How geometry is fundamental for chess
Posted by fzliu 5 days ago
Comments
Comment by moi2388 4 days ago
False.
Crows for example understand geometry. I’d wager there are plenty more.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adt3718
“ These geometrical concepts do not exist in nature. There are no lines and squares. If it's obvious then why did it take 4.5 billion years since the development of life to emerge?”
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?!
Comment by lelanthran 29 minutes ago
> And what on earth does that have to do with how long life took to emerge?!
I think you misunderstood that part you quoted. He's not claiming that it had a causative effect on how long life took to develop, he's claiming that it took 4.5 billion years after life first appeared for those geometrical concepts to emerge.
Comment by voxleone 5 hours ago
Life didn’t need 4.5 billion years to “invent” geometry; geometry constrained life from the beginning. We only invented the formal language to describe it.
Comment by Tazerenix 7 hours ago
Here's Gromov, one of the greatest geometers of the last 50 years, discussing his viewpoint on this.
Comment by griffzhowl 6 hours ago
He also has this series of talks beginning with the question "What is probability, what is randomness?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJAQVletzdY&list=PLx5f8IelFR...
Comment by andoando 6 hours ago
I'd go even further and postulate that all intelligence is an understanding of geometry.
Comment by IAmBroom 7 hours ago
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 "until we prove animals do _X_ we cannot be sure if animals do _X_", which is much safer.
(Also, there are trillions of lines in nature - WTF? Squares are somewhat rarer, except on the ground in wombat territory...)
Comment by senthil_rajasek 6 hours ago
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.
I was actually looking for some insight about chess and did not get any.
Comment by jibal 7 hours ago
Comment by KK7NIL 5 hours ago
Kings have Chebysev geometry while Rooks have taxicab geometry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry#See_also
It's left as an exercise for the reader to figure out the geometry of the remaining pieces.
Comment by plmpsu 4 days ago
I would'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.
As a side note, I appreciated the small typos as a further signal that this was written by a human.
Comment by sdenton4 6 hours ago
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30231743-are-we-smart-en...
(And if you care about measuring artificial intelligence, you should definitely care about what we've learned from trying to measure animal intelligence...)
Comment by layman51 6 hours ago
Comment by zippyman55 4 hours ago
And the wiki page is a little limited but this subject can get complex but still very cool.
Comment by NickC25 6 hours ago
I've beaten over 2500 ELO in Crazyhouse on Lichess (2518 to be exact). Currently rated around 1900.
Am I missing something?
Comment by fogleman 6 hours ago
> Shapes are hypothesized to be formed by a programming language in the brain.
And what does this even mean? What does it mean for there to be a "programming language" in the brain?
Comment by nurettin 4 days ago
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.
Comment by chatmasta 8 hours ago
Comment by TacticalCoder 7 hours ago
I see what the author did there.
I've got a kid so "what the sigma" and "six seven" are a thing.
Type "six seven" in Google search and you should get the screen wobbling ; )
Comment by d4rkn0d3z 4 days ago
Comment by khelavastr 5 days ago
Comment by alisonkisk 3 hours ago