Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates?

[bluesbassman]

[ 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.

[bravos1]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

[pokervintage]

[ 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.

[Chunwah]

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.

[David Sklansky]

[ 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.

[David Sklansky]

"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.

[Utah]

[ 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.

[hitch1978]

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?

[luckyme]

[ 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

[Siegmund]

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.