M_B_S wrote:http://uk.complex.com/sports/2015/06/10 ... shua/chess"Lennox got it into my mind and then a friend taught me. Chess, it's the same type of thing in the ring, like taking one of your opponent's pieces and then counter-attacking. You need to be two moves ahead all the time."
I'm as happy as anyone to see an athlete mixing it up with mental activities.
But this "two moves ahead" mentality about chess in the public mind is largely the product of bad movie plots (re the chess scene), in my mind.
Example of such bad chess movie plots - the chess scene of "Blade Runner". So here you have Tyrell, the great player and genius who invented the minds of the Nexus Six robots, but can't see a two move mate in a "postal" speed game, even when shown the first move.
Anyone who plays chess even at the "club" level, can't help but groan at this kind of thing (and it is all too common in movies).
In reality, for strong players, a lot of it is about concepts. Understanding the nature of various types of positions in a deep way. Then the players have an idea of WHAT to search for and what is likely relevant.
A top player will generally make some kind of miscalculation at the 12-15 move deep level in a complex tactical middlegame position. This is why computers rule the roost. The best programs simply don't make such tactical mistakes. (Which overcomes their relative weakness in deep strategic understanding). In certain types of endgames, grandmasters can know what is likely to happen for 30 or even 50 moves, even though they might directly calculate for "only" 20 moves or so.
Disclosure: I'm a fairly serious chess player, though I never put in the time to become a US Master. All I know about boxing is that I don't like getting hit hard, so kudos to the athletes with the guts to do that.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.