Using Math Skills In Chess

I was an exceptional Math student.  I was at the top of my Math classes including Calculus, without a lot of hard work.  So, I can honestly say I understood the art of Math.  I decided not to pursue Math as a career or major because I did not want to teach and the only other thing Math majors were qualified for was Actuary work.  Can we say boring?

I also was very good in Music receiving at least 3 scholarship offers for Universities.  Unfortunately I was more orientated into the Math and Science aspect of life for my career.

I always wanted to play Chess, but at the time my high school was very weak with only 8 members in the Chess club and 2,200 kids in the high school.  So, learning how to be a good Chess player wasn't in my fate.

When my wife was pregnant with our daughter, I was running, swimming and bicycling as a hobby competing in triathlons and biathlons.  I mentioned to her that she probably would want me to stay at home more with the baby and her instead of spending the time on the road and in the water, as much as I had been.  She readily agreed.  So, I took up the game seriously.  My daughter is now 28 as my Chess playing time also is.

I recently had a bout of bad blunders losing 5 of my last 7 rated games, not good.  I decided that there was something wrong in my thinking process so I began looking.  I realized that I had dropped the necessary blunder check during my internal dialogue and hung a lot of material, even in the games I won.  So I started putting that back in.  That was about 3 weeks ago.

Just yesterday, something came to me.  I realized that when solving a Math problem I would work it forward, looking at the characteristics of the problem all the time to make sure I did not err.  Once I solved the problem, I would pretty much always work the problem backward to see if the result was the original.  In Algebra, Trigonometry and some Analytic Geometry this works very well to check yourself.

Well, I started wondering if there might be a way to address the positions in a Chess game in a similar manner.  When one gets out of their opening book lines, they would look at or address the position like a Math problem.

Of course the biggest problem I have had over the years is that the game is continuous and dynamic.  It is constantly moving forward and always changing in position, even after one move.  I would come up with a plan and follow it.  When my opponent made a move I would continue with my train of thought or the plan made up before.  And if he made a move I expected it actually made it worse for me because I would not look for changes in the position as I had expected it.  Sure enough I would have a narrow focus on the moves available only looking at those that agreed with my plan.  And a good number of times some type of error would come in my play.

It is impossible to expect anyone to go through a long list of things on every move.  Purdy wrote a thinking system and said that there was no way even he could follow it on each and every move. 

Yet, the Masters and GMs and IMs all seem to do this without a lot of work or effort.  They don't often go down the wrong path of logic or allow blunders to come from their play.  So, what can we non-masters do?

This brings me back to the Math problem idea.  But how do we implement it and not lose sight of all the important things in any given position or more importantly in all the positions that arise during a Chess game?

My current USCF rating is in the 1600's.  Just a few weeks ago it was in the 1700's.  I need to get well into the 1800 and/or 1900 area.

When working a Math problem, like in Algebra for instance, we know of axioms and rules of that game.  In Chess we also know, or should know, axioms and rules of it.  I do know a lot of those rules.  I just need to implement them consistently and correctly during a game.

I know that Chess is a lot of image recognition but Geometry and Analytic Geometry and Trigonometry and even Calculus need this also.

What do you folks think on this?  Has anyone of any real Chess Strength looked at it this way?

GM John Nunn was an outstanding mathematician at an early age; when he joined Oriel College, Oxford, he was the youngest undergraduate since Cardinal Wolsey in 1520. In this recent interview, he said he thinks the link between chess an mathematics is not strong.

I think you have a better luck linking poker with math skills like Howard Lederer who is a math professor.

>So, I can honestly say I understood the art of Math

You are smart and probably you would have done well as a mathematician but don't be presumptuous. The endgame is a strong link between chess and most of the math we're used to.

You're able to solve the problem analytically, as opposed to an approximation by n moves. What mathematicians do as well in studying new material is trying to figure out things themselves.

Get an endgame book and when examples are presented, ahead of the book, try to find yourself the solution. How you're going to master chess without being able to play the simplest form of it?

You're right: when solving chess problems it's very common, if not standard, to visualize a goal first, then to work backwards, the same direction as in discovering a proof. After discovering the solution, then you present/play it in normal order. For example, if you have a bishop on a long diagonal pointing to near the castled king, and a rook that can quickly shift to that edge file (especially if it's already positioned there), you'd start looking for mating combinations that result in an Opera Mate with the rook moving down to the corner while protected by the bishop.