Not if you're facing Magnus Carlsen!
But in general yes because there's something concrete to attach to your thinking: open lines, typical weaknesses, calculating various goals, observation and planning get factored in a lot, etc. Chess is a game played between two people whereas math is a solitary endeavor usually. Chess' difficulty is relative to your opponent.
If you mean learning being good at chess vs. math then like I said, it's easier.
I've always found chess to be easier than calculus....
They are logic-based disciplines, but they are not quite the same. Chess can be more creative than math.
I think playing chess is easier than doing math, but improving at chess is harder than improving at math.
With math, you basically learn an idea or equation, practice a few problems that incorporate the idea/ equation, and then you generally have a pretty good understanding of it.
In chess, even if you learn general principles to help you succeed, actually being able to apply them in game is a whole different story. For example, everyone knows that a knight is really strong in an outpost square, where it can't easily be removed. But even if you know this, you still need to figure out how to up a position that allows you to get your knight to that square. Learning and applying chess principles are entirely different endeavors.
improving at chess I guess is what I'm saying, yup it's chess
To me, maths is easier.
A mathematics degree is just someone else's estimation of your ability and to be honest don't mean that much. I got an average maths/physics degree by just cramming and regurgitating a load of stuff I didn't understand and after loading up on short term memory quickly forgot post exam. To some extent I learnt more by teaching it.
You can't really memorise stuff to an effective degree (that word again :-) to be succesful at chess. You could argue that chess is a subset of mathematics but a state recognised qualification is by no means a measure of significant mathematical ability. What the state validates is almost by definition mediocre and is linked to political control - albeit indirectly for the most part.
Having said that I've come across quite a few people with maths degrees. I regard chess more as a mental fight that is closer to boxing in it's modus operandus than an intellectual persuit - not withstanding chess conflicts that in retrospect that do seem "artistic".
What?! How on Earth can you compare the greatest science ever discovered by human beings to a simple board game. Maths is one thousand times as difficult as chess. Maths explains the nature, the movement, the change, the chaos, the way we can arrange objects, they beginning of the universe, in addition to all the basic mathematical operations we use on a daily basis. Chess is just a stupid games when compared to Maths.
If you want to test your brain, solve maths problems (specially those ones that include calculus and probability), not just a stupid position on a chess board.
That specia question leads me to another I was was wondering about: Is a pear bigger than an apple and if so, why?
That specia question leads me to another I was was wondering about: Is a pear bigger than an apple and if so, why?
Yes, a pear is bigger than an apple because an apple is smaller than a pear.
That specia question leads me to another I was was wondering about: Is a pear bigger than an apple and if so, why?
Yes, a pear is bigger than an apple because an apple is smaller than a pear.
actually shouldn't be necessary but that very question is not really about apples and pears, even though you think it is.
I love maths and did it to degree level with relative ease but am fairly crap at chess (surely some people are vice versa). There are unsolved problems in maths and chess isn't solved by computers let alone humans.
To answer the question, i think apples.
Math should not be regurgitation. My view of math is that it is a language. It allows you to describe relationships between things in physics/biology/etc. with precision. Applied mathematics involves the ability to see a natural system and understand as exactly as you can the way in which the different aspects are interconnected, whether that is gravity and spacetime or the diffusion of chemicals influencing the tissue differentiation in organisms. Pure mathematics, can be very difficult and involves a lot of creativity. The Riemann hypothesis has been unsolved for hundreds of years.
It seems to me that there is no hope for a meaningful answer without first deciding what level of chess accomplishment and what level of math accomplishment one is studying. Also, even the concept of "easier" is somewhat unclear. Is one considering strictly studying on one's own? If not, it must be considered that there is a lot of structure in place to help one learn math, but considerably less structure to help one learn chess.
Chess is more about recognizing patterns than it is about memorizing formulas and applying formulas. As far as ratings on this site, I implore you to completely ignore them. Given the "variables" associated with gameplay, ratings are totally and utterly meaningless. Play OTB games against rated players if ratings are important to you.
... about memorizing formulas and applying formulas ...
Doesn't seem to me to be a very good description of what math is about.
It is easier to obtain a degree in Math than an NM in chess. Similarly a PhD in Math is more obtainable than GM title.
It is easier to ...
It seems to me that the concept of "easier" is somewhat unclear. Is one considering strictly studying on one's own? If not, it must be considered that there is a lot of structure in place to help one learn math, but considerably less structure to help one learn chess. By the way, the difficulty of obtaining a degree in math depends greatly on where the obtaining is being attempted. Same for obtaining a PhD in math.
I like turtles
I have a math degree but I still can't get over 1100 on my chess rating. WHATS UP?!?