How Can Chess and Other Methods Effectively Measure Comparative Abilities?

[ISamson]

I have been thinking about how to compare two men in their overall abilities. Physical, mental, strategical, social...

So far, I have found that the game chess could be the most efficient way to compare two men on the strategical, mental and social sides of their personality.

I wonder what could be some additions to chess in this case.

 

[jedishrfu]

You can’t compare two men. Don’t try.

You’re a student. How do you compare two students? Do you use chess to do it?

sometimes we compare men or women based on the job. We need to sail somewhere so we choose the one with the best sailing skills. Chess won’t help much in that case. I can find a million other examples.

There is no right answer.

 

[256bits]

For physical, the Olympics Winter Edition completed just recently.
Look at all the types of categories of sports.
Certainly a figure skater, even if a winner at gold, would not necessarily translate to a gold for any other type of competition.

What would be a suitable checklist for overall physical markings - strength, endurance, agility, body size, upper body strength, quickness, .perseverance, pain tolerance, ...? Can someone get top markings in all categories to ensure a complete domination- maybe, maybe not.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Many ways to compare. But here's a little test I would give to gauge who is the most competent:

Send them into a hardware store to buy a product. One that is in common use but overall has large room for improvement. Make it so that when he get's home to use it, that it breaks and must return it.

There are two types of winning men. One that thinks and one that does. Both are competent in many areas of life.

The doing kind of man may fix it himself and improve the product for his own use. He wins at most things in life.

The thinking man will brainstorm ways to improve the product, for others. He will find a solution to increase it's effectiveness. He may explore risks of patenting it himself or putting in the suggestion. Sadly, the most valuable men won't take it so far as to patent it, when he could, because he has many ideas. And, well, won't always apply himself because he already knows he can do it. So, that allows the doing kind of man to keep an even score with him. However, when he actually applies himself, he wins.

The losing man may be placated by buying the same product, or be so angry and blaming that he takes his frustration out on the clerk. He may even take it as a personal insult that the product broke on him- curse this world!

The winning man has an enormous ego. However, only because he aims to be a useful man to others. His ego is earned, because of the value he gives to other's around. This man is, at his core, incredibly unselfish.

The losing man has either no ego or a falsely inflated one. He expects and demands from others, while never being useful to others or adding value.

The winning man is the most useful man. He adds value to his life and that of everyone around him. That is the measure. Not brains or brawn. Success and money only imply the man is possibly competent, but in no way does that hold.

The man you would want to be stranded on an island with, that can get things done and be useful. That man should win, because he can keep other's around him alive. My measure.

 

[symbolipoint]

I have been thinking about how to compare two men in their overall abilities. Physical, mental, strategical, social...

So far, I have found that the game chess could be the most efficient way to compare two men on the strategical, mental and social sides of their personality.

I wonder what could be some additions to chess in this case.

More ways to figure people than just using chess. Keep this stuff up, and you are headed for Human Resources or related work.

 

[Asymptotic]

chess could be the most efficient way to compare two men on the strategical, mental and social sides of their personality.

Tote up a list of chess masters, evaluate these aspects of their personalities, and test your proposition. Other influences must be factored in, for example, during his tenure, soviet Russia was using chess as a proxy for their philosophical superiority, so although Mikhail Botvinnik was an excellent player, his accomplishments were somewhat tainted with elements of governmental favoritism. The Boris Spassky vs. Bobby Fisher match was a big deal when I was growing up (for much the same reason - a proxy battle between US and USSR), but Bobby never stuck me as a model of social stability.

Comparisons of this sort have always struck me as suspect. It puts me in mind of two machinery operators I knew - one was a whirlwind of activity and always fiddling with things while the other was laid-back to the point of being comatose. Their production lines were adjacent to one another, each had similar throughputs, and as it turned out the secret to their success was teamwork. The laconic guy was a keen observer who'd taken the concept of principle of least action to heart and would help the "ball of frenzied activity" guy think things through. On the flip side, Mr. Hare was there when Mr. Turtle needed a set of extra hands to re-establish flow after a process upset. Is it possible to ascribe superiority to either of these individuals?

 

[symbolipoint]

Asymptotic, I wanted to say something like that too. Each person has his own temperament at least some what different than another. Sometimes you put two or three of them together, and they can make a good team. Each person has his own talent. Look and you find examples all over the place.

 

[256bits]

As an aside thought, comparisons between people are done every day. Job applicants, promotions, political candidates, choice of spouse/ better half, astronauts, ... Some criteria is used to make a selection, from a comparison.

Sometimes it is "will the person fit into the company framework", " does the person's ideas ( ideology ) match my own", " does the person make me feel good and tingly". The technical aspects can be of use for a comparison, but doesn't it all come down to the gut feeling and emotional charge. Humans are known to be irrational, and their supposedly well thought out decisions can be anything but.

 

[BWV]

Just compare their character attribute scores(strength, charisma, dexterity, etc). Also its important, but often overlooked, to compare hit points.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I have been thinking about how to compare two men in their overall abilities.

How is chess physical? I think morality is very important. How do you measure it with chess?

 

[jedishrfu]

Just compare their character attribute scores(strength, charisma, dexterity, etc). Also its important, but often overlooked, to compare hit points.

Please be aware that hit points are a negative attribute in the real world unless you are defending yourself against someone who thinks otherwise.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Relevant (3rd panel):
https://xkcd.com/451/

How is chess physical?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing
The greatest sport of all time.

 

[TeethWhitener]

So far, I have found that the game chess could be the most efficient way to compare two men on the strategical, mental and social sides of their personality.

I'm guessing you're good at chess...

 

[Grands]

I have been thinking about how to compare two men in their overall abilities. Physical, mental, strategical, social...

So far, I have found that the game chess could be the most efficient way to compare two men on the strategical, mental and social sides of their personality.

I wonder what could be some additions to chess in this case.

Judging is not a good thing, you won't know the interior of a person without knowing he/her and without spending years with him/her.

 

[ISamson]

You’re a student. How do you compare two students? Do you use chess to do it?

We could use chess, but it might not be practical for all the reasons mentioned.
It is just like this photo from Wikipedia with a world-class boxer losing in chess against Vladimir Kramnik (World No 3, currently). It would be fair to have a boxing round next!

How is chess physical? I think morality is very important. How do you measure it with chess?

That's why I asked for suggestions. I was aware that chess would not cover all aspects of a human, but it will show some morality. Chess will show the person's morality before and after the game. It will shed light upon the person's social skills. Take for example if a person lost a chess game and will go rage-quit, that might show quite a bit of their character, morality and personality.

Judging is not a good thing, you won't know the interior of a person without knowing he/her and without spending years with him/her.

That is true. However, even after something little, like a chess game, for example, you will uncover some insides of someone, I think.

I'm guessing you're good at chess...

 

[symbolipoint]

Post #15 makes the point a bit. On the other hand not every one is interested in chess, and not everyone sees value in it.

What kind of topic is really expected here? Personality profiling and Intelligence Profiling, maybe? Some work must be done on this, somewhere...

 

[Mark44]

have been thinking about how to compare two men in their overall abilities.

IMO, without any context, this is a very silly pursuit. What does "overall abilities" mean?

Relevant (3rd panel):
https://xkcd.com/451/

Very relevant.

 

[Grands]

We could use chess, but it might not be practical for all the reasons mentioned.
It is just like this photo from Wikipedia with a world-class boxer losing in chess against Vladimir Kramnik (World No 3, currently). It would be fair to have a boxing round next!
That's why I asked for suggestions. I was aware that chess would not cover all aspects of a human, but it will show some morality. Chess will show the person's morality before and after the game. It will shed light upon the person's social skills. Take for example if a person lost a chess game and will go rage-quit, that might show quite a bit of their character, morality and personality.
That is true. However, even after something little, like a chess game, for example, you will uncover some insides of someone, I think.

Not all the people know how to play chess, that should means that if a person do not know the rules of the chess game is a idiot ?
Not all the society in the world have chess, but other games.

Consider also that the ability to play this sport do not measure the ability to work or create a company or be successful.
Even if you have to be smart to be a good chess player, that does not mean that the opposite situation is true.
if you are not a good chess player, that doesn't means you aren't smart.

I bet that the best world chess player won't be able to manage a company or to guide a country as a Prime minister or a President.

 

[Choppy]

There's a certain danger in arbitrarily ranking or comparing people - particularly in the absence of a specific goal such as deciding who among them you should employ, award scholarship, or grant admission into your graduate program.

The danger lies in introducing bias that extends beyond the basis on which the comparison was made.

If one person can consistently beat another one at chess, it means that that person is better at chess. That's it. He or she is not intellectually superior to the other.

 

[Fred Wright]

I have no formal training in psychology but I read a university study (sorry, I lost the reference) that showed the tendency in highly competent people in some skill set to underestimate their own competence and over estimate the competence of others (i.e. they think everyone knows what they know). On the other hand, highly incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competence and underestimate the competence of others (i.e. they think nobody knows what they know).
If this hypothesis has any validity, I think one could come to a tentative conclusion with a short questionnaire.

Peace
Fred

 

[Ygggdrasil]

That's why I asked for suggestions. I was aware that chess would not cover all aspects of a human, but it will show some morality. Chess will show the person's morality before and after the game. It will shed light upon the person's social skills. Take for example if a person lost a chess game and will go rage-quit, that might show quite a bit of their character, morality and personality.

Counterpoint: The international chess federation had its bank accounts frozen because it's president aided the Assad regime in circumventing international sanctions against Syria: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43053626

Since this is a scientific forum, we should make arguments based on evidence. Because we have good rankings of chess players, we should be able to find if whether highly ranked chess players are superior to less highly ranked people in other qualities.

 

[QuantumQuest]

So far, I have found that the game chess could be the most efficient way to compare two men on the strategical, mental and social sides of their personality.

The game of chess may potentially show some abilities / qualities but how many different games between these same two hypothetical persons would you need in order to get a fair partly understanding even only of these aspects of their personalities?

The first important thing is that you have to be a very good chess player yourself in order to weigh strategic, tactics and other abilities of the two persons in a fair manner. Then, what can guarantee that at some instant, the one you think is better at strategy hasn't just played more games and / or has stronger memory in general or for some reason especially in variations? The answer is that you obviously have to know this in advance i.e. a factor that is outside the context of chess itself. I can give an example along the same lines for mentality regarding this same chess game. (It is maybe easier to discern the social side of a person but even in this case and for various potential reasons it may need its time too). So, you have to watch many games between these same two players and then what you'll get, is some parametric values for some certain aspects .For other such values chess won't do the trick. I'll give you an example for what I mean.

Suppose that you think that chess player x has good strategic abilities so - if your assumption about correctness of testing through chess holds true, you may conclude that his good strategic abilities led him, say, to good financial investments and he is rich and again, this is just a case out of many other we can all think of, regarding general good strategic abilities. In many cases this inductive way of thinking proves false because of two things: first, strategic abilities come at different flavors and levels and develop through exercising so you can't go from a subset to a way broader superset i.e. from good chess strategic abilities to general strategic abilities to anything and everything in life and draw safe conclusions - chess helps in general for sure but the tricky point is the context switching that takes place each time in everyday life cases and especially the seemingly irrelevant things that may entail, and second, there is a complex interplay between abilities, inabilities in a per person base and our everyday life on the other side, that makes the outcome not directly predictable at best.

So, you'll inevitably need more ways in order to form a comparison for an aspect of personality that stands to reason. In order to expand into further aspects of their characters you will need to focus on entire other areas, so in short, at least as I see it, you'll need years of socializing / interacting with some person in order to draw some reasonable conclusions about his / her personality. But even then, if you try to make a comparison between two persons that you know well, can you mix and match the different parameters per aspect of character between the two and compare them in any meaningful (in the context of the OP) way and furthermore, compare their characters in total? In other words, can you tell for sure that person x is better than person y? What this would / could mean? Even if you draw a definite conclusion about all aspects of personality between them - which I find rather difficult, what is it that makes the first person for instance, better than the second? Is there something non subjective that does the trick? - I don't talk here about comparisons including criminal behaviors and other such corner cases. At this point, the whole thing gets into the philosophical realm so I won't go any further but the most you can get from such comparisons in my opinion is an indication of the ability for someone to be better at a certain job, at a certain endeavor or activity and nothing like a generalized view of a "better" person.

 

[phinds]

Best way to compare two people?

Don't

 

[Tom.G]

how to compare two men in their overall abilities.

I think that question sort of answers itself. Wouldn't you have to test them over all of their abilities?

 

[symbolipoint]

Better to decide which abilities you want to compare, and then use some good way to make the assessment, measure, or comparison.

This topic began with the favoring of the game of chess to compare people. What about it? You could choose anything else. The basic topic is already fairly big. This is why there be the imagining of basic personality types, and why exist Human Resources.

Another way to "compare" -
Big & Strong as contrast to Small & Fast;
Fine Details versus "Big Picture";
Know how to get something done versus "Give Me Results!"