Chess and Insanity

Chess Forum
Promoting chess discussion.

Date: 03 Mar 2005 17:49:21
From: Jeremy Spinrad
Subject: Chess and Insanity

My research in 19th century chess has led me reluctantly to the belief that the
incidence of insanity among great chess players is much higher than that in the
general population. This leads to a number of questions, such as

1) Is my conclusion correct, or am I overestimating the incidence of insanity in
chessplayers and/or underestimating the incidence in the general population?

2) If so, what is the correct explanation? Some possibilities include

2.1) The particular stresses of chess can lead to insanity.

2.2) The insecurity in the life of a professional chess player in those days
could lead to insanity.

2.3) Professions involving high mental stress can lead to insanity.

2.4) There is a positive correlation between ability in chess (and or
intelligence in general) and a susceptibility to insanity.

2.5) Going into such a risky career is something which is much more appealing
to those who have traits which are correlated with insanity than to more well
balanced people.

2.6) Chess is popular among populations which in general have a higher
incidence of insanity.

2.7) Other explanations which you find at least somewhat plausible.

I would be curious about people's views on these issues. I am much less certain
about whether this trend continues into more recent times, which could affect
which explanations seem more or less plausible; opinions on this are welcome as
well.

Jerry Spinrad

Free Avlerchess Glass Chess Set - Find out how you can get a free glass chess set from us.

Date: 03 Mar 2005 18:29:23
From: CeeBee
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

[email protected] (Jeremy Spinrad) wrote in
rec.games.chess.misc:

> I would be curious about people's views on these issues. I am
> much less certain about whether this trend continues into more
> recent times, which could affect which explanations seem more or
> less plausible; opinions on this are welcome as well.

I'm considered an idiot, but I don't know if that counts as
insanity.

--
CeeBee

"I don't know half of you
half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you
half as well as you deserve."

Date: 03 Mar 2005 11:25:53
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

On 3 Mar 2005 17:49:21 GMT, [email protected] (Jeremy Spinrad)
wrote:

>My research in 19th century chess has led me reluctantly to the belief that the
>incidence of insanity among great chess players is much higher than that in the
>general population.

The set of traits definitive of "insanity" is problematic. I think
the term itself is somewhat archaic. Where does eccentricity end and
insanity begin?

>This leads to a number of questions, such as

>1) Is my conclusion correct, or am I overestimating the incidence of insanity in
>chessplayers and/or underestimating the incidence in the general population?

Someone who devotes a great deal of time to mastering a board game is
not typical of the general population. It takes less for an atypical
person to be labeled "insane".

>2) If so, what is the correct explanation? Some possibilities include

> 2.1) The particular stresses of chess can lead to insanity.

Sustained concentration with inadequate physical outlets causes both
mental and physical problems in a variety of professions.

> 2.2) The insecurity in the life of a professional chess player in those days
>could lead to insanity.

> 2.3) Professions involving high mental stress can lead to insanity.

> 2.4) There is a positive correlation between ability in chess (and or
>intelligence in general) and a susceptibility to insanity.

> 2.5) Going into such a risky career is something which is much more appealing
>to those who have traits which are correlated with insanity than to more well
>balanced people.

How does "well-balanced" match up with "mediocre"? There may be a
multitude of reasons, not all of which necessarily indicate an
unbalanced personality, for making a career of chess. For example, in
those countries where the state subsidizes developmental and training
programs and provides a career path, chess may be a very rational
profession -- and there's less political risk than becoming, e.g., a
biologist.

> 2.6) Chess is popular among populations which in general have a higher
>incidence of insanity.

> 2.7) Other explanations which you find at least somewhat plausible.

A smart person or genius being "insane" is newsworthy. A insane
dullard is less interesting.

>I would be curious about people's views on these issues. I am much less certain
>about whether this trend continues into more recent times, which could affect
>which explanations seem more or less plausible; opinions on this are welcome as
>well.
>
>Jerry Spinrad

Date: 03 Mar 2005 11:01:14
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
> My research in 19th century chess has led me reluctantly to the
belief that the
> incidence of insanity among great chess players is much higher than
that in the
> general population. This leads to a number of questions, such as
>
> 1) Is my conclusion correct, or am I overestimating the incidence of
insanity in
> chessplayers and/or underestimating the incidence in the general
population?

Impossible to say without seeing your data, knowing how it was
collected and from what sources, understanding how you define such
terms as "insanity" and "great," how you determine the incidence of
insanity in the general population, etc. etc.
One potential source of bias is the likelihood that insanity, however
it is defined, will be under-reported in the general population due to
the social stigma attached to it, compared to great chess masters who
have a measure of celebrity and tend to get their eccentricities
exaggerated by various chroniclers.

Date: 03 Mar 2005 23:39:09
From: Alan OBrien
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
>> My research in 19th century chess has led me reluctantly to the
> belief that the
>> incidence of insanity among great chess players is much higher than
> that in the
>> general population. This leads to a number of questions, such as
>>
>> 1) Is my conclusion correct, or am I overestimating the incidence of
> insanity in
>> chessplayers and/or underestimating the incidence in the general
> population?
>
> Impossible to say without seeing your data,

That's right. I can't tink of any well-known players that went insane.
Steinitz may have put it on a bit, but that's it.

Date: 04 Mar 2005 11:15:31
From: Tim Jarman
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

Alan OBrien wrote:

>
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
>>> My research in 19th century chess has led me reluctantly to the
>> belief that the
>>> incidence of insanity among great chess players is much higher than
>> that in the
>>> general population. This leads to a number of questions, such as
>>>
>>> 1) Is my conclusion correct, or am I overestimating the incidence of
>> insanity in
>>> chessplayers and/or underestimating the incidence in the general
>> population?
>>
>> Impossible to say without seeing your data,
>
> That's right. I can't tink of any well-known players that went insane.
> Steinitz may have put it on a bit, but that's it.

This discussion won't go anywhere until we all agree what "insanity" means
(probably some time after hell freezes over), but some names spring to
mind: Morphy; Rubinstein; Pillsbury (if tertiary syphilis counts); arguably
Fischer, these days. Many others if one accepts some value of "eccentric"
as a valid criterion - Lasker throwing the inaccurate clock out of his
house, etc.

Since, as is often said, chess is one area of life where paranoia is
actually healthy, maybe it attracts people who are that way inclined?

--
Website: www DOT jarmania FULLSTOP com

Date: 04 Mar 2005 11:36:00
From: Alan OBrien
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

"Tim Jarman" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> This discussion won't go anywhere until we all agree what "insanity" means
> (probably some time after hell freezes over), but some names spring to
> mind: Morphy; Rubinstein; Pillsbury (if tertiary syphilis counts);
> arguably
> Fischer, these days. Many others if one accepts some value of "eccentric"
> as a valid criterion - Lasker throwing the inaccurate clock out of his
> house, etc.

I've never heard of that Lasker story.
I have heard anecdotes - of the Bill Wall variety - of other chess players
going mental; but aren't they just stories?
What, for example, is Morphy supposed to have done that he could be called
insane? He gave up chess, but that could be called a sign of massive
lucidity.

Date: 04 Mar 2005 04:42:15
From: Spam Scone
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
> My research in 19th century chess has led me reluctantly to the
belief that the
> incidence of insanity among great chess players is much higher than
that in the
> general population.

For much of the 19th century "insane" was an accepted medical
diagnosis. Unfortunately, it was both imprecise and too inclusive.
Would you classify Pillsbury's alleged attempt to throw himself out of
a window as a sign of "insanity", his STD, or (as Shipley suggested) a
reaction to the ether. How about Steinitz's final days, which suggest
Alzheimer's to me.

This leads to a number of questions, such as
>
> 1) Is my conclusion correct, or am I overestimating the incidence of
insanity in
> chessplayers and/or underestimating the incidence in the general
population?

Define "insane".

> 2) If so, what is the correct explanation? Some possibilities include
>
> 2.1) The particular stresses of chess can lead to insanity.
>
> 2.2) The insecurity in the life of a professional chess player in
those days
> could lead to insanity.
>
> 2.3) Professions involving high mental stress can lead to
insanity.
>
> 2.4) There is a positive correlation between ability in chess (and
or
> intelligence in general) and a susceptibility to insanity.
>
> 2.5) Going into such a risky career is something which is much
more appealing
> to those who have traits which are correlated with insanity than to
more well
> balanced people.
>
> 2.6) Chess is popular among populations which in general have a
higher
> incidence of insanity.
>
> 2.7) Other explanations which you find at least somewhat
plausible.

I think you are reading 19th century newspapers (including some
possible scandal sheets) and taking everything they say at face value.
This is NOT a good idea.

> I would be curious about people's views on these issues. I am much
less certain
> about whether this trend continues into more recent times, which
could affect
> which explanations seem more or less plausible; opinions on this are
welcome as
> well.
>
> Jerry Spinrad

Date: 04 Mar 2005 15:14:09
From: Jeremy Spinrad
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

Like most of us, I initially took the attitude that insanity and chess was blown
out of proportion because of a couple of famous instances, most notably Morphy.
Now, I think differently. The notion does not strike me as so intrinsically
outrageous; the notion that may great artists have serious mental health problems
has also been discussed, along with various explanations for the phenomena.

It is hard to know how to measure this; I could rattle off names of chess players
who suffered from mental illness, but it wouldn't be clear what the overall pool
of people I was selecting from would be.

I propose that anyone make a list of the great tournaments of the 19th century,
and we look at the prize winners in those tournaments, and see how many of them
showed indications of mental health problems (and yes, there will be debate over
some of these). Note that I am not selecting players in advance, and that this
method means that certain obvious great players who would bolster the theory,
such as Morphy and Kieseritzky (who I understand died in an asylum) will not be
part of the sample. Of course, if a player occurs on many prize lists, he will
only be included once in the evaluation.

There will be several issues to discuss once the list is made. The question of
who to categorize as having mental illness will certainly not be open and shut.
The other large question is what percentage of mental illness one would expect to
see in the population in general.

I feel that both sides should "play fair"; if you think there is/is not a high
tendency towards mental illness in chess players, you must have some standard you
are willing to accept as evidence against you, instead of just arguing that
various players are/are not ill and that a certain percentage is/is not within
the normal range. I have no strong attachment to using a list of prize
winners in great
tournaments, am will to go for any other reasonable method for collecting a
sample of top quality chess players from the time period.

Jerry Spinrad

Date: 07 Mar 2005 17:08:52
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

Date: 06 Mar 2005 14:20:17
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

Jeremy Spinrad <[email protected] > wrote:
> My research in 19th century chess has led me reluctantly to the belief
> that the incidence of insanity among great chess players is much higher
> than that in the general population.

It's important to bear in mind here are that the diagnosis of `insanity'
was rather bandied about in the 19th century and can mean anything from
`masturbates a bit more than is thought to be reasonable' to `stark,
staring bonkers'. Diagnosis and treatment have improved dramatically
since then.

The incidence of depression in the population at large is very high (I
can't remember the numbers but it's something like one in five will be
depressed at some point in their lives) and acute depression would, I
think, be classified as `insanity' in the C19th.

There's also the Asperger's syndrome / autism thing, which would
presumably also count as `insanity'.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Electronic Painting (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ Renaissance masterpiece but it uses
electricity!

Date: 06 Mar 2005 15:07:02
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:XRt*[email protected]...
> Jeremy Spinrad <[email protected]> wrote:
>> My research in 19th century chess has led me reluctantly to the belief
>> that the incidence of insanity among great chess players is much higher
>> than that in the general population.
>
> It's important to bear in mind here are that the diagnosis of `insanity'
> was rather bandied about in the 19th century and can mean anything from
> `masturbates a bit more than is thought to be reasonable' to `stark,
> staring bonkers'. Diagnosis and treatment have improved dramatically
> since then.
>
> The incidence of depression in the population at large is very high (I
> can't remember the numbers but it's something like one in five will be
> depressed at some point in their lives) and acute depression would, I
> think, be classified as `insanity' in the C19th.
>
> There's also the Asperger's syndrome / autism thing, which would
> presumably also count as `insanity'.

I think we did this subject about 6 months ago - relating chess ability to
incarceration for nuttiness.

I wrote that Bedlam once played the House of Commons, and won! Someone else
wrote in and said that Bedlam also played Cambridge University, and won!

One flew east, Phil

> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Electronic Painting (TM): it's
> like a
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ Renaissance masterpiece but it
> uses
> electricity!

Date: 06 Mar 2005 21:43:52
From: James Hackett
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

you all suck dick

Date: 08 Mar 2005 10:59:31
From: michael adams
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

James Hackett wrote:
>
> you all suck dick

Yay James, we'se all get down thar, & gobble the pickled Spanish
pulpo-foreskins of our fathers in our mouths, while being careful to
avoid the dog-soiled scrap of carpet, as we fall on the floor in
paroxyms of froth-mouthed 'nuttiness' in your filth-encrusted trailer
you call home. Pls. Jimmy before you come on here again, do 'us' the
favour of investing some of your hard-earned in a decent 'isp'..

Date: 06 Mar 2005 19:22:21
From: Bugsy
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

Many were mental before chess !

A lot of mental illness is genetics, though environment can play a part.

Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
> My research in 19th century chess has led me reluctantly to the belief that the
> incidence of insanity among great chess players is much higher than that in the
> general population. This leads to a number of questions, such as
>
> 1) Is my conclusion correct, or am I overestimating the incidence of insanity in
> chessplayers and/or underestimating the incidence in the general population?
>
> 2) If so, what is the correct explanation? Some possibilities include
>
> 2.1) The particular stresses of chess can lead to insanity.
>
> 2.2) The insecurity in the life of a professional chess player in those days
> could lead to insanity.
>
> 2.3) Professions involving high mental stress can lead to insanity.
>
> 2.4) There is a positive correlation between ability in chess (and or
> intelligence in general) and a susceptibility to insanity.
>
> 2.5) Going into such a risky career is something which is much more appealing
> to those who have traits which are correlated with insanity than to more well
> balanced people.
>
> 2.6) Chess is popular among populations which in general have a higher
> incidence of insanity.
>
> 2.7) Other explanations which you find at least somewhat plausible.
>
> I would be curious about people's views on these issues. I am much less certain
> about whether this trend continues into more recent times, which could affect
> which explanations seem more or less plausible; opinions on this are welcome as
> well.
>
> Jerry Spinrad

Date: 06 Mar 2005 13:48:58
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
> I propose that anyone make a list of the great tournaments of the
19th century,
> and we look at the prize winners in those tournaments, and see how
many of them
> showed indications of mental health problems (and yes, there will be
debate over
> some of these).

By "prize winners" do you mean only first-place finishers, or anyone
who won one of the tournament's official prizes? If the latter, you'll
need something more detailed than Gaige's crosstables to draw up the
list. Also, your original post referred to "great" players, but there
have been some prize-winners, even in high-level tournaments, who would
not merit the designation "great" as it's commonly understood; rather
they'd been seen as lesser players who got lucky once or twice.
Limiting your sample to tournaments might also introduce some bias.
For example Von der Lasa was a great player, but he never played in a
single tournament - and by all accounts he was a model of sanity.
Another problem is that "insanity" can be caused by disease or
injury. Gustav Neumann's mental illness was attributed to a childhood
head injury. Pillsbury's syphilis in its latter stages probably caused
some aberrant behavior; some think it may also explain some or all of
Steinitz's aberrations also. Do they count in the tally of the
"insane," or are they excused? Do we include the alcoholics (e.g.
Mason) and the drug-users (e.g. Zukertort) or not?
It seems to me that to do this properly will require a great deal of
biographical research, perhaps beyond the means even of most serious
chess historians. And that's considering only the chess side of it -
the other task is to define "insanity" and determine its incidence in
the general population. Quite a daunting task with even one country,
let alone all the different countries that produced great players in
the 19th century. Just to mention one complication, suicide tends to be
under-reported in Catholic countries compared to Protestant.
I would not consider even beginning this project without consulting
some history-minded psychology and/or psychiatry experts. Otherwise I
can't see it having much value either scientifically or historically. I
don't wish to sound discouraging, but it's certainly a much bigger bite
than I would ever try to chew.

Taylor Kingston

Date: 11 Mar 2005 20:04:17
From:
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

Anders Thulin wrote:
> Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
>
> > I propose that anyone make a list of the great tournaments of the
19th century,
> > and we look at the prize winners in those tournaments, and see how
many of them
> > showed indications of mental health problems (and yes, there will
be debate over
> > some of these).
>
> That will bias the selection quite heavily: we're no longer
investigating
> chess players in general, but players of the first magnitude so to
speak.

My thesis is only about top chess players; this is why some of my
possible explanations involve the pressures of chess as a career.
Nevertheless, I think that the community does not accept the thesis
that the incidence of insanity is high among this group, and that
although people are willing to put forward objections to the thesis
before considering the evidence, they are unwilling to give any
standard by which the thesis could be supported. In my mind, anyone who
is not willing to set up a standard of some sort must accept that their
opinion has no more justification than the opinion of the person who
asserts the opposite view. Some of those arguing the point are saying
that this simply requires too much knowledge to measure, and I can
accept that viewpoint. However, I cannot accept simply saying that the
thesis is incorrect because it hasn't been proved, and objecting to any
notion of trying to prove it.

I don't know exact figures, and I could be swayed by people with better
knowledge on the subject. My offhand view would be that if no more than
5% of the subjects would show signs of serious mental problems, that
would be good evidence that the incidence was not higher than the
general population; if it was more than 15% that would be good evidence
it was higher; numbers in the middle would mean that there is still
room for debate (perhaps depending on how close we were to either
side).

Again, I am open to discussion on an appropriate list of players and
numbers to consider high and low, but I think it is worth discussing
rather than being viewed as a taboo subject.

Jerry Spinrad
>
> A pity: Gaige rarely indicates prize winners. Fenstra Kuiper does,
though:
> and his selection may in some way be a 'big tournament' selection
already.
> But we're getting rather close to professional chess players here,
rather
> than chess players in general.

I think we could get the prize winner list, at least for the major
tournaments, but it might be easier to agree on some group of first
class players in another way.

>
> Should the thesis be restated?
>
> --
> Anders Thulin ath*algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath

Date: 12 Mar 2005 08:32:06
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

[email protected] wrote:

> My thesis is only about top chess players;

You're right -- I missed that 'top player' entirely, probably because
I find the question of just how the tesis could be argued convincingly
more interesting than the thesis itself. My mental shutters went into action.

--
Anders Thulin ath*algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath

Date: 13 Mar 2005 00:09:15
From: Rob Rodgers
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

>>
>> Should the thesis be restated?
>>
>> --
>> Anders Thulin ath*algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath
>

Perhaps one could use the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders) to help devise categories of mental disorders to study. This
link

http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/_misc/complete_tables.htm#Code

gives the basic codes for all DSM-IV diagnoses. One can click on one of the
hyperlinked disorders for more information about symptoms. This might
provide a framework for formulating your criteria. Of course, one wouldn't
try to diagnose specific illnesses, but it would help in determining what
to include and exclude. For example, Steinitz's offer of giving God pawn
and move would appear to be a delusion or hallucination of the type
mentioned for schizophrenia.

Date: 13 Mar 2005 08:18:54
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

Rob Rodgers wrote:

> to include and exclude. For example, Steinitz's offer of giving God pawn
> and move would appear to be a delusion or hallucination of the type
> mentioned for schizophrenia.

The next step is of course to verify that Steinitz actually made that
statement -- if not it will only be an attempt to diagnose by rumour,
and that is hopefully not what is intended here.

The main question is under what circumstances anyone would accept that
Steinitz actually did make such an offer: a modern article, an third-hand
conteporary report, or what?

--
Anders Thulin ath*algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath

Date: 12 Mar 2005 07:01:06
From: Spam Scone
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

[email protected] wrote:
> Anders Thulin wrote:
> > Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
> >
> > > I propose that anyone make a list of the great tournaments of the
> 19th century,
> > > and we look at the prize winners in those tournaments, and see
how
> many of them
> > > showed indications of mental health problems (and yes, there will
> be debate over
> > > some of these).
> >
> > That will bias the selection quite heavily: we're no longer
> investigating
> > chess players in general, but players of the first magnitude so to
> speak.
>
> My thesis is only about top chess players; this is why some of my
> possible explanations involve the pressures of chess as a career.
> Nevertheless, I think that the community does not accept the thesis
> that the incidence of insanity is high among this group, and that
> although people are willing to put forward objections to the thesis
> before considering the evidence, they are unwilling to give any
> standard by which the thesis could be supported. In my mind, anyone
who
> is not willing to set up a standard of some sort must accept that
their
> opinion has no more justification than the opinion of the person who
> asserts the opposite view. Some of those arguing the point are saying
> that this simply requires too much knowledge to measure, and I can
> accept that viewpoint. However, I cannot accept simply saying that
the
> thesis is incorrect because it hasn't been proved, and objecting to
any
> notion of trying to prove it.
>
> I don't know exact figures, and I could be swayed by people with
better
> knowledge on the subject. My offhand view would be that if no more
than
> 5% of the subjects would show signs of serious mental problems, that
> would be good evidence that the incidence was not higher than the
> general population; if it was more than 15% that would be good
evidence
> it was higher; numbers in the middle would mean that there is still
> room for debate (perhaps depending on how close we were to either
> side).
>
> Again, I am open to discussion on an appropriate list of players and
> numbers to consider high and low, but I think it is worth discussing
> rather than being viewed as a taboo subject.
>
> Jerry Spinrad

Jerry, if its worth considering this as a "thesis", its worth defining
both your terms and your subject population. I haven't seen anyone
react to this as a taboo subject; surrounded as we are with Sloan,
Innes, and Tomic posts, how can the subject of insanity and chess be
considered beyond the pale? First define "insane" as something other
than "handy word I found in newspaper database searches", and then
interpret the data.

Date: 14 Mar 2005 14:36:43
From: Jeremy Spinrad
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

The problem with defining insanity for any study of nineteenth century
chessplayers is that it would be asking for much more information than what we
have available.

I know of only one case where the form of mental illness is relatively
straightforward. That would be Morphy, who seems to have been schizophrenic
(there is a letter from Maurian, I believe, discussing the fact that he hears
voices). Even Steinitz, whose case was covered much more than most other players,
is too unclear to give a diagnosis as to the exact type of illness he suffered
from.

Most of the time, we do not have any indication of the form of illness. For
example, several newspapers report in 1900 that Schiffers (a prominent Russian
player, prize winner at Hastings, teacher of Tchigorin) has become insane, and
get the name of the hospital he is committed to, but get nothing more about it.
This is clearly relevant information for the issue of mental health of chess
players, but it would be hard to get much more, especially if I would want to do
this for a reasonable size set of players.

One reaction would be to say that since we have so little information, the
problem is unsolvable. I feel that the problem is too interesting (and has been
suggested too often in press reports) to leave to completely anecdotal argument,
and would prefer a somewhat unbiased look which is also within the range of study
without impossibly large amount of research time.

Jerry Spinrad

Date: 12 Mar 2005 06:20:43
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

[email protected] wrote:
> In my mind, anyone who
> is not willing to set up a standard of some sort must accept that
their
> opinion has no more justification than the opinion of the person who
> asserts the opposite view.

Jeremy, you may be confusing normal caution and skepticism with
opposition. Perhaps I have misread remarks in this thread, but the
general tenor seems to be friendly advice rather than rejection.

Some of those arguing the point are saying
> that this simply requires too much knowledge to measure, and I can
> accept that viewpoint. However, I cannot accept simply saying that
the
> thesis is incorrect because it hasn't been proved, and objecting to
any
> notion of trying to prove it.

I don't believe anyone here has said your hypothesis is wrong, and I
for one certainly do not object to investigating it. Rather posters
here have asked for definitions and evidence, and pointed out various
problems and pitfalls you may face, should you decide to pursue this
line of research. I would think you would prefer to get some useful
advice before beginning the project, rather than publish a poorly
thought-out paper and have it picked apart.

Taylor Kingston

Date: 12 Mar 2005 20:36:31
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

--
Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

> My research in 19th century chess has led me
> reluctantly to the belief that the incidence
> of insanity among great chess players is much
> higher than that in the general population.

Mathematicians Poets Chess-players and drama
============================================

I am interested for years in comparing
mathematicians, poets and chessplayers
with respect to the traits which the public
supposedly associates with the "crazy
geniuses" or artists and scientists in
general, including perhaps chess players.

I was thinking about compiling lists or
stats of items which are objective, like
suicides, longevity, tragic deaths...
It is also a pretty common belief that
homosexuals are artistically oriented
(more than the general population), hence
it is another item which could be confirmed
or contradicted by a reasonable statistics,
except that not much data of this type is
known.

"Insanity" is, as several posters have
mentioned, difficult to define, and after
agreeing on the definition it may be difficult
to verify. It is easier to collect once again
certain objective information, such as
staying at a psychiatric institution or
being diagnosed by doctors (which has only
a poor but still positive correlation to
"insanity" as perceived by common sense).
One may even collect the published opinions
which state about known persons being "insane",
but the treshold for deciding about someone being
considered insane by others will be difficult
to establish.

I think that insanity is much more spread
among poets than among chess players. The
number of poets who have committed suicide
is terrifying.

My knowledge of chess history is too limited
to attempt to say something new and essential
here. instead, let me say a few things about
mathematicians and poets, so that we can
start comparing these three groups, thus
understanding better the situation of the
chess players by providing a context.

*****

Anyway, among the greatest minds ever:

Archimedes Newton Gauss Abel Galois
Riemann Poincare Hilbert Einstein

(I stop this and next such lists with Einstein)

Archimedes was killed by a soldier;
Abel died from poverty and sickness
when he was still 26; Galois was killed
in a duel (or rather left to die), when
he was still 20. Riemann had poor health
and died just before reaching the age of 40.
Late in his life, Hilbert had a psychiatric
crises but had recovered from it. Gauss
was suffering from depression.

We see 3 tragic deaths out of 9 cases,
and one series health problem--Riemann
(but Hilbert was perhaps even more healthy
and psychologically balanced than majority
of people).

Just after the first league of the 9 greatest
and sharpest minds ever there is the second
league of men (no women so far), who were
impossibly impressive as well:

Eudoxus Galileo Fermat Leibniz Euler

Galileo was persecuted by Inquisition but he
managed to live (almost) 78 years which was pretty
good for his times. Euler lost the sight in his eye,
and later in the other one too, and kept working
intensively anyway. Otherwise I am not aware of
anything greatly traumatic in the lives of these
great people. And nothing like this about the third
lee:

Euclid Copernicus(Kopernik) Darwin Mendel

(only the last three are not mathematicians nor
physicists, and as great as they are, they are
not as strong as Euclid).

*****

It's neat to have a precise, limited table.
Nevertheless let me mention a few more cases
of outstanding mathematicians who were met
by harsh fate.

Pascal seemed to have certain psychiatric problems.
The founder of the Set Theory had sever psychiatric
problems.

Talented Russian mathematician Suslin died at the
age of 25 from poverty and sickness in the early
years of SU (there is another, later Suslin, known
for solving the famous algebraic Serre conjecture).

Pavel Urysohn, the co-creator (or even the main one)
of the topological dimension theory drowned in
Britanny, when swimming in sea in rough weather.
He was 26 at the time. He was a superb mathematician.

Great Soviet mathematician Shnirelman committed
suicide at the age of 33.

Alan Turing has committed a suicide after being
persecuted and de facto medically tortured
as a homosexual in the UK.

A whole generation of Polish mathematicians died during
the WWII, mostly murdered by Germans, but some by Soviets.
Not many survived.

*****

Some children of some great people had serious
psychiatric problems.

*****

Now a about poets. It's going to be very far
from complete.

The great Chinese poet, "Bannished Immortal"
Li Bai (Li Po), was an early master of
PR (public relations). As the result,
not much is known about him (possibly
he was a Turk--even his ethnicity is not
certain). In his last days Li Bai was very
sick. That much is established. The legend
says that drunken Li Bai had fallen from
the boat on a river, at night, when he tried
to embrace the moon (the moon's reflection
in the water).

The two greatest romantic Russian poets,
Pushkin and Lermontov were killed in duels.

Wilfred Owen was killed in WWI soon after writing
one of the greatest poems in English language,
"Dulce et Decorum Est".

Russians Jesienin and Majakowsky committed
suicide.

Mandelstam died in a Soviet gulag (details
are not known to this day).

The great Polish poet Kamil Baczynski
was killed by Germans, during WWII, on
the first day of Warsaw Uprising. He was 23
at the time. Also still younger Gajcy and
some other young Polish poets who were
underground soldiers, were killed by Germans
during WWII.

Sylvia Plath and Anne Sexton committed suicide.

Nobel prize laureat and survivor of German WWII
concentration camps, Primo Levi, committed suicide
in 1987.

A 2-volume antology of Polish poetry from 1939
to eighties, "From Staff to Wojaczek", includes
several poets who have committed suicide
(Wojaczek among them).

Tragically died 20 year old genius, artist (paintings,
graphics) and poet, W. Szymanowicz.

******************

if my poem does not make you
feel like suicide
don't ask me how are you
because i am not

****

discord

sitting next to the phone
doing next to nothing
tempted by the cord
something ot this sort

****

when falling from a cliff
let's enjoy the zooming sand
and hope for the merciful death
to catch us softly before we end

====
wlod

Date: 13 Mar 2005 14:58:14
From: Few Good Chessmen
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snip >
> if my poem does not make you
> feel like suicide
> don't ask me how are you
> because i am not

Wow...you must just had the estrogen spike! May be just my consensus but
aren't Women in the general population (statistically) are prone to
depression and suicidal?

>
>
>
>
> ****
>
>
>
> discord
>
>
> sitting next to the phone
> doing next to nothing
> tempted by the cord
> something ot this sort

He will calls...

>
>
>
>
> ****
>
>
>
> when falling from a cliff
> let's enjoy the zooming sand
> and hope for the merciful death
> to catch us softly before we end

He wouldn't be the last one...

Date: 13 Mar 2005 16:55:08
From: Morphy's ghost
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

In the year of our Lord Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:58:14 +0800, "Few Good
Chessmen" <[email protected] > wrote:

>"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
><snip>
>> if my poem does not make you
>> feel like suicide
>> don't ask me how are you
>> because i am not
>
>Wow...you must just had the estrogen spike! May be just my consensus but
>aren't Women in the general population (statistically) are prone to
>depression and suicidal?
>
>
This is an excellent example of why it's important to use good
statistics rather than rely upon making your judgements from anecdotal
information (as the original poster did way back when in commenting
upon chessplayers and insanity.)

In the USA in 2002 (the latest year with available statistics) 17.9
males per 100,000 committed suicide as opposed to 4.3 females per
100,000.

Fascism should rightly be called Connorism because
Fascist methods and ideology are best exemplified in the posts of
Stewart Connor. For example,
the blanket condemnations of classes of people such
as Correctional Officers and Republicans which Stewie makes harken
back to the yellow Stars of David and pink triangles that
the Third Reich used in similar condemnations.
The attempt to control the thoughts of the populace
by telling them whose opinions they should listen
to and whose opinions they should ignore is the
moral equivalent of jack-booted thugs wrecking the
offices of opposition newspapers in the chaos of
Krystalnacht. And in the calm assumption that
Stewie makes that his opinions and directives are
neither to questioned or doubted, but merely
accepted and obeyed, do we not hear the echo of a
shrill-voiced Austrian ennunciating the theory of
the Fuhrer principle? Furthermore, apparently Stewart
Connor has invented his own religion (loosely based upon the
works of Thomas Jefferson) in order to support his own ideological
beliefs, in much the same way as Nazi Germany came up with a new
religion to supplant Christianity. Finally, it should be no surprise
to anyone that Stewie uses the word "Jew" as an insult. Fascism
should rightly be called Connorism." -- Morphy's ghost

Date: 14 Mar 2005 02:05:21
From: Few Good Chessmen
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

"Morphy's ghost" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In the year of our Lord Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:58:14 +0800, "Few Good
> Chessmen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> ><snip>
> >> if my poem does not make you
> >> feel like suicide
> >> don't ask me how are you
> >> because i am not
> >
> >Wow...you must just had the estrogen spike! May be just my consensus but
> >aren't Women in the general population (statistically) are prone to
> >depression and suicidal?
> >
> >
> This is an excellent example of why it's important to use good
> statistics rather than rely upon making your judgements from anecdotal
> information (as the original poster did way back when in commenting
> upon chessplayers and insanity.)
>
> In the USA in 2002 (the latest year with available statistics) 17.9
> males per 100,000 committed suicide as opposed to 4.3 females per
> 100,000.

How does that statistic fair against the overall world population and
historical trends (I'm not good with medical journals)?

Date: 13 Mar 2005 18:49:27
From: Morphy's ghost
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

In the year of our Lord Mon, 14 Mar 2005 02:05:21 +0800, "Few Good
Chessmen" <[email protected] > wrote:

>"Morphy's ghost" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In the year of our Lord Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:58:14 +0800, "Few Good
>> Chessmen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> ><snip>
>> >> if my poem does not make you
>> >> feel like suicide
>> >> don't ask me how are you
>> >> because i am not
>> >
>> >Wow...you must just had the estrogen spike! May be just my consensus but
>> >aren't Women in the general population (statistically) are prone to
>> >depression and suicidal?
>> >
>> >
>> This is an excellent example of why it's important to use good
>> statistics rather than rely upon making your judgements from anecdotal
>> information (as the original poster did way back when in commenting
>> upon chessplayers and insanity.)
>>
>> In the USA in 2002 (the latest year with available statistics) 17.9
>> males per 100,000 committed suicide as opposed to 4.3 females per
>> 100,000.
>
>How does that statistic fair against the overall world population and
>historical trends (I'm not good with medical journals)?
>
>
I'm unaware of where to look for world trends in suicide and for
statistics going back more than ten years or so ago.

Certainly there are cultures where female suicides would occur more
often, although I don't know whether or not there are cultures where
female suicide rates would overtake male ones.
Fascism should rightly be called Connorism because
Fascist methods and ideology are best exemplified in the posts of
Stewart Connor. For example,
the blanket condemnations of classes of people such
as Correctional Officers and Republicans which Stewie makes harken
back to the yellow Stars of David and pink triangles that
the Third Reich used in similar condemnations.
The attempt to control the thoughts of the populace
by telling them whose opinions they should listen
to and whose opinions they should ignore is the
moral equivalent of jack-booted thugs wrecking the
offices of opposition newspapers in the chaos of
Krystalnacht. And in the calm assumption that
Stewie makes that his opinions and directives are
neither to questioned or doubted, but merely
accepted and obeyed, do we not hear the echo of a
shrill-voiced Austrian ennunciating the theory of
the Fuhrer principle? Furthermore, apparently Stewart
Connor has invented his own religion (loosely based upon the
works of Thomas Jefferson) in order to support his own ideological
beliefs, in much the same way as Nazi Germany came up with a new
religion to supplant Christianity. Finally, it should be no surprise
to anyone that Stewie uses the word "Jew" as an insult. Fascism
should rightly be called Connorism." -- Morphy's ghost

Date: 14 Mar 2005 07:19:32
From: Few Good Chessmen
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

"Morphy's ghost" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In the year of our Lord Mon, 14 Mar 2005 02:05:21 +0800, "Few Good
> Chessmen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Morphy's ghost" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In the year of our Lord Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:58:14 +0800, "Few Good
> >> Chessmen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> ><snip>
> >> >> if my poem does not make you
> >> >> feel like suicide
> >> >> don't ask me how are you
> >> >> because i am not
> >> >
> >> >Wow...you must just had the estrogen spike! May be just my consensus
but
> >> >aren't Women in the general population (statistically) are prone to
> >> >depression and suicidal?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> This is an excellent example of why it's important to use good
> >> statistics rather than rely upon making your judgements from anecdotal
> >> information (as the original poster did way back when in commenting
> >> upon chessplayers and insanity.)
> >>
> >> In the USA in 2002 (the latest year with available statistics) 17.9
> >> males per 100,000 committed suicide as opposed to 4.3 females per
> >> 100,000.

This statistic is indecision (Male and Female composition per 100, 000 is
unknown).

> >
> >How does that statistic fair against the overall world population and
> >historical trends (I'm not good with medical journals)?
> >
> >
> I'm unaware of where to look for world trends in suicide and for
> statistics going back more than ten years or so ago.
>
> Certainly there are cultures where female suicides would occur more
> often, although I don't know whether or not there are cultures where
> female suicide rates would overtake male ones.

I'll buy that. And FWIW something else might just be within certainty
although the subject may not be regular�

Date: 14 Mar 2005 07:34:25
From: Morphy's ghost
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

In the year of our Lord Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:19:32 +0800, "Few Good
Chessmen" <[email protected] > wrote:

>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> This is an excellent example of why it's important to use good
>> >> statistics rather than rely upon making your judgements from anecdotal
>> >> information (as the original poster did way back when in commenting
>> >> upon chessplayers and insanity.)
>> >>
>> >> In the USA in 2002 (the latest year with available statistics) 17.9
>> >> males per 100,000 committed suicide as opposed to 4.3 females per
>> >> 100,000.
>
>This statistic is indecision (Male and Female composition per 100, 000 is
>unknown).

You can check the NCHS report yourself to be sure. That is the gross
number, not the adjusted number. Adjusted, males were slightly higher
and females slightly lower, but I didn't bother wading through the
footnotes to see exactly how those numbers were adjusted.

The enemy fight in chains, invisible chains, but heavy;
Their minds are fetter'd; then how can they be free,
-- William Blake

Date: 12 Mar 2005 17:45:40
From: Spam Scone
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

Rob Rodgers wrote:
> >>
> >> Should the thesis be restated?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Anders Thulin ath*algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath
> >
>
> Perhaps one could use the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental
> Disorders) to help devise categories of mental disorders to study.
This
> link
>
> http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/_misc/complete_tables.htm#Code
>
> gives the basic codes for all DSM-IV diagnoses. One can click on one
of the
> hyperlinked disorders for more information about symptoms. This might

> provide a framework for formulating your criteria. Of course, one
wouldn't
> try to diagnose specific illnesses, but it would help in determining
what
> to include and exclude. For example, Steinitz's offer of giving God
pawn
> and move would appear to be a delusion or hallucination of the type
> mentioned for schizophrenia.

I think belief that such an offer was made by Steinitz is a sign that
you will swallow anything.

Date: 13 Mar 2005 03:48:13
From: Rob Rodgers
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

"Spam Scone" <[email protected] > wrote in news:1110678340.621229.95930
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> I think belief that such an offer was made by Steinitz is a sign that
> you will swallow anything.
>

What is the basis for your disbelief? Do you also doubt that his wife had
him committed to the insane asylum at Ward's Island in New York in 1900,
that he claimed he had telepathic abilities, and that he was held against
his will in an insane asylum in Moscow for over a month?

Date: 13 Mar 2005 00:08:33
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

On 13 Mar 2005 03:48:13 GMT, Rob Rodgers <[email protected] > wrote:

>"Spam Scone" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1110678340.621229.95930
>@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>> I think belief that such an offer was made by Steinitz is a sign that
>> you will swallow anything.

>What is the basis for your disbelief? Do you also doubt that his wife had
>him committed to the insane asylum at Ward's Island in New York in 1900,
>that he claimed he had telepathic abilities, and that he was held against
>his will in an insane asylum in Moscow for over a month?

The version I've read seems more plausible: A trio of amateurs sat
in judgment on Steinitz and published a claim that Morphy could have
given Steinitz odds of Pawn and Move. Steinitz' sarcastic response
was something like, "Even God couldn't give me pawn and move".
Egotistical, perhaps, but, in context, not crazy.

Date: 13 Mar 2005 00:19:53
From: Spam Scone
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

Rob Rodgers wrote:
> "Spam Scone" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:1110678340.621229.95930
> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> >
> > I think belief that such an offer was made by Steinitz is a sign
that
> > you will swallow anything.
> >
>
> What is the basis for your disbelief? Do you also doubt that his wife
had
> him committed to the insane asylum at Ward's Island in New York in
1900,
> that he claimed he had telepathic abilities, and that he was held
against
> his will in an insane asylum in Moscow for over a month?

No, because we have documentation for this. The "God at Pawn and Move"
story is an anecdote from Chernev, twisted by Fine. Here is Chernev's
remark from The Bright Side of Chess:

"Steinitz had enough [confidence] to
say once that he did not believe even God could
give him Pawn and move odds!"

And here is Fine:

Page 42 of The Psychology of the Chess Player by
Reuben Fine: "One story says that [Steinitz] claimed
... that he could give God Pawn and move."

Neither writer gave any sort of contemporary source for this story.
(Thanks to Dr. Louis Blair for providing the quotations.)

Date: 14 Mar 2005 02:53:20
From: Rob Rodgers
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

"Spam Scone" <[email protected] > wrote in news:1110701993.913323.250510
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

>
> Rob Rodgers wrote:
>> "Spam Scone" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:1110678340.621229.95930
>> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I think belief that such an offer was made by Steinitz is a sign
> that
>> > you will swallow anything.
>> >
>>
>> What is the basis for your disbelief? Do you also doubt ....>
>
> No, because we have documentation for this. The "God at Pawn and Move"
> story is an anecdote from Chernev, twisted by Fine. Here is Chernev's
> remark from The Bright Side of Chess:
>
[snip]
>
> Neither writer gave any sort of contemporary source for this story.
> (Thanks to Dr. Louis Blair for providing the quotations.)
>
If there is indeed no contemporary documentation for the statement, I
stand corrected. In light of the Chernev and Fine quotes, your
explanation is quite reasonable. My point, however, was that insanity is
a nebulous term not recognized by modern medicine and that it would be
better to use specific symptoms such as those in the DSM (delusions,
hallucinations, etc.) in trying to establish aberrant behavior among
famous chess players. Steinitz was only an example, but a valid example
nevertheless because of his belief in his supposed telepathic and
psychokinetic abilities, which, as far as I am aware, were documented at
the time, and which would qualify as delusions. Using specific symptoms
would enable an investigator to examine behavior more objectively than
the term "insanity," which has meant different things to different people
throughout history. The term even varies from culture to culture.

Of course, there would still be problems in assessing aberrant behavior,
but I think an approach that uses specific symptoms holds more promise
than searching for "insanity," whatever that may mean.

Date: 13 Mar 2005 18:56:19
From: Spam Scone
Subject: Re: Chess and Insanity

Rob Rodgers wrote:
> "Spam Scone" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:1110701993.913323.250510
> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Rob Rodgers wrote:
> >> "Spam Scone" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:1110678340.621229.95930
> >> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I think belief that such an offer was made by Steinitz is a sign
> > that
> >> > you will swallow anything.
> >> >
> >>
> >> What is the basis for your disbelief? Do you also doubt ....>
> >
> > No, because we have documentation for this. The "God at Pawn and
Move"
> > story is an anecdote from Chernev, twisted by Fine. Here is
Chernev's
> > remark from The Bright Side of Chess:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Neither writer gave any sort of contemporary source for this story.
> > (Thanks to Dr. Louis Blair for providing the quotations.)
> >
> If there is indeed no contemporary documentation for the statement, I

> stand corrected. In light of the Chernev and Fine quotes, your
> explanation is quite reasonable. My point, however, was that insanity
is
> a nebulous term not recognized by modern medicine and that it would
be
> better to use specific symptoms such as those in the DSM (delusions,
> hallucinations, etc.) in trying to establish aberrant behavior among
> famous chess players.

Agreed.

Steinitz was only an example, but a valid example
> nevertheless because of his belief in his supposed telepathic and
> psychokinetic abilities, which, as far as I am aware, were documented
at
> the time, and which would qualify as delusions. Using specific
symptoms
> would enable an investigator to examine behavior more objectively
than
> the term "insanity," which has meant different things to different
people
> throughout history. The term even varies from culture to culture.

Agreed.

> Of course, there would still be problems in assessing aberrant
behavior,
> but I think an approach that uses specific symptoms holds more
promise
> than searching for "insanity," whatever that may mean.

Agreed.