Is chess more deductive or inductive?
Sort:
Ever since I learned inductive and deductive reasoning in my sophomore English class, I have always been fascinated with these two methods of obtaining new knowledge or insight. This got me thinking: is chess a game that is deductive? Or is it more inductive? Or perhaps a mixture of both? In my opinion, I think chess is more of a deductive exercise since long term strategic planning is often facilitated by generalizations about certain advantages and disadvantages both sides have. These imbalances are like premises; the player then has to derive the correct move from the imbalances on the board.
Jun 18, 2016
0
#2
I think it's quite constructive, productive and very seductive but can also be obstructive, destructive and sometimes counterproductive.
I think it is a mixture. You need a lot of experience to get good = induction. Like you learn just to see what to do because you recognize the situation, if you had to rely on deduction you would loose on time all the time probly.
But you are using deduction constantly.
I guess induction for the constellations you have seen before, and deduction for the new ones.
Jun 19, 2016
0
#4
Chess is neither. The students are. Being inductive is necessary if you want to become better. Repeating things parrot fashion is not the best way.
@Rasperry_Yoghurt: experience isn't the same as being inductive. Being inductive means that you notice patterns without having learned the rules. So the inductive student benefits from being inductive, for the position "induces" a correct response.
Take for example the Amsterdam variation in the Sicilian. An inductive player will see what the best response is whereas a deductive player will require to have memorized the best move.
I know that that is a little crude but I hope I get the general idea across.