Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

People bend over backwards to dispute my contention that those who believe that silly religious stories actually make objective sense, or that those who are weak in mathematical reasoning, are not apt to be as as good a president as the best of those who don't have these attributes.

I think part of their disagreement is a reflexive desire to avoid some sort of prejudice or elitism.

To avoid this knee jerk response, I'll change the question.
Anybody who learns how to play chess and has a few hundred games under their belt should be able to solve just about any three move checkmate puzzle in a reasonable amount of time. You don't have to be a master or anywhere close to it. But some people who have fully understand the rules of chess and play it regularly still struggle with these puzzles.

Obviously no presidential candidate is going to learn chess, play it awhile, and then submit to testing. But if we assumed they did, isn't it clear that those candidates who had the greatest difficulty with these forced checkmate problems, to the point of not being able to do many of them, almost automatically disqualify themselves from being as good a president as those who can do these problems and are otherwise qualified?

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

You're on the right track and it doesn't seem too much to ask but it's not the main skill lacking in a president....too focused. The ability to see the big picture and how all the seemingly separate issues influence and play into it is relatively scarce in people in general.

Playing a strategy game, even Risk, decently would hint at having such skills. Gates and buffet play bridge, for example.

luckyme

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

I guess, but it wouldn't matter much. Because someone who proves himself to be smart will not necessarily govern according to his wits. He (like every politician who is good at getting elected) will be more likely to govern in a way where he's perceived to be solving problems rather than necessarily actually solving them. So he is no better than the whims of his masses.

For example, if nobody cared about illegal immigration, a rational legislator would do nothing about it, even if he saw some option which was +EV for the country. He would rather wait until the problem reached crisis stage and people cared so that he could get credit for solving the problem, or even just for aggressively fighting it. His being smart doesn't really help us in the way you're implying it does, because the name of the game is just satisfying knee jerks anyways.

But sure, it wouldn't hurt, all else being equal. I happen to think that being a fellow human means he should be disqualified from making decisions for me. But if we're talking from the assumption that the President actually solves problems and is a +EV thing for us, then sure, I agree with you that it would help for him to be analytically smart.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

I think presidents should be able to solve the chess problems, but I don't think there should be a test

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

No, I don't think there is any correlation between being a moderately skilled chess player and being a good leader. I think good leadership on that high level would be more along the lines of seeing when you need different skillsets and perhaps hire a 'skilled chess player' to be his advisor should he ever need that specific skill.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

DS, your missing the real point. A president needs to be able to delegate someone who can solve these problems competently. A bad president appoints someone who is terrible at solving these problems, and blindly sticks with them no matter how obviously bad things get.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

[ QUOTE ]
DS, your missing the real point. A president needs to be able to delegate someone who can solve these problems competently. A bad president appoints someone who is terrible at solving these problems, and blindly sticks with them no matter how obviously bad things get.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point is, if the president can't solve this reasoning problem that most people can, how can you be assured that he can competently delegate authority?

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
DS, your missing the real point. A president needs to be able to delegate someone who can solve these problems competently. A bad president appoints someone who is terrible at solving these problems, and blindly sticks with them no matter how obviously bad things get.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point is, if the president can't solve this reasoning problem that most people can, how can you be assured that he can competently delegate authority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because seeing that a problem is there is not linked to being able to solve it in most cases. Also you must assume that a well put together organization will have capable advisors and people acting as 'eyes and ears'.

Now, if the cabinet and administration as a whole is unable to solve a 3-move puzzle given some time, then you can start worrying. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

[ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think there is any correlation between being a moderately skilled chess player and being a good leader. I think good leadership on that high level would be more along the lines of seeing when you need different skillsets and perhaps hire a 'skilled chess player' to be his advisor should he ever need that specific skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

A direct correlation isn't necessary.

All people who can solve the 3 move problem can't be good Presidents.

All people who can be good Presidents can solve the 3 move problem.

A good president doesn't have to be able to solve the problem without spending a sufficient amount of time studying chess.

A good president, who has devoted sufficient time to studying chess, should be able to solve the problem.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

Solving 3-move checkmates is a skill that lacks much similarity to any real life problems.

The hardest 3-move checkmates problems can also be very abstract problems.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

what i want to know is why david sklansky thinks that the president's mental ability has any impact whatsoever on the actual governing of our country

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

I think the question should be, should Presidential candidates be able to beat Sklansky heads up for rolls in NL Omaha8?

This seems to me to be a vadid test.

The religion thing I can at least see OP's rationale, even though I disagree with his point. This on the other hand, I do not.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

DS,

I think they should be able to do something harder than three moved force mates. Those are a piece of cake.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody who learns how to play chess and has a few hundred games under their belt should be able to solve just about any three move checkmate puzzle in a reasonable amount of time. You don't have to be a master or anywhere close to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you say "just about any", it would be incorrect; I would
simply point out several (if not most) mate in three
problems found in the FIDE albums. Also, some mate in two
problems are not easy for experts or masters, but if a
"reasonable amount of time" is about an hour and you change
"three" to "two", a chess player who is almost about 2200
FIDE strength (not a master) should be able to solve most
"mate in two" compositions.

And no; presidential candidates are already subjected to
scrutiny by the media, and even being incompetent in
several areas has not been a major obstacle for any
candidate to become president.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

I agree with thylacine that being good at abstract reasoning doesn't necessarily make someone a good President. A good President is someone who is skilled at management, so that they can get good people in jobs where they are needed and are good at taking advice. The major failures of the current administration are largely as a result of nepotism, cronyism and a failure to consult widely before making decisions.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

Given present circumstances, forced stalemate seems a more appropriate test.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

All other things being equal, yes. But in the real world, all other things are rarely eqaul. Von Neumann wanted to nuke the Russians because he said it was inevitable they would do it to us. He was wrong. Dangerously wrong. If I were to find out that Truman and Eisenhower were unable to pass your chess test, I would still have preferred either of them to Von Neumann. And it isn't close.

Chess and Intelligence not Required
 

Here you go again over emphasizing intelligence as if it were some panacea for all the world's problems.

It would be nice if the president could spot a forced checkmate 3 moves ahead, but certainly not necessary. Yes, intelligence is always a plus in any field, but the presidential office requires more important aptitudes then raw intelligence. This should be obvious.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

[ QUOTE ]
But if we assumed they did, isn't it clear that those candidates who had the greatest difficulty with these forced checkmate problems, to the point of not being able to do many of them, almost automatically disqualify themselves from being as good a president as those who can do these problems and are otherwise qualified?

[/ QUOTE ]

Learning to perform forced check mate problems does not mean that a person has anything more than a workable long term memory. There is a step by step procedure that one can follow for solving these type of problems. Learning it does not indicate the extent of ones reasoning ability. Sklansky misses the fact that great leaders, presidents, surround themselves with smart people that can do forced chess and other problems for them.

If you want to use this chess test as a measure to judge the potential of a president then make every one on his team take the test, not him.

pokervintage

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

Yes, I agree that a certain minimum, measurable level of analytical ability is necessary (but not sufficient) to qualify a person to be a good president.

I also agree that if the person holds certain beliefs/ideas, we may infer that he or she does not meet that minimum requirement. I would assume everyone here would agree with that, though we might disagree on where we should draw the proverbial line.

For example, if the candidate could not do basic grade school math (like operations on fractions, percents, etc), or believed astrology is valid, surely we would agree such a person is disqualified. I would also put someone who rejects evolution in the same category, though some of the creationists here would probably disagree.

Finally, I think the specific test Mr. Sklansky proposes is probably too weak to be meaningful, though I might be biased since I'm an avid chess player and those puzzles seems trivially easy to me.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Learning to perform forced check mate problems does not mean that a person has anything more than a workable long term memory. There is a step by step procedure that one can follow for solving these type of problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chess nit: in general the preceding is not true. The only memory required to solve these problems are the rules of chess (i.e. how the pieces move and what defines checkmate). When I solve these puzzles or workout a checkmate over the board in a game, I'm usually not recalling anything from memory at all.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think presidents should be able to solve the national problems, and there will most definitely be a test

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

[ QUOTE ]
When I solve these puzzles or workout a checkmate over the board in a game, I'm usually not recalling anything from memory at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you arent using your memory to solve these problems. I don't know you. I did not mean to imply that someone looks at a problem and recalls its solution from having memorized it previously. What is learned is a method of solving these problems. Following that method does not indicate reasoning ability. It only indicates an ability to learn and follow instructions. Believe it or not in a lot of cases the same is true for math problems. A thought that might cause Sklansky to shudder.

pokervintage.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

My main concern would be a president with a belief system that caused him/her to disregard advice and evidence because it was contrary to some dogmatic doctrine.

Not sure about the chess example.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

[ QUOTE ]
All other things being equal, yes. But in the real world, all other things are rarely eqaul. Von Neumann wanted to nuke the Russians because he said it was inevitable they would do it to us. He was wrong. Dangerously wrong. If I were to find out that Truman and Eisenhower were unable to pass your chess test, I would still have preferred either of them to Von Neumann. And it isn't close.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and Lestat keep getting my point confused. I don't claim that mega intelligence would significantly increase someone's competance to be president. It is in fact probably correlated with less competance. But so is being unable to do only moderately difficult thinking problems. Maybe the most difficult three move problems are harder than I thought, but that is off the subject. The point is that the ability to look ahead and visualize the possible consequences of various actions is an important attrribute for a president to have. He can't just turn to an expert for something so basic.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

"What is learned is a method of solving these problems. Following that method does not indicate reasoning ability. It only indicates an ability to learn and follow instructions. Believe it or not in a lot of cases the same is true for math problems. A thought that might cause Sklansky to shudder."

pokervintage.

Off the point. Yes there are rules that people can memorize that will help them do some math and chess problems. So those people who use those rules have not shown they are particualrly smart when they answer them. That has nothing to do with my contention that those who cannot do these problems, even after learning the subject, are not smart.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All other things being equal, yes. But in the real world, all other things are rarely eqaul. Von Neumann wanted to nuke the Russians because he said it was inevitable they would do it to us. He was wrong. Dangerously wrong. If I were to find out that Truman and Eisenhower were unable to pass your chess test, I would still have preferred either of them to Von Neumann. And it isn't close.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and Lestat keep getting my point confused. I don't claim that mega intelligence would significantly increase someone's competance to be president. It is in fact probably correlated with less competance. But so is being unable to do only moderately difficult thinking problems. Maybe the most difficult three move problems are harder than I thought, but that is off the subject. The point is that the ability to look ahead and visualize the possible consequences of various actions is an important attrribute for a president to have. He can't just turn to an expert for something so basic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are partially correct. In normal cases, a president should be able to solve the forced mate problems. However, several of the best business leaders I know (2 of them billionaires or close to it) could never ever solve those problems. But, they knew how to lead men and they know how to surround themselves with those much brighter to help guide them.

Therefore, I believe it is possible for someone to be a good president who could not solve the forced mate problems. But, it is pretty unlikely.

Note to Andy - How do we know Von Neumann was wrong? Enough time has not played out imho. Nuclear weapons exist in this world that the U.S. does not control and there is a non-zero chance that one will be used against us. If I recall correctly, Von Neumann advocated a single world government, which may have been a great idea.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

Obviously if two people have identical skills apart from one, the one that does better in that skill is the best one for the job. If that's your point I don't see how it warrants a 3 page thread.

Smart > Stupid.

I think most people already knew that.

If you are saying that the inability to do this specific thing should negate an otherwise perfect in every way candidate, in favour of 'rain man', then well, do I need to go on?

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

[ QUOTE ]
He can't just turn to an expert for something so basic.

[/ QUOTE ]

the 'expert advice' just layers the issue. Dealing with all the expert advice will come to the same thing as the chess moves ( if the analogy is sound ). He has to juggle all the advice. Somebody has to be the decider ;-)

luckyme

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

Others have already commented on the fact that the president may be better served by delegating the problem-solving to someone who excels at it, than attempting to solve all the problems himself. I still agree, in some sense, that I would like my president to have some kind of critical thinking abilities.

But mate in three (or two, or however many) problems are NOT the kind of situation they need experience with. In a mate-in-N problem, you are TOLD that the mate CAN BE DONE, and asked HOW. In some sense, it's mere lackey work, not executive work.
I would be a lot more interested in seeing potential presidents on their abilities to determine if something is possible in a deterministic game, or determine the line of pay with highest chance of success in a random game. The question for the country is "what is the way forward?" -- not "we know exactly where we can be in 3 years, how do we get there." Nobody is going to go to the president and say "A little bird told me that there's a way for you to talk North Korea into giving up its nukes if say the right three sentences to him. Figure out what they are."

Notice, too, that a mate-in-N problem is NOT the same thing as setting a goal - man on the moon in ten years, or whatever - lofty goals stated as "we will do this" still come with no guarantee that it is possible to achieve.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

So change the chess problems into those where some cannot be solved.

And why do people keep bringing up the facts that some math challenged people have made good leaders and that some brilliant people have made bad ones? Neither fact negates my point.

Also some of you wish to reduce my point to a triviality like it would be slightly better for the president to be able to run a five minute mile than to have an otherwise equal president who couldn't. Except that it is far more likely that his lack of anlytical skills is going to screw the country up than his lack of running skills.

Take the idea down one more notch. x+y =40 x times y =384.
Is it OK if the president is unable to clearly explain how to figure out what x and y are?

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

I treat you with kid gloves. Because you are the only poster ever to have caught me in a major mistake.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

I think presidents should be idea men. Men with vision. Men with people skills and the ability to be a diplomat and to coordinate and bring things, people, and ideas together (notice that it would be almost impossible, or very rare indeed, for a genuis mathematician to be any kind of a successful diplomat). They should have the ability to lead and inspire patriotism and trust. (I should include women too now).

The genuis of the details, what's practical, what's not, can be worked out by others. What I object to is your insinuation that intelligence is always better. It can never hurt, I agree. It can never hurt to be good looking either. But it's not always necessary. Even a mediocre smart person knows how to surround himself with those who clearly ARE intelligent enough to bring about those things he wants to get done.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

David often accuses me of being the only one in the crowd who misses his point. Since he has raised this point repeatedly on SMP, let me see if I can state it clearly here.

Per DS, analytical abilities of the kind that allow people to do math, science, and now chess problems, are employed with much greater consequence in a much wider range of human activities than most people imagine.

That's David's basic idea. He's been trying to better specify the "analytical abilities" and qualify/quantify the "much greater consequence" and "much wider range" phrases for years now. I don't see that he's made much progress in this OP.

PairTheBoard

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

You underestimate the difficulty of a good mate-in-three.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Learning to perform forced check mate problems does not mean that a person has anything more than a workable long term memory. There is a step by step procedure that one can follow for solving these type of problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chess nit: in general the preceding is not true. The only memory required to solve these problems are the rules of chess (i.e. how the pieces move and what defines checkmate). When I solve these puzzles or workout a checkmate over the board in a game, I'm usually not recalling anything from memory at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed with certain exceptions, EG Q-sacrifice theme of a smothered-mate.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that the ability to look ahead and visualize the possible consequences of various actions is an important attrribute for a president to have

[/ QUOTE ]

You should have said that in the first place. With this I agree. But you are wrong when you say that he can't just turn to an expert for help. Of course if he is able to choose the right expert then he is probably smart enough to visuallize the potential results of action he is considering.

Either way, end game chess is not a good indicator of this ability.

pokervintage.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

David, do you have any thoughts on my first reply here? I think you're missing an important concept of how democratic governance works (though, it's sort of separate from the point you're trying to make).

Imagine the NFL did not keep score, and for whatever reasons it was near impossible for casual fans to keep score themselves. It was just play after play, and a fan's approval of the team's performance was dependent only on his own interpretation of what he saw in front of him. Do you think Bill Belichick would be the success he is now?

Probably someone like Parcells (or other hard nose, old fashioned types) would be a more "successful" coach (unless of course, Belichick changed his style to be regarded as a good coach). Do you see my point? Clearly being analytically smart still might help a President achieve this "subjective success," but it isn't critical, and morons who honestly believe in what they're doing may accidentally be perfect for the role.

But you are of course right that analytical intelligence would help, if the President's motivation was actually to make things objectively best. The people arguing that point are very wrong, and would probably agree if anyone but you had posted this.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

Is there a website or something that employs a similar test? I have never really played chess and I want to determine how difficult this is.

Re: Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're missing an important concept

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're missing an important concept, it's called an inconvenient truth, have you even heard of al gore???