 |
| Credit: www.richasaking.com |
 |
| Credit: www.amazon.com |
Chess had often been associated with logic, intelligence, and so on -- in the popular mind; reliable scientific proof strong chess players are more intelligent than non-players is hard to come by, though there is (for instance) some evidence they have, when it comes to chess positions, very good memories.
Such memories certainly helps those who play many blindfold games, for example (how exactly simultaneous blindfold players "see" the boards is an area researched quite a bit by psychologists today). But, as
Edward Winter in particular did much to point out, this hardly that the
sans voir feats of, for instance,
Pillsbury, were due to some general, magical super-intelligence (linked, in the popular mind, to madness).
Winter correctly insists that all such feats be shown to actually have occurred in contemporary sources and not invented or embellished by "once"-type historians. This is done not to diminish Pillsbury's or other players' reputation, but to enhance it: he believes, correctly, their reputation should be based on their actual chess achievements, not on such public displays which may, or may not, have occurred.
But -- intelligence in general aside -- does playing chess well give one skills to succeed in life, from memory to persistence? Some chess players have written books about success: two Jewish ones are
Kasparov (if he is considered Jewish, since his father was), and
Susan Polgar, whose book is supposed to come out soon. Do such books do any good?
I am conflicted about this.
Usually, books about success are, in the words of
Andrew Oldenquist, 'books for losers, for mice who would be supermen' (in his book
The Non-Suicidal Society),
who think there is a gimmick that will make others give them money, sex, or prestige -- without having the character, ability, or hard work that makes them deserving of it. Or, as
G. K. Chesterton put it in
The Fallacy of Success, books about success tend to be written by those who cannot even succeed in writing books.
(Certainly this is true of a well-known chess writer, who wrote one of those 'how to succeed in life using chess' books -- without being strong enough a player to have a
single game by him found in the Chessbase 9 database).
And yet,
in these two particular cases, one thing is certain: both Kasparov and Polgar are huge chess successes. If anyone has a justification to write 'success and chess' books, they do.
Kasparov's book indeed is far better than the usual run of dire 'success' books. He doesn't give quick-and-easy gimmicks, but points out certain character traits and habits which he developed that made him succeed in chess. He argues, reasonably, that they
can be developed, by practice (as he did), and that they are traits that
can help to succeed in life in general.
The book is not a masterpiece, nor claims to be; it is not clear to what degree its advice can be carried out in practice; but it is not worthless. It is interesting and useful -- if only due to what it shows us about Kasparov's life and views.
Polgar's book is not out yet. Naturally, I cannot say anything about its content. Presumably she, too, knows about success enough to not give us trite advice -- but to show us, from her experience and life, how she succeeded and what she deemed important for success. Let us hope the book will be useful and interesting as well.
(
31/8/2014: post slightly edited per commentor's note).
