Understanding Chess Mastery: Jennifer Shahade at TEDxBaltimore 2014

[@Mark-ec6ng]

After reading some of the comments on this video, I have seen that many people have missed the point of the talk. Shahade is using chess as a medium to talk about the real world. She draws the parallel between the 14th move (thinking for half an hour for the next sequence of moves) and a special transition in your life, generally speaking. She doesn't offer any solace for deciding on which moment in your chess game (figuratively speaking) is the defining moment to take the time and think much harder than you did for your other moves. She vaguely says that there will be some signs of the time to think hard about your next move- like the king in the center of the board. You cannot think over every move for the majority of your time either because living is also a timed game. Anyway, I think that this is what Jennifer is trying to convey to the audience. I could be wrong and missing her entire point, but as far as I can tell this is her main point.

[@justinmckibben4534]

+Mark Hazell A king in the center of the board would be a pretty naked King open to attack fyi..... Not to nitpick or anything

[@franciscoobrequedote911]

This Woman is so smart and hot! What she says is actually true: the most critical skill of a Chess player is knowing when to think, when to spend time, and so on. Very nice talk.

[@thcollegestudent]

This made me think of Recognition primed decision making. Using quick thinking and previous experience to rapidly solve problems. She's saying that she wants people to consider how well those sorts of skills at decision making work across tasks and to think of tackling problems from different angles.

[@MegaChijioke]

She has spoken like a Pro. Chess is a game I am eager to learn.

[@MrQmason]

@Mega Go for it ! It's a great game...............

[@MrSupernova111]

Its been three years since your comment. Did you learn chess?

[@ericdouglaserbe3356]

Did you learn it yet

[@bramlovestogame8035]

How about now, learn it yet

[@rogan-joesloan451]

I hope you learned it now.

[@srimansrini]

The Audio level is slightly feeble. Even i adjusted the level in my system, still it's too low. If it's adjusted in source, it will be very useful for the viewers.

[@universalchesslyfe3813]

That was really nice. GM Jen is very active in promoting chess and she is slowly winning me over!

[@Mathview]

I found WGM Jennifer's presentation thought provoking, and an excellent treatment of "specialist to generalist" problem. Often specialists have difficulty communicating their stuff to non-specialists. What to do? Not so easy. I like this this talk as a very well crafted showcase of how-to-communicate to a diverse intelligent audience. What's not to like? + She's totally adorable. Hula-hoop chess simul? Wow!

[@mostafaatef4757]

I totally agree with you. Your comment summarises the whole point of her talk.

[@hzhu]

I'd like to see Kasparov or Fischer play chess while dancing and hula-hooping... 🤔

[@MrSupernova111]

Too funny/. lol

[@spindriftdrinker]

Especially Fischer would be most surprising right now.

[@heartandtroll9993]

Too many TED talks are all over the place. This one was very coherent and easy to understand.

[@theobserver9684]

The truth, really, is that chess masters can calculate as many number of moves ahead as they require. The limit, really, is INFINITY if they weren't to stop and evaluate. And so long as you have good enough visuo-spatial abilities, anyone interested can develop the skill easily.

[@texaschodehouse]

I like to give the example of perpetual check to show anyone can easily see infinite moves ahead. Or 3 moves I guess hah

[@niqwalshensemble9164]

I played bullet chess on my phone while on an exercise bike. ...lost both games.

[@topps302]

I have found chess is like golf. Golf has different handy caps, chess has different levels. Once I found that out chess was not really about being smart

[@AndyVaughnOR]

Cool. Thanks, Jen!

[@TalkAboutHouses]

Probably the best TED talk I've watched.

[@pjdeoliveira2]

interresting but the audio is too low even for vlc media

[@lubime10]

She is a quantum singularity where beauty and mind confluent in the most harmonic way ! I don't get tired of watching her over and over again ! She is a Goddess on earth , a gift from heaven ! I wonder sometimes if she is real ! Is she ?

[@bluebird8004]

Get out more bud

[@osamab814]

wtf

[@youngpatrick29]

Lmao

[@EyupSkydiver]

Ah. That voice.

[@PatroneLegacy]

love it

[@scilines]

Nerds have nerdy voices. 😂 Great content though.

[@jeffwads]

Love that story.

[@bozkurtfrtna6059]

is that your cats photo?? very funny face xD xD xD

[@mercylessplayer]

Aight folks anyone who thinks this is about chess is not listening hard enough

[@spaceinvad0r]

i would love to learn chess now! not useless at all. fools to think so

[@1504andrei1986]

***** I can see that my long post is deleted again. Maybe because it is to long...I will now post it in little parts put as replies to this first post. The main difference between this two games: CHESS - is a static game ( you can't completely change your strategy at any moment like you do in poker because you can`t move more then one piece per turn) of full information based on two constants(chess tables and pieces- that`s all) that are easy to quantify - the type of player that you are playing is a variable, but we can say that it does not count in comparison with poker

[@1504andrei1986]

***** HOW WE QUANTIFY A BLUFF Everything in this universe is quantifiable. Some things are harder to quantify then others and for sure constants are easier to quantify then variables. A simple example of how you can quantify bluff(when describing this situation I will try to stick to the ranges, positions and bet sizes an d avoid other variables): We are on the Button (BTN) with Ad5d ("d" is from diamonds) and you open let`s say 2 times the BigBlind. The player in the Smallblind folds and the player in the BigBlind 3bets (re-raises to 8bb). You appreciate that his frequency of 3bet is 15% and the best hands that you saw him calling from that position are AQo, 99, AJs so you know he does not 3bet them and deduce that his value range(VR) is composed from hands more valuable like TT-AA,AK,AQs. Now any poker player knows that this range means only ~4% and that the fact that we are holding A5dd reduce this value range to 3,5% as our Ad reduces from the combinations of AX so this time there is more probable that he is bluffing Ok now we can simply calculate the bluff (B) in his range as being 11% (B=15-VR=15-4=11%), that meaning ~70%(11/15) of his 3bet, and we can take action according to this and all the other informations that we have gathered about his game. I tried to keep it as simple as possible and I hope this will open your perspectives on the complexity of poker. GOD I WISH I HAD THE CHANCE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS THINGS ON A TED CONFERENCE!

[@DoeJohn314]

Andrei Danciu Your argument seems to be mainly rooted with the complexity of poker so I'll comment on this first since your summary of chess is laughable at best. Firstly, I should point out that I was erroneous to say that a bluff ISN'T quantifiable. Even if we can't quantify it now (which isn't the case because people can come up with some sort of way even if it isn't great) that certainly doesn't mean it's impossible in theory or in the future. That being said, it's not unquantifiable because there are poker playing programs out there that have found success (how you judge the amount of success is up to you) so again, I was wrong to boldly claim that a bluff is unquantifiable.

[@DoeJohn314]

Andrei Danciu Now what I should've said is that a bluff is very difficult to quantify, especially compared to the things required to be quantified in chess. Albeit, chess has posed many challenges for programmers, hence the enormous amount of time, money, and dedication (such that weren't ever made for poker programs) that was required to get computer chess the status it has today. And even at their advanced stage today this whole quantifying problem still lingers in a way. Just consider a Rook and Knight (White) vs Rook (Black) endgame with white having let's say 2 pawns and black having 5 pawns. Top programs would have that around + 1.5, a significant advantage, even if the pieces are positioned in a way where black can hold. When a grandmaster sees this, he/she would immediately know that it's a drawing position (hence 0.0 value in his/her eyes).

[@DoeJohn314]

Andrei Danciu Now you have given a very makeshift method of quantifying a bluff to show that it is in fact quantifiable, something I have admitted to. So given that concession, let's see what we're left with. Your main claim that poker is more complex because computers have yet to dominate poker the way they have in chess and my argument that the reason for this is not due to complexity but the difficulty in quantifying a bluff (I did make the claim that it was unquantifiable but I retracted and revised that erroneous statement in case you forgot) and the fact that computer poker never received the time, money, and dedication that computer chess received. You have addressed the quantifiability of a bluff (although you have yet to show how that's more complex than chess strategy) and you have failed to address my arguments regarding calculations in the two games nor have you addressed your blatant misuse of the word calculus. I'll close this out by giving you another reason why computer chess has progressed more than computer poker. The brute force method is the method that put computer chess where it is today. Given that computers' main advantage over humans is processing power, this does seem sensible. However, such a method wouldn't work in poker because as the other commenter below pointed out, poker is a game of incomplete information. Hence, the computer can calculate all the LOGICAL possibilities it wants, that doesn't give it the huge advantage that it gains in chess. Now keep in mind that chess requires complex algorithms as well to assign numerical values to positions, so I'm in no way saying that chess programming simply requires the computer to calculate moves.

[@nateriver2256]

Andrei Danciu lmao where the hell do you even come up with this stuff? The main difference between the two is that chess is a static game? "full of constants that are easy to quantify"? and you use the pieces as examples? lmao do you think all you need to do to play chess is know how to count the pieces? The only thing you were slightly right about is that chess is like a problem where you have the statement and then solve the problem, the statement being the position of the board. In that same sense, poker is structured the same way. YOu have a problem, ie the specific hand in consideration plus all the information youve gathered previously and now you have to solve the problem. Having experience in both games, I wouldn't jump on the gun and say one is more complex than the other because that's too difficult to determine but I can tell you have minuscule understanding of chess and a laymen's understanding ofpoker.

[@pavementpounder7502]

Her voice reminds me a bit of Sheldon Cooper.

[@justinmckibben4534]

Our next question is does Jen have the answer to this?

[@chrisnenshati7400]

chess makes me lose hairs. Life makes me lose enough hair.

[@najmlion7129]

I feel really bad for her. The slides were really slow. The TED people should have fixed up their system

[@BRUHItsABunny]

Criticism, 1. Assumption all players think like that 2. Saying the queen is the most powerful piece, power of the pieces are not defined like that but it depends on in who's hands the pieces are. 3. Instinct isn't the key of all players in neither poker or chess, too much assumptions 4. Don't decide what the "right" questions are, let people as how stupid they may be Pros 1. Nice analogies tbh 2. Damn hula chess, outta my league

[@elv3a424]

Do you play chess? Power of pieces are defined, and pieces have a set worth... The Queen is the most powerful piece, and is worth the most.

[@Chidl156]

You don't know what your talking about, you made that very obvious.

[@koshersalaami]

You gotta know when to hold ‘em.....

[@rogan-joesloan451]

And know when to walk away.

[@WharfRat68]

Heard about this video from RED CHIP POKER!

[@anthonycollins5671]

sound is terrible

[@bluegiant13]

People need to play some chess to grow their tiny brains. Because they don't seem to comprehend the talk.

[@kimandrews6106]

Yes I found her!!! The voice THE VOICE. It's the sexiest on earth.

[@mestregersonperes]

Congratulations!

[@vishan3388]

What's up with women chess and men chess tournament? Chess is equaliser i heard and thought.

[@RRNGE]

Where U stop and think on 14. I usually do it on 19. Its looked over quute often.

[@renehenriksen1735]

This hula-hop thing in chess is rather silly. Just proves all the prejudice many people have about chess-players. Did the hulahop-dancer really think there would be a chance against a good chessplayer just because of the hulahop-distraction?

[@Tonyplat98]

didn't jennifer play in World series of poker.. I swear I saw her lose with Aces :D

[@paulpeartsmith]

Badass woman.

[@oliverupload]

wamen*

[@AlexSosaBolivia]

She's still trying to live down that whole "Chess Bitch" embarrassment.

[@oliverupload]

Jenny!

[@VeridicusMaximus]

When she says 'I bet you can checkmate me in four moves' is that a euphemism for something? :o

[@TheKilluminati101]

She said the queen is the most valuable piece on the board... WRONG, the KING is... get ur game right lady

[@eraldylli]

You got her, man! What a dumbass she is! She should surrender her championship to you. All hail the new Grandmaster Kyle, the Kultured.

[@TheKilluminati101]

Erald Ylli I didn't say she should do all of that. nor did I call her a dumbass, neither did I call myself the Grandmaster. But I am Kulture Kyle

[@eraldylli]

Right on.

[@eraldylli]

I found her annoying too.

[@slowsatsuma3214]

She said powerful not valuable

[@shawnwilson5401]

i'm so confused what this speech what about..? wtf?

[@arnieus866]

I would try to explain but Jennifer explained it better than I could. Watch again. If you are still confused, chess is probably not for you.

[@penssuck6453]

Seriously, I have no idea what she was trying to get at -- if anything.

[@mlss4908]

I don't know. I can't decide...

[@DrLukeOfficial]

that was really bad…. not useful or particularly well thought out…

[@eraldylli]

And pretentious AF.

[@gabino9002]

DrLukeOfficial Ironic, isn't it? 😅😅

[@PatroneLegacy]

Idiot, i bet you play checkers.

[@dreamhunter2542]

shout out to the Lebanese WGM

[@tomte6846]

east berlin

[@PreservationEnthusiast]

Why does her voice go up an octave at the start of every paragraph?

[@ramr6474]

Why does it matter?

[@PreservationEnthusiast]

Because it sounds stupid, and there is no need for it. The talk was also rubbish, it didn't make any cogent conclusions. Just waffle like most of the other Ted's talks. I did however learn some new words. Chairrrsss; which I think is some kind of game. Quairrrstchunnn; which is when you ask something. Decishairrrrrnnn; which is when you decide something.

[@falangenglishdictionarybys3653]

nice

[@borjaoxadrez3490]

Ah. Redheads.

[@rolandmousaa3110]

Accidentally, press wrong (49) "I unlike".. on your wonderful conference. Gun Ad came in the way.. pressed don't like.. on gun ad. sorry.. But your speech was Great thanks.. again sorry..

[@gabeen5758]

meh talk

[@yankobzykant5579]

is she wife of Greg Shahade?

[@PhilippeCarphin]

I confirm this: brother.

[@paftdunk8619]

Butthead ? is that u ?

[@yokeboonfong4565]

Chess masters all think more than 10 moves ahead. No such thing as 1 move ahead. Against normal player, chess masters only need 5 moves ahead to beat him. To the masters 5 moves ahead is just a split moment. If you only play only 10 moves ahead, and play against Bobby Fischer who played 20 moves ahead, then yours 11th to 20th moves ahead are blind moves. Because of such blind moves counting from the first move, I believe you can hardly stand 20 moves.

[@nicholas205]

I can’t because if her voice... arghhhhhh

[@KARTIKEYA007]

Useless presentation

[@OlympischbriesjeNadaAverage]

Useless rudeness

[@KARTIKEYA007]

Useless post

[@matthewprince1915]

you are useless

[@deeeeeeps]

I like chess, but this was a horrible speech.

[@MsKTMvalley]

Meh.

[@1504andrei1986]

Jennifer Shahade did an unfair comparison between CHESS and POKER w/ the intention to suggest that chess is more complex by showing the decision tree and claiming that the poker decision tree has far less branches because in her mind ( I`m sure that she isn't that ignorant) the game stops when the hand ends and in the next hand a new decision tree starts. That is not true as a new hand doesn't mean a new game...each hand is a part of a bigger decision tree that stops when the game stops!!!!!! I saw other chess players like Gari Kasparov saying ignorant things about poker. My opinion, sustained by the fact that a 1997 computer beats world chess champion Gari Kasparov and in our days no computer can do that w/ a world class poker player, is that poker is far more complex because of the incomplete informations that combines math and psychology in a very dynamic way as you can adapt your strategy at any moment, thing that you can`t do in chess. Their ignorance and jealousy on poker`s success make me puke!!!

[@DoeJohn314]

The reason computers can now beat world champions but there is yet to be a legit poker playing computer is because chess is so much more complex and hence computers have eventually been able to utilize their astronomically superior calculating power. On the other hand, there really isn't too much code to be written for a poker playing computer and it can't utilize superior calculating power because the calculations required in poker are fairly simple. And because there really isn't much code to be written, it can be easily tricked.

[@DoeJohn314]

o and another factor is the fact that a bluff is not quantifiable, and if you know even the basics of computer programming, you would know that thats an essential characteristic. Overall, poker is based more on intuition rather than brute calculations, thats why computers have yet to conquer poker as they have in chess.

[@1504andrei1986]

***** Man you clearly have no idea about poker. Your logic contradicts the common sense "computers can beat chess masters because chess is much more complex, but can`t beat world class poker players because poker is fairly simple" WTF is this? "and another factor is the fact that a bluff is not quantifiable"- another proof that you have no idea about poker... If you know the rules of a game doesn't mean that you understand that game.

[@DoeJohn314]

Andrei Danciu please dont flood me with ad hominem fallacies; its quite unproductive. You have yet to refute my claim that a bluff is unquantifiable and going back to your first issue, i meant that poker is fairly simple in terms of calculations, which is the biggest advantage a computer can have over a human. Hence a game where calculations play a bigger role ie chess would be better suited for a computer. please start arguing with logic and reason rather than simply exclaiming "wtf is this?" simply because you either don't understand my arguments or because you dont have any counterarguments

[@1504andrei1986]

***** I didn`t want to make your feelings hurt. You make statements with no arguments yourself "poker calculations are simple" and "bluff is unquantifiable", but you are asking me to bring arguments to my positions against them? ...you want to make this two unexplained thoughts of yours arguments for the resolution :"chess is very complex and poker is fairly simple" but you don`t explain them, so they have no value( and they are not true. I could explain that, but I must think about a very simple way to do it in order to make somebody that has no idea about poker to understand) "you either don't understand my arguments or because you don`t have any counterarguments"- which arguments??? you do not explain which are "the fairly simple calculations in poker" and why are they very simple... and why is "bluff unquantifiable". You repeated your statement "The reason computers can now beat world champions but there is yet to be a legit poker playing computer is because chess is so much more complex and hence computers have eventually been able to utilize their astronomically superior calculating power. On the other hand, there really isn't too much code to be written for a poker playing computer and it can't utilize superior calculating power because the calculations required in poker are fairly simple." and it is as stupid as the first time... EXPLANATION: if a computer is better than a human in a high calculus situation, in a low calculus situation the human can`t be more than equal to the computer as the situation does not become more complex for the computer and easyer for the human. When I will have time I will try to explain to you in a simple manner the basics of poker,... but first I`m waiting for you to bring arguments why the calculations of poker are "fairly simple" to you and why is "bluff unquantifiable".

[@drutgat2]

I found this rather obvious, and lacking in any kind of depth.

[@Chidl156]

Maybe you just can't find the depth?

[@kibonohikari8878]

If i may say something i hope that any female audience here did not get afforded by my comment i wonder why even in the world of chess "MAN" still dominate it in the highest level?. In real life why all world billionaire and multi millionaire dominate by "MAN" ?. Those that provide disruptive innovative business are all start by man and even within top military branch where mad scientist that help military to discover startgate or time travel once again are "MAN". I am not saying woman are not as intelligent or un able to think in the most stressful environment that require critical thinking, visualize 25 move ahead and came up with ground breaking solution. It seems that woman strength are more toward their EQ instead of IQ which is why they always good with children and read other people's mind and behavior compare to male.

[@ahmedmeh]

Not worth the 10 minutes

[@Galimah]

meh... chess is pretentious

[@luatala8008]

Is she qualified to give such a talk ? Unless the audience are toddlers.

[@Chidl156]

What? The talk was extremely well written