considered the highest form of intelligence by scientists and businessmen alike.
Intuition- A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning. (Dictionary.com)
Given that intuition is the instinct that is honed with experience, intuition is the gut feeling that doesn’t come with a set of instructions to guide you. It is peak judgment in unpredictable circumstances. Intuition is subconscious, so it is your skills working on autopilot. While certain mathematical equations or words can be committed to memory, they can just as easily slip your mind or be forgotten. Conversely, intuition is permanent and life-long. Intuition is not something that can be lost, but it can be mitigated if one’s focus is not there. 2 3
One example of intuition is an example of the proactive move that puts white’s knight to F3 after playing the King’s Gambit opening as a preventative measure against black’s hypothetical attempt to put white’s king in check by moving the queen to the H4 square. The reason this is an example of good intuition is because grandmasters instinctively know leaving their king exposed is their achilles heel, so they will act to defend against black’s opportunity. Beginning chess players do not possess the intuition required to use the King’s Gambit competently, so they will blunder their pieces while thinking they have a tactical advantage and then end up checkmated.
Another example of intuition is speed chess (which I like to call blitz or bullet chess).
In matches that are under 3 or 5 minutes, players are not given the time to carefully plan or process their moves. Time is limited, so preparation makes no difference and they have to checkmate their opponent under unpredictable circumstances. In speed chess, intuition is at its peak because the timer leaves no room for calculated moves or patience. Every move, checkmate, and piece that is collected is purely instinct. Which is synonymous with intuition.
Pattern Recognition
Every tactical puzzle uses the laws of pattern to identify what the objectively best positions are.
If two of black’s pieces are separated by one square but are in the same horizontal line and white uses the opportunity to move his pawn at the bottom center of both pieces, white has officially utilized a tactical move in chess known as a Pawn Fork. If a chess player has a high elo rating, their pattern recognition is developed to the point that they will identify and use a pawn fork whenever they can. The more familiar you become with pattern recognition, you will be able to memorize which spots certain pieces belong for a potential advantage or disadvantage. As your pattern recognition grows, you will know how to weaponize your weaker pieces by exploiting certain positions. Tactical superiority always comes down to pattern recognition.
This is why doing tactical puzzles everyday is crucial. To understand why pattern recognition is one of the highest forms of intelligence, it is important to keep these following quotes in mind.:
“Compared to all mental abilities, pattern recognition is said to have the highest correlation with the so-called general intelligence factor” 1
“Pattern recognition is a fundamental skill of all intelligent beings and a prerequisite for any intelligent behavior” 2
“Pattern finding is the essence of wisdom since patterns embody structure and order, which helps organize our work, making it more accessible.” 3
“Pattern recognition is the essence of all human thought.” 4
Calculation
One of the most downplayed skills in chess is the logical-arithmetic abilities that come into play. Chess has 64 squares total and both teams begin with sixteen pieces. Every chess player that’s made his bones is already a mathematician at this point. While with some games, there is a scoreboard, chess players have to rely on mental math. Each piece has an objective value system. Your pawns are worth one point, knights and bishops three points, rooks are five points, and queens are nine points. This value system may seem insignificant to beginning players, but it is the math component that separates black belts from a white belt.
As I mentioned before about setting and falling into traps. I’ll reference my previous example.:
Black has been forced into a tactical disadvantage by white with the Pawn Fork and there’s limited moves black can take. Black has two vulnerable pieces.: A bishop and a rook. Unfortunately, black can only save one piece and sacrifice the other. So which decision will black make in this trade-off?
Refer back to the value system.
An experienced chess player or AI engine will use calculation to determine that the rook is the objectively more valuable piece, so will therefore sacrifice the bishop to save the rook. Math is what saved this situation and helped preserve black’s power in a potentially compromising situation. If a player or spectator is unsure about which side is winning, the most basic way isn’t to count which side has the most pieces because that isn’t always the factor. Because even if one side has significantly fewer pieces than the other side, if the side with the less pieces has very valuable pieces like one queen and a bishop vs five pawns, the team with the pawns is the losing team.
Con
#2
Plea to the voters to appreciate rigged resolution
(Note: In the first part here 'elo' means website debating rating here, later on 'elo' means Chess elo)
Context
Pro intentionally tried to appear as weak as possible in this debate that was unrated to then make this Rated and restrict the elo to bait a high-elo debater. Pro is probably an alt of someone experienced here seeking to bait people for early leaps up the rating ladder.
I knew this resolution was skewed in Pro's favour but accepted it believing that's fair if I am vs someone medium to new. I still know paths to win, I didn't underestimate my opponent so extremely that I accepted without seeing paths to win.
Rigged Resolution
The resolution says 'highest forms' which already is a contradiction as there is only 1 highest anything of anything unless they're somehow tied 2nd or 3rd together with no first. I knew this didn't matter because Pro's debate description defines 'highest' instead as 'higher'. However, I ask you to forcefully insert the word 'all' into the debate title to counteract this filthy play, otherwise Pro can't lose since they banned Kritiks.
'all higher forms' where higher is defined as the top 49% of intelligence forms is the only fair interpretation of the resolution that allows Con a path to win. Otherwise, Con is forced to Kritik that there is no true ranking of forms of intelligence, which is banned by the 'no Kritik' rule or Con is forced to have to state which form is the one highest, only to be told by Pro that the debate description defines 'highest' as 'higher'.
Pro has violated Kritiking already
Pro did not supply us anything close to a ranking system of forms of intelligence, there is an inherent assumption that any form of intelligence Pro is applying to Chess is a higher form of it and as readers you're being duped, assumed too foolish to critically think, to reason your way out of it as well as disrespecting me thinking I wouldn't notice.
To win the debate Pro must prove that all forms of intelligence one would consider the highest past 50% mark of a list of all forms, are utilized in Chess. Currently, Pro has denied there's a ranking system that needs justification and simply told us all forms are higher forms.
Another issue is that Pro hasn't separate getting amazingly good at Chess from casually playing it, even playing it badly. However, this can be taken either way to be a Kritik by me or a Kritik by Pro against how one would naturally interpret the 'Chess' in the resolution thus I'll let it slide.
====
Form 1: Ingenuity with Unfamiliarity AKA street-smarts AKA lateral thinking
The only time we can say Chess truly tests this is with beginners who are going to be terrible at Chess, which is an abusive problem with the resolution's range. I would argue that it makes sense to presume that if Chess punishes and negatively rates people for utilising parts of their brain that apply to how we approach new, unfamiliar situations and only begins positively rewarding you with elo-gains as you up the rankings.
Chess, like many things it is similar to, positively rewards you for experience and memorisation, the less unfamiliar you are with any situation in Chess, the more consistently you're going to be winning at it. What this means is it punishes unfamiliarity ingenuity which some creative geniuses have.
Amongst all animals, the human being is probably apex in this type of ingenuity and it's a huge reason we dominated the planet. We can reason things from one situation to another. While other animals are capable of adapting to situations they've practised before and are familiar with, you will not find anything close to us as a species at how rapid we can adapt to a brand new environment based on snippets of knowledge from previous ones.
Amongst our species, it's true that you get streetsmart-dumb booksmart geniuses who also lack this 'unfamiliarity ingenuity' but this is my point. Streetsmarts and lateral thinking are not properly exercised at all in Chess.
The reality is that the moment a new players begins having this intelligence tested, they rapidly converge into not needing it anymore due to familiarity, realising it's less stress on the brain and lets them dominate faster-timed versions of Chess far, far better.
I would consider this type of ingenuity absolutely one of the higher forms because it's how you separate someone who just has a lot of experience at something from someone with true instant ingenuity no matter what you throw them into.
====
Form 2: Incomplete Information adaptation.
I will like to just copy-paste what I said in the other debate, there are only so many ways I can word the same thing without plagiarising myself, I am me after all.
Chess is a specialist game. You specialise in it, it has not got that many transferrable skills in life because life is full of incomplete information scenarios more like a poker table has. It's not full of complete information like Chess where there's no chaos meaning luck or variance and in real life there are many hidden factors at play.Chess in real life would work as a transferrable proof of intelligence if we as humans functioned in a world where we literally knew everything about the weather, what people feel, what words to put into a job application or report out of a limited number of moves etc. Instead, we live in a world of chaos with a lot of chaotic options and ways things can go.You don't just think about logical chains such as:this takes that piece and that piece then has to go here or there etc, you think damn I don't know where this piece is, that piece may have an agenda against both kings and this knight is currently having the flu but is willing to put in work anyway, though with obvious endurance issues.That kind of thinking and strategising around that would make Chess a far superior game to at least say represents real life intelligence. Instead, Chess is only a specific type of intelligence or 2 and those types are pattern recognition and resource management. They're only represented in a situation where you can see absolutely everything and no luck other than your opponent playing badly is the chaotic variance to factor in.
This is my original work, I have pasted my own brain-produced wording.
===
Form 3: The 'why' and linguistic reasoning behind moves.
First, I will paste myself from other debate:
To get great at Chess you need to only study Chess players of the past, you don't even need to understand why they did what they did, you just need to memorise game after game, opening after opening, endgame after endgame and in the midgame have some nuance but not much. What separates the greatest from the above-average-but-not-that-great is they have excellent pattern recognition skills and memorised a lot.If you really were a genius, you'd actually resent Chess eventually. Chess limits you to a situation where you can't bluff your opponent, you cannot use your opponent's skills against them ever. There is absolutely no cunning in Chess at the highest level, instead cunning and creative moves work better at the lower levels because misdirection works better against opponents that know or practised less with Chess.
The entire realm of philosophical thinking and thinking deep into the whys and anything beyond 'this takes that then that' is kind of reduced purely to rare situations where you have a choice between tactical error (sacrifice) for strategic gain (positional advantage).
The thing is even in that rare situation where gambits happen, your reasoning is barely about 'why' more about thinking like a resource-exchange machine about what you predict the opponent will do.
Chess in general is void of 'why' type thinking and linguistic skills of the brain.
===
Non-Form argument: The GOATs have genuinely never prided themselves on being genius intellect. When I say never, I mean never.
I will first paste from other debate:
... this is not what a true genius would regard as the best way to show themselves to be it, ever. I have never once heard Bobby Fischer himself nor Magnus Carlsen of the modern era say they're GOATs due to their raw intelligence. Bobby Fischer was probably the most arrogant leader while he was ahead and had good reason to be, he said very bad things about Jews and has severe views on women being worse than men in Chess and such (that he watered down before losing his mind and taking up again later with fervor). If Fischer thought he was a genius, he'd have said it, yet he himself did not say this. He was asked what he'd be instead and said an athlete (I can't be bothered to find the specific interview right now).Here are some highlights of his most outlandish and/or arrogant statements:He regarded himself as many things, a genius itself wasn't one of them.In actual fact, Hikaru Nakamura, one of the world's current best bullet and blitz player (fast chess) explicitly says it's wrong to constantly associate intelligence with Chess.It's debatable where exactly in the top 3-4 to rank Nakamura in blitz and rapid variants of Chess but everywhere regards him as 2-3 or at worst 4.Now, despite this, Nakamura has come out and shockingly told us that his only (unofficially) tested IQ is 102 (he obviously is higher, but how much higher exactly?)this is a humorous example of him proving that outside of Chess he does struggle (this is not a skit at all he was genuinely trying):The reality is that Chess is about visual intelligence and awareness of resource exchange. The whole vibe you can think way past that if you're a genius and crack it down to pure logic is only true for AI supercomputers, not humans.
Fischer and others made variants due to how understimulating Chess is in some regards
Round 2
Pro
#3
A quick recap on voting policy.
Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments.
Voters are therefore required to ignore Con’s derailing of the thread as he links to a separate debate, as per the rules that establish differences between valid and invalid votes. Anything outside this debate should not disqualify or count against me.
Proper debate etiquette usually involves negotiating changes or adjustments to the resolution or definitions prior to accepting the debate. By taking the position of Con, Rational has already agreed to the terms and conditions and not only agreed to just that, but agreed to debate this on my terms.
I don’t consent to Con’s attempts at shifting the goalpost or making last-minute changes just because he made a mistake in accepting a debate that he feels gives Pro the edge. The resolution and the definitions are perfectly clear. Con has committed misconduct in several ways through making accusations without a sufficient justification, as well as trying to alter the rules as he sees fit, or making kritiks despite them not being allowed by trying to pull the “he did it first,” move.
He needs to accept responsibility for his decision.
Whether you penalize Con on the conduct point is up to you, and I’m not encouraging it. My point is that this behavior and gaslighting from Con should not determine the outcome of the debate, and in other words, be ignored. If Con expects to win this debate, he must earn it.
Semantics
The resolution says 'highest forms' which already is a contradiction as there is only 1 highest anything of anything unless they're somehow tied 2nd or 3rd together with no first. I knew this didn't matter because Pro's debate description defines 'highest' instead as 'higher'. However, I ask you to forcefully insert the word 'all' into the debate title to counteract this filthy play, otherwise Pro can't lose since they banned Kritiks.'all higher forms' where higher is defined as the top 49% of intelligence forms is the only fair interpretation of the resolution that allows Con a path to win. Otherwise, Con is forced to Kritik that there is no true ranking of forms of intelligence, which is banned by the 'no Kritik' rule or Con is forced to have to state which form is the one highest, only to be told by Pro that the debate description defines 'highest' as 'higher'.
My resolution is both grammatically and semantically correct.
It is not wrong to use sentences like, “Highest scores in the country,” or “Highest CD rates.”
Con has spent more time debating his interpretation of the words and definitions rather than addressing the valid points and arguments I make.
The term ‘highest,’ even if loosely defined or deliberately misunderstood by Con is self-explanatory to not warrant an in-depth justification. So if any alternative definitions are required, I suggest we use “greatest in amount, rank, or importance.” Con has no valid reason to hijack the resolution and switch the word 'highest' to 'all.'
Con still has plenty of room to argue his side. In the first round, I established the common forms of intelligence, even if I didn’t arrange them in a chronological hierarchy. I defined “intuition, pattern-recognition, and calculation” as the Top 3 highest forms of intelligence. Since this remains unaddressed, Con has conceded that these three are the highest.
Now even if I prove that chess uses other forms of intelligence, it would still be valid and doesn’t contradict the resolution. So long as I argue that chess effectively uses the three forms that I mentioned.
Rebuttals
To get great at Chess you need to only study Chess players of the past, you don't need to understand why they did what they did, you need to memorise game after game, opening after opening, endgame after endgame, in the midgame have some nuance but not much. What separates the greatest from the above-average is they have excellent pattern recognition skills and memorised a lot.If you really were a genius, you'd resent Chess eventually. Chess limits you to a situation where you can't bluff your opponent, you cannot use your opponent's skills against them ever. There is no cunning in Chess at the highest level, instead cunning and creative moves work better at the lower levels because misdirection works better against opponents that know or practised less with Chess.
Memorization and pattern recognition are an essential part of chess.
If what Con says is true; what happens when the player is forced outside their domain in a version of chess that differs from standard chess, such as Chess960?
Not only are the starting pieces out of their usual order, but all that memorization suddenly becomes useless and you have to be creative to outmaneuver your opponent. The ability to be creative and deceptive in chess requires a level of sophistication that is generally accessible to international masters (2400-2500 elo) and grandmasters (2500+ elo).
When Miguel Najdorf was performing an endgame against Svetozar Gligoric, he deliberately created a distraction by intentionally blundering his own pieces to make it look as if it were an accident. Svetozar fell into this trap. 1
Common traps that creative players use include sacrificing a few pawns, as they develop their other pieces. If the opponent is not cautious, this form of stealthy trickery leads to their immediate checkmate as they assume they have the advantage.
The GOATs have genuinely never prided themselves on being genius intellect. When I say never, I mean never.
To be completely honest, the greatest chess players are rarely the best judges of their own intelligence.
But I never claimed the greatest were geniuses. My only claim is that chess utilizes the most important forms of intelligence. Just because you overperform in these three areas doesn’t mean you have a genius IQ if you underperform in every other area.
Neuroscience
There is objective evidence that playing chess does change your neural plasticity by developing pathways that allow you to think more creatively. Studies quite frequently show rates of chess players having greater memory, focus, better social skills, and greater cognitive function in all areas than non-chess players. Attention and memory are on the intelligence list I gave, and they are prerequisites to pattern recognition. 2
Learning chess also stimulates the production of gamma brain waves, gamma brain waves are the highest brain frequency. And its benefits include awareness, mindfulness, information processing, memory, cognition, and problem-solving abilities. 3 4
Grandmasters have a higher rate of gamma brain waves than amateurs do.
Even casual chess players are competent chess players. To be competent, the player must have an understanding of the basic mechanics and rules of the game and such knowledge develops their brain. Both the left and the right side of the brains are exercised while playing chess. This was confirmed by a German study. The left side emphasizes logic and calculations, while the right side prioritizes imagination and creativity. This usually means having the best of both worlds. While grandmaster chess players may not be geniuses in a technical sense, this information is still factually accurate which means their learning potential is significantly higher than non-chess players. 5
Chess Engines
The chess bots that outperform human players possess each of the three skills that every chess player has, but only to a maximum degree. That, I said, is pattern recognition, intuition, and calculation.
This is confirmed by this quote, “Chess engines, with their ability to analyze positions, calculate move possibilities, and make intelligent decisions.” 6
AI chess engines represent the full potential for chess players and are a model for what a human player would be capable of, if they maxed out in these three areas. Engineers developed sophisticated technology to aid in decision-making and making counter-moves. Some AI engines are even developed after the playstyles of certain grandmasters, which includes an extensive study into every one of their games to analyze positional moving or strategic planning.
Con
#4
The abusive resolution of the debate
The way to resolve this debate initially favours Pro if we let the title be the incoherent mess that it is without thinking or analysing it. I already explained that 'highest forms' is incoherent as only one form can be highest or if tied for 2nd 2 can maybe. I suggested 'all higher forms in the top 49%). I couldn't care less if my opponent consents to this or not, it's part of debating and this opponent that made the abusive title better get used to it if they intend to win.
It is literally impossible for my opponent to say they don't consent to it when they defined highest as all higher forms of something. This is exactly what they consented and intended the debate to be, allowing pivoting between a variety of forms they deemed higher and trying to force me to need to deny every single one to win the debate. That's literally how unwinnable for Con they wanted the debate. This was an attempted trap.
Pro offers you absolutely zero objective way to rank intelligence forms. All Pro has done in this debate is told you forms of intelligence that they claim Chess to utilise. That doesn't mean they're actually the higher forms of intelligence, it means Pro is trying to say any form of intelligence it utilizes is the higher forms. It is very important to understand that this isn't a Kritik of Con, it's actually a suicidal Kritik of Pro. If Pro is saying any form of intelligence they fancy mentioning is a higher/st form of intelligence, Con is free to either deem it lowest or alternatively to deem the forms Chess fails to utilise as higher/st forms too.
Last bust not least, I am going to also explore 'Chess' in the title more. I allude to this in Round 1 in my constructive but my opponent has actually insufficiently described the scrope of 'Chess' in the title and description. It's left completely unclear whether or not one getting very good at Chess with a lot of practise is the context or one first-timing Chess is the context. It abusively skews the debate in Pro's favour if Pro is able to use both contexts to cover for the failure in the other.
I will justify why you should side with Con on the 'Chess' word now. Chess itself doesn't utilize intelligence, the human being playing the game maybe does or does not. This debate bans Kritiks so to avoid being abusive I have avoided that strategy since it's clear the intention was to be 'playing Chess' however what Pro is doing in this debate is attempting to cover for every single failed form of intelligence utilized while getting good at Chess and saying it's covered by people brand new to it playing it for a first time.
====
Hybrid rebuttals and reinforcement of my own arguments
Language: Human speech including the units, nature, structure, and modification of language.
This is a bit of nonsense really, it's why AI that plays Chess doesn't need a single piece of linguistic programming put into it.
If my opponents' argument is that the pattern recognition involved with getting good at Chess is akin to that of mastering a language then I would concede only that part. It comes under pattern recognition and memory recall. If the argument is that actual linguistics is used, this is completely a lie. In fact thinking linguistically rather than visually about the situations is a significant handicap if playing bullet/blitz format.
I want to show you what Hikaru, one of the world's best Blitz/Rapid/Bullet players (2nd worldwide in some rankings, 3rd-4th in others) runs through his head during these high stakes, high pressure situations:
In fact, I am going to take a massive risk here. I am going to link you to a 21 minute video of one of the world's all-time best fast-pace Chess players (he's weaker at classical, often avoiding tournaments in it nowadays because he knows he's never going to be the world's best at it but don't be confused he earned the grandmaster (GM) title playing some classical and doing well enough against GMs and International Masters (the rank below GM).
It's got a bit of banter and chatting. The reason I want you to see it is to see he is talking to his fans, while in a rated/ranked game of Chess online. He is able to completely ignore the linguistic part of his brain during the game, leaving the visual-analysis and resource-management parts of his brain utilised by the game with the linguistics free to flex on fans watching live.
He says things at times like 'pawn is centred, develop the rooks' but this phrasing is not linguistics as a higher form of intelligence. It's akin to an animal taking note that something they know should be done is done. It's extremely important to my case that you differentiate genuine linguistic reasoning from a couple of phrases linking to thoughts.
You will see he uses arrows to show fans what he's planning or analysing at times. He is thinking very akin to how a non-linguistic non-human animal (this is nothing degrading against him) thinks about the situation. Phrases such as 'trading pieces' being blurted out mid-speech can't possibly be called linguistics as a higher form of intelligence being utilised. He doesn't need that phrase, he is just thinking about something that is visually happening. He even says it's really important to learn when younger as it's an unfair edge that your innate brain has the built-in instinctive recall of pattern recognition that those that learn later in life won't naturally gain to the same level.
My opponent will say 'okay but what about classical timing'. I think I'd agree some linguistics is used in grasping concepts after games are over and 'around the game' in the human brain. Phrases or concepts like 'trapping' 'this should be positioned there because this' are at times happenining in the brain. The actual game doesn't utilise this, they are translated to animalistic 'I see this structure of pieces, I want this goal of checkmate and I do this' thinking constantly how an animal in a fight, hunt, race or such situation would think.
Pattern recognition is key, linguistics is nigh-negligible or nonexistent in Chess.
You can fully play Chess incredibly well and think non-linguistically. You're just thinking 'this takes this then this' or visually playing out situations in your head. This is how Hikaru Nakamura can do all that talking while streaming.
====
The other points in Round 1 (R1)
In a way my point 1 and point 2 combine and my final R1 point even fluidly interacts with them. Chess is not a game that succeeds in utilising unfamiliarity, unavailable information gambles and thus the "highest forms" of intelligence while getting good at it.
The chess bots that outperform human players possess each of the three skills that every chess player has, but only to a maximum degree. That, I said, is pattern recognition, intuition, and calculation.
Pro doesn't get that I agree to pattern recognition and calculation. That's part of Chess irrefutably, I concede those. I do not agree to intuition. A bot thwarts a human at Chess because Chess doesn't need a shred of intuition. A bot cannot be intuitive.
This is extremely important to my case, it is literally a lie that if I let slide destroys my case and thus is a lie to hone in on to the max.
3. Intuition and contextual understanding
When was the last time you saw a friend and immediately thought, “There’s something wrong here.”? You have no prior knowledge, no reason to think that there’s a problem before seeing them, and yet you take one look at them, and know that something is off. But then you asked them, and it turned out you were right.
This is a classic case of intuition, the ability to arrive at an opinion, decision, or understanding without conscious analysis. Most experts agree that intuition is a product of natural cognitive processes that stem from life experiences, pattern recognition, and prior (and possibly unrelated) knowledge. Essentially, having a gut feeling is your mind processing all incoming information, taking all contextual details, comparing it against the index of everything you know, and coming up with a conclusion — all of it subconsciously.
AI is incapable of this type of intuitive decision-making because its logical processes are intrinsically rigid and tied to its programming. It’s great at spotting patterns based on large-scale data and has been seen to imitate intuitive behavior, but that’s all it is: an imitation.
AI cannot intuit, ever. Even if it looks like it's intuiting it just has advanced layers of reasoning. Humans that try to 'utilise' intuition in Chess are those worst at it that aren't properly playing or doing the game.
The game of Chess when mastered is a game of pure pattern recognition and calculation. There is literally nothing more to it. So the question is twofold:
1) In the debate title does 'Chess' mean 'playing Chess for the first time, new to it' or does it mean 'getting good at Chess'?
2) Which forms of intelligence are the highest/higher form/s and why?
Either way, it's important to realise that it's an illusion that Pro has won this debate. Pro is playing an illusive parlour trick. There is an inherent assumption that the forms listed in Round 1 (of which linguistics and intuition are the only forms I directly challenge as a falsehood) are the highest forms and are utilised in chess.
Chess does not utilise linguistics and intuition. Somebody bad at Chess playing it while still bad at it may choose to use linguistics and intuitive parts of their brain in the same way an acrobat new to it doing acrobatics/gymnastics could choose to suddenly think of sex, other sports or mathematic equations during their task and make some 'analogy' to help them cope with not having the built-in muscle memory. That doesn't mean acrobatics is utilising it, it means they are doing it out of their own urge to.
Round 3
Pro
#5
The resolution is on-balance.
Here is why I maintain the three forms of intelligence are the highest.
Pattern Recognition -
“This type of intelligence is said to have the highest correlation with the general intelligence factor” 1
Since pattern recognition is synonymous with General Intelligence and is an essential requirement in living, its value is up there with the other two.
“Pattern recognition is the ability to see order in a chaotic environment; the primary condition for life.”
Intuition -
“Intuition is the highest form of intelligence, transcending all individual abilities and skills.” - Sylvia Clare 2
Sylvia has a degree in psychology and expertise in research psychology and she substantiates that intuition is the highest form of intelligence. A director at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Gerd Gigerenzer, also acknowledges that intuition is the highest form of intelligence. He has written and published the book, Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/intuition-highest-form-intelligence-bruce-kasanoff-1c
Calculation - 1. An assessment of the risks, possibilities, or effects of a situation or course of action. 2. Mathematical determination of the amount or number of something. (Oxford Languages.)
STEM degrees are more important to society than Liberal Arts degrees and the requirements for STEM degrees are calculation which is indistinguishable from the logical-math portion of the brain. According to the South African College of Applied Psychology, logical-mathematical intelligence is also correlated with General Intelligence. Making it one of the highest forms of intelligence. 3
How much of these areas of intelligence are used in chess?
Voters will recall that I said that even seasonal or casual chess players understand the basic mechanics of chess and understanding the basics is a requirement to be a competent chess player. Simply learning how to play chess involves a combination of all three. The level to which these abilities are honed depends on how much time and commitment is put forth into the game. An average chess player will have an elo rating of between 1200 and 1600, 2 which is for regular club players. An elo rating such as this means they have a moderate understanding of openings/endgames, strategies and tactics.
Openings
Since chess always begins with white beginning in chronological order, the openings that white uses usually determine the response that black will likewise use. Openings utilize a large repertoire for pattern recognition, which Con has conceded because the deliberate arrangement of the pieces follows a certain ideal pattern that guarantees success. Black now has to utilize a counter-opening to disrupt this pattern which involves a variety of moves to play.
Chess openings work a lot like rock-paper-scissors, which follows a consistent sequence. Performing moderately or even high-functioning is the pattern recognition aspect.
Tactics/Strategies
Sometimes in the middle of a game, memorization can stunt your potential. If the opponent moves a piece you didn’t notice and surprises you or takes you off-guard, they may have sabotaged your game plan and this is why having a subconscious back-up plan becomes very useful. Having a subconscious back-up plan requires a lot of creativity and good judgment to gain the edge without sacrificing the high-quality positions that your other pieces may have.
While it’s normally discouraged to avoid giving away a queen when an object of lesser value will suffice, there are situations where conventional logic doesn’t apply. Demonstrating good judgment/intuition is crucial to know when this exception is available. If you sacrifice a queen, so that your pawn may infiltrate the enemy’s side and become a queen, putting the king in check, that is a good example of intuition.
All strategies require a solid goal, but are not sometimes feasible. Tactics sometimes use pattern recognition, but 100% memorization is impossible, so some intuition is required to help perform better. Calculation assess which opportunities are options and which are probably the best, the intuition is acting on the most valuable opportunity.
Endgame
This is where pattern recognition, intuition, and calculation all work in unison. If collecting a king with two rooks, pattern recognition and your better judgment will always have you keep the two rooks side by side in a vertical line in order to trap the king and limit his movements. Every experienced or veteran chess player will always abide by this pattern and adjust his responses to the enemy king’s moves accordingly.
Simultaneously, defense against a potential endgame will be the enemy knowing when he is defeated and instead surrendering to a spot that forces his opponent into a stalemate. For an enemy who knows he cannot win, a tie is more ideal than failure, so tricking the opponent requires a use of intuition and calculation. That is, assessing which spaces to avoid and which directions to go while making the opponent think he has you cornered.
Dropped Cases by Con
Con has ignored all the examples I cite with neuroscience of how learning and playing chess enhances all areas of cognitive function, thus intelligence. Extend.
Con doesn’t respond to chess triggering the gamma brain frequency, which stimulates cognition, memory, and problem-solving ability, thus the learning potential for pattern recognition, intuition, and calculation. Extend. 4
Rebuttals
Writing of chess as just a combination of pattern recognition and resource exchange is an inaccurate way of putting it. There more skills required to be able to play chess, such as identifying potential attacks and counter-attacks, variety of movement systems, or repetition of tactical patterns.
Con
#6
My opponent has not clarified if learning Chess, mastering Chess or only the playing of Chess is the scope of debate.
I argue it's a bit of the latter 2 and only that. Playing Chess at a high level is the acme of Chess.
At that level you rely on pattern recognition and calculation.
You do not rely on language, philosophical reasoning or intuition. This is because if you are I tuitikg about a game where nothing is hidden, you are failing to optimally understand it.
Chess rewards pattern recognition and calculation only. I accept therefore things like memory comes into it, that's part of pattern recognition after all.
My opponent argues constantly that I haven't address his neuroscience backed forms of intelligence. That's because I agree. They are forms of intelligence. My opponent has to prove they're the higher ones and explain what makes the others lower.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Thank you, Con.
The resolution mentions “shared bop,” reinforcing the on-balance discussion.
Con hasn’t done anything to build his case and offered the bare minimum of pushback against mine.
Which means he has forfeited the debate.
Confusion at the interpretation of the resolution was expressed. The scope of the debate focuses on whether learning and playing chess effectively utilizes the higher forms of intelligence. This remains unchallenged, so will be taken as a full concession.
In the last round, I defend pattern recognition, intuition, and calculation as being the higher forms of intelligence. These reasons include pattern recognition having the highest correlation with the General Intelligence Factor, as to be seen as synonymous. Intuition is considered by experts of psychology to be the highest form of intelligence, as it transcends all individual skills and abilities according to Sylvia Clare & a director at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Gerd Gigerenzer. Calculation, which is the logical-math portion, is also correlated with General Intelligence and is crucial for risk assessment & determination, a requirement for survival, and a quality for acquiring STEM degrees which are considered more valuable than any other degree.
These are not new arguments, voters may review the last round to see I dropped all of this. This remains unchallenged by Con.
Extend.
The percentage of pattern recognition, intuition, and calculation being channeled depends on how much effort and focus is put into participating in the game. My retort to Con from the previous rounds mentions that to be a chess player, one must learn the basic mechanics and rules of chess, and doing so uses all three of these qualities. The higher the player's elo rating, the higher all three forms are utilized. Extend.
Con agrees with me about all my citations of neuroscience using all cognitive areas and thus all forms of intelligence, so has dropped that case entirely. Con has also dropped another crucial part of the debate about experienced chess players and playing chess develop the highest frequency of the brain, known as the Gamma brain wave. Crucial for memory, focus, and creativity. Extend.
Con also contradicts himself by saying that chess is about pattern recognition and resource exchange, but then alters his argument to include calculation and has agreed with me.
Another area that Con contradicts himself is when he states that chess is useless for overall intelligence, but then proceeds to agree with me about neuroscience & psychology.
Extend all arguments and sources.
Vote Pro.
Con
#8
- Linguistic/philosophical reasoning
- Creativity and lateral thinking
- Comprehending incomplete information and making gambles (not gambits with pure calculation and complete information but gambles in fog of war poker cards face down type stuff)
- Intuition
These are all not used in Chess if you play it a lot and master it. They are only possibly slightly used if you're bad at Chess and firstiming. Thought incomplete information gambles are never used regardless.
Chess is not define by Pro to be firstiming, mastering or some abstract concept of understanding it. I define it as mastered Chess being played at the higher/highest level.
The differentiation higher and highest is another issue in this debate. Pro doesn't back up the ranking or explain why those I claim aren't utilised in Chess aren't higher and why highest can be multiple unless it's all higher forms of intelligence.
In conclusion Pro failed to uphold the burden of proof.
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
Difficult to vote on. I think pro made the topic too open ended and did abuse some things here and there.
TBH more than intelligence, it needs a higher level of foresight and attentiveness.
24 hours is enough to give your wife the most mindblowing orgasm of the past 3 weeks, to have worked your best day at work after or before it (do the sex after, early morning sex is only that hot in the movies/series, you're more ready than she is as females gain libido throughout the day, males have it somewhat more earlier) and to have a great meal that you yourself cooked.
I ask you is this that day? If not the time is there. Just kidding, do a workout don't waste time here.
Don't know if 24 hours is long enough for me to get through and vote on this, but I'll try.
Please vote on this debate.
tagging u just incase your interested in this subject
i think this is a quick read if u guys would like to submit a vote
Meant the word aggressive is changed to offense, was distracted when I typed that.
I am interested in that debate if the word defense is changed to offense.
Longer times chess is where people bad at chess have the largest skillgap.
Shorter times chess at it's extreme also hurts them but blitz (3-5 mins or 3 mins with 2 seconds added per move), is one of the best formats to give your brain tiny bursts of thinking while the opponent can't think too deep still.
Bullet is generally 1 min per game or 1 min with 1 sec per turn added. Both are TOO fast for an inexperienced player to cope.
Go for blitz. It has the highest rate of 'upset wins' AKA underdog wins of all chess time formats.
im also out of my depth because i dont play chess or speed chess
the debate is just discussing theory
I dont think I would be much challenge there, since speed chess is far out of my abilities.
btw, i had another debate in mind.
the resolution is "aggression is better than defense in speed chess"
would any of u debate this? id like to be pro
I believe that the term "ranking" should've been used in the description instead of the term "rank" because it fits the definitions much better and flow better when in comparison. The word "Highest" is already a word that also indicates relevancy to the word "comparison" and that is because if "highest" is used as a superlative adjective as defined by "great, or greater than normal, in quantity, size, or intensity." then the word is used when compared to things or objects in space and time due to the fact that superlative adjectives are also used to describe an object which is at the upper or lower limit of a quality (the tallest, the smallest, the fastest, the highest). Superlative adjectives are used in sentences where a subject is compared to a group of objects.