Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010) • Hacker News Board

Post by V-2 » Fri, Dec 12, 2014, 9:29 AM UTC

czr80 wrote: post #86

innguest wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many numbers that we attribute to people: height, age, hours worked in a week, and so on. Why would intelligence be the one special thing that we can't measure?

Indeed. Since we can so easily measure empathy, perseverance, innovativeness, drive and confidence (to name just a few more) with simple numerical scales, it does seem strange that intelligence is this weird exception. I blame political correctness myself.

The nature vs. nurture is a complex debate and I don't succumb to the (politically correct) view that people are all tabula rasa :)

But the idea that either intelligence or innovativeness etc. are quantifiable by a simple test, and that the measure is linear here, seems just as oversimplified to me, and ultimately also an ideological construct

Post by halfcat » Fri, Dec 12, 2014, 9:36 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #29

jonny_eh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect you're right. But for people who can't dedicate all their time to a game, the randomness in some games (like poker and MTG) can level the playing field. It allows a lesser player to win from time to time, but good players will win more often. To me, this is more "fun". With chess, it's just brutal. Unless both players are evenly matched, it's a steamrolling. No fun for either player. At the top tiers though…

> To me, this is more "fun". I think that makes a game more fun to participate in but significantly less fun to watch at a competitive level.

The opposite seems to be true. Poker is very popular on television. Chess is not.

I am someone who enjoys poker and watching chess on TV (usually an internet broadcast). The problem with chess as a spectator event is that, at least for me to enjoy it, it takes a lot of time and effort, and there is no social aspect. For example, I enjoy analyzing a game of chess myself, but it takes hours of my time and also computer analysis, and then eventually I get many "aha!" moments, once I understand why a move was (or was not) played. That's really hard to translate to a general viewing audience.

Compare that to athletic events. Anyone can watch and marvel at those who are bigger, stronger, and faster because those properties are well understood. Even without any knowledge of the sport, you can watch a sporting event with your friends while having a beer and have a great time. Probably not going to happen with chess.

With poker, at least you can cherry pick the improbable outcomes and daring bluffs, and add drama due to the high stakes often involved. It makes for very suspenseful watching when a guy risks more than our annual income with a junk hand, and he pulls it off.

Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)