Life In 19x19

Also: Do Go players go mad?

I've been doing some research and can't find anything on the subject. I'd like to compare Go to Chess in the psychology of the game and the pathology of the players. Does anyone have any information on the subject?

Lol! What an interesting subject. Yes there have been some very unusual Chess masters. Quite colorful really. I do not know about GO masters nearly as well.

I do believe the current Chess masters are more balanced, they love Chess, work at it devotedly, but they have other interests as well. They surely aren't the dedicated smokers they used to be. But they are not quite as colorful either.

Heh, I don’t know where you draw the line to “mad”, but I can personally attest that it’s perfectly possible to be a Go player and at the same time to be a neurotic and to have depressions

For me, Go is also a means of coping, as — I think — is anything that is challenging and enjoyable at the same time.

goTony wrote:They surely aren't the dedicated smokers they used to be. But they are not quite as colorful either.

Generally speaking they never were.

goTony wrote:Lol! What an interesting subject. Yes there have been some very unusual Chess masters. Quite colorful really. I do not know about GO masters nearly as well.

I do believe the current Chess masters are more balanced, they love Chess, work at it devotedly, but they have other interests as well. They surely aren't the dedicated smokers they used to be. But they are not quite as colorful either.

Bonobo wrote:Heh, I don’t know where you draw the line to “mad”, but I can personally attest that it’s perfectly possible to be a Go player and at the same time to be a neurotic and to have depressions

For me, Go is also a means of coping, as — I think — is anything that is challenging and enjoyable at the same time.

My thoughts involve computation vs creativity. Chess mimics computer thought processes whereas Go mimics the human thought. There's a quote: “Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination.” - G.K. Chesterton

leonprimrose wrote:My thoughts involve computation vs creativity. Chess mimics computer thought processes whereas Go mimics the human thought. There's a quote: “Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination.” - G.K. Chesterton

Interestingly, there's even a name for the opposite hypothesis that poets are particularly susceptible to insanity: "The Slyvia Plath Effect"

In the end, actually measuring any of this is extremely difficult. Was Edgar Allen Poe insane, or did he gather that reputation because of his subject matter? Was Emily Dickens reclusion insanity or just shyness? Are quantum physicists crazy, or does it just seem like it because the Paul Diracs make for better stories than the Neils Bohrs? How can you examine any of this in a double blind, clinical manner?

I suspect any real difference between insanity among Go and Chess players is going to be swamped by differences in cultural norms towards the topic in Eastern and Western society.

Polama wrote:
Interestingly, there's even a name for the opposite hypothesis that poets are particularly susceptible to insanity: "The Slyvia Plath Effect"

In the end, actually measuring any of this is extremely difficult. Was Edgar Allen Poe insane, or did he gather that reputation because of his subject matter? Was Emily Dickens reclusion insanity or just shyness? Are quantum physicists crazy, or does it just seem like it because the Paul Diracs make for better stories than the Neils Bohrs? How can you examine any of this in a double blind, clinical manner?

I suspect any real difference between insanity among Go and Chess players is going to be swamped by differences in cultural norms towards the topic in Eastern and Western society.

That's very fair. Just wish I could find more information on the psychology of the game and its players lol

leonprimrose wrote:

Polama wrote:
Interestingly, there's even a name for the opposite hypothesis that poets are particularly susceptible to insanity: "The Slyvia Plath Effect"

In the end, actually measuring any of this is extremely difficult. Was Edgar Allen Poe insane, or did he gather that reputation because of his subject matter? Was Emily Dickens reclusion insanity or just shyness? Are quantum physicists crazy, or does it just seem like it because the Paul Diracs make for better stories than the Neils Bohrs? How can you examine any of this in a double blind, clinical manner?

I suspect any real difference between insanity among Go and Chess players is going to be swamped by differences in cultural norms towards the topic in Eastern and Western society.

That's very fair. Just wish I could find more information on the psychology of the game and its players lol

I strongly recommend "Chess Secrets I Learned from the Masters" by Edward Lasker yes one of the founders of the AGA. This book is reminisces of his games and the many Masters he played and learned from. A thoroughly enjoyable book. Many of the Chess Masters are from the 30's and 40's were quite unique. While it is not a documentary on madness it does a great job of revealing personalities. One does not have to play thru the games included to enjoy the book. And I daresay it is such a unique book that it may be of interest to people who do not like Chess. Mr Lasker generally writes with a certain respect and fondness for his opponents. He also mentions some Chess tournament shenanigans. A great place to start. Also he talks of his encounter with GO in the book but I do not wish to reveal any spoilers.

Some of the books about Fischer and the cold war taking place can be quite interesting.



Enjoy!

leonprimrose wrote:
My thoughts involve computation vs creativity. Chess mimics computer thought processes whereas Go mimics the human thought.

Here we go again. All hail Go, the most wonderful, creative and worthy game. Who plays chess anyway? It's really quite shallow and bleak.

I've heard people compare chess to painting, poetry and dance.

japanesechessfan wrote:
Here we go again. All hail Go, the most wonderful, creative and worthy game. Who plays chess anyway? It's really quite shallow and bleak.

I've heard people compare chess to painting, poetry and dance.

Not even a little. I enjoy Chess. I actually just watched Searching for Bobby Fischer and then read into Fischer as a person and came across chess masters apparently going crazy. So I searched for Go in the same way and haven't been able to find anything on the pathology of Go masters. This is a purely intellectual question. Is "going mad" a thing prevalent in Go as it seems to be in Chess and why? I never once said one was better than the other.

goTony wrote:

leonprimrose wrote:

Polama wrote:
Interestingly, there's even a name for the opposite hypothesis that poets are particularly susceptible to insanity: "The Slyvia Plath Effect"

In the end, actually measuring any of this is extremely difficult. Was Edgar Allen Poe insane, or did he gather that reputation because of his subject matter? Was Emily Dickens reclusion insanity or just shyness? Are quantum physicists crazy, or does it just seem like it because the Paul Diracs make for better stories than the Neils Bohrs? How can you examine any of this in a double blind, clinical manner?

I suspect any real difference between insanity among Go and Chess players is going to be swamped by differences in cultural norms towards the topic in Eastern and Western society.

That's very fair. Just wish I could find more information on the psychology of the game and its players lol

I strongly recommend "Chess Secrets I Learned from the Masters" by Edward Lasker yes one of the founders of the AGA. This book is reminisces of his games and the many Masters he played and learned from. A thoroughly enjoyable book. Many of the Chess Masters are from the 30's and 40's were quite unique. While it is not a documentary on madness it does a great job of revealing personalities. One does not have to play thru the games included to enjoy the book. And I daresay it is such a unique book that it may be of interest to people who do not like Chess. Mr Lasker generally writes with a certain respect and fondness for his opponents. He also mentions some Chess tournament shenanigans. A great place to start. Also he talks of his encounter with GO in the book but I do not wish to reveal any spoilers.

Some of the books about Fischer and the cold war taking place can be quite interesting.



Enjoy!

Thank you very much I'll give it a look! It's something more than nothing lol I've heard about Lasker's thoughts on the subject a bit. Haven't read the book yet though. I suppose it's about time lol

leonprimrose wrote:

goTony wrote:Lol! What an interesting subject. Yes there have been some very unusual Chess masters. Quite colorful really. I do not know about GO masters nearly as well.

I do believe the current Chess masters are more balanced, they love Chess, work at it devotedly, but they have other interests as well. They surely aren't the dedicated smokers they used to be. But they are not quite as colorful either.

Bonobo wrote:Heh, I don’t know where you draw the line to “mad”, but I can personally attest that it’s perfectly possible to be a Go player and at the same time to be a neurotic and to have depressions

For me, Go is also a means of coping, as — I think — is anything that is challenging and enjoyable at the same time.

My thoughts involve computation vs creativity. Chess mimics computer thought processes whereas Go mimics the human thought. There's a quote: “Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination.” - G.K. Chesterton

Looking at most of present-day music scene, I would dispute this quote. Most of them seem absolutely nuts! As are many of the dancers I met, although much smaller percentage. I don't know that much about present day painters, sculptors, or writers. Historically, there were some/many cases...

Can it be that in "logical" profession(s), "mad" is a serious detriment, and so it gets attention and is recorded? In artistic and creative profession(s), "mad" can be beneficial (we call it by other words, like eccentric or something) - so it gets much less spotlight?

Bantari wrote:Looking at most of present-day music scene, I would dispute this quote. Most of them seem absolutely nuts! As do many of the dancers I met, although much smaller percentage. I don't know that much about present day painters, sculptors, or writers. Historically, there were some/many cases...

Can it be that in "logical" profession(s), "mad" is a serious detriment, and so it gets attention and is recorded? In artistic and creative profession(s), "mad" can be beneficial (we call it by other words, like eccentric or something) - so it gets much less spotlight?

That's a very good point actually. I hadn't considered that

The Young Beethoven, the Mature Beethoven, the Mad Beethoven.

Here we go again about the mad mathematicians...

People remember the ''mad'' ones because their life is more colorful. I might agree to the idea that the percentage of mathematicians that go bananas is higher than any other branch of science, it is definitely lower though than that of artists. Definitely

Also i agree with what leonprimrose said. It is expected from an artist to be a little crazy, but god forbid a scientist behaves a bit differently