You might use a kind of decision tree to work out a strategy. If I play A, his next best moves are B or C. If he plays B I could play D or E. If he plays C I could play F or G. Etc. That is an application of logic. On the other hand, you might be like one kind of chess player, looking at the board and instinctively sensing opportunities and weaknesses, without explicitly thinking about sequences of moves. So you might be great at four in a row and use very little explicit or conscious logic at all.

Four in a Row Game

Any studies to back up the claim that being good at Connect 4 implies proficiency in logic?

Speaking for myself, there's more to logic/rationality than just being able to think in step-wise fashion from one point to another.

Nevertheless, someone who's a logician will perform consistently better (in games like Connect 4) than someone who's never studied logic in their life. The converse may not be true. Nowadays, computers can beat human champions in games like these using one of the most primitive of problem solvimg techniques viz. brute force/search.

The long and short of it, there's either no or only a weak correlation betwixt proficiency in the game Connect 4 and logical prowess. :snicker:

People tell me that since I am good at the game Four in a row I am very good at logical think.
Is this really logic at all? — musicpianoaccordion

Nonsensical sentences are never logical. Logic uses language and if language is used inappropriately, then logic is not present.

1. No punctuation.
2. Four what in a row?
3. "Logical" is an adjective. It modifies nouns. "Think" is a verb. Adjectives are inappropriate to modify verbs. Adverbs modify verbs. "Logical" is not an adverb, and "think" is not a noun.
4. "People tell me" sentence. "That" introduces a subordinate sentence. "Since I am good at the game" is a subordinate clause in need of a sentence. All subordinate clauses need a sentence. Your sentence is missing.
5. "Is this really logic at all?" "This" is a demonstrative pronoun. It needs an antecedent. The antecedent is not well defined, because the antecedent could be the fact that you won four (whatevers) in a row and that implies logically that you are a logical thinker, or else the antecedent could be the (lingually inappropriate and nonsensical) statements you attempted to make. In other words, "this" could be pointing at your winning four games in a row, and the relationship of that fact to the conclusion, or else "this" could be pointing at your ability to think logically.
6. Logic is a concept; logical describes that there is a relationship in which the concept is present. Your question ought to have been "Is this really logical?" You are asking if your gibberish is the same as the concept of logic, and you are not asking if your gibberish corresponds to the rules of logic, which you indeed ought to have asked.

Because of these six points my opinion is that there is no statement or claim made, there is gibberish, so no, your post is not logical and this (whatever "this" is pointing at) is not logical.

The OP is asking: (i) if you're good at four-in-a-row, does it follow that you're good at logic? (ii) If so, what kind of logic?

Answers so far suggest - (i) possibly, but not necessarily; and (ii) decision trees, which are one aspect of logic, but not the whole of it.

I would only add that asking the question does in itself evince some logical skill. Many people would receive the comment "You're good at four-in-a-row, so you must be logical" as a deserved compliment and give the matter no further thought.

I study logic and it is mostly about argument, things like syllogism or A implies B. Nothing of that seems to be directly used in Four in a row.

What kind of logic uses decision trees?


It is a misspelling of thinking.


What makes you think that a person who studied logic will be better at this game than a person who hasn't?
Let's assume that none of them have played this game before. I am not sure that studying logic helps that much.
What do you think?

Decision trees are extended syllogisms, like the example I gave above used in four in a row. You might not be using them consciously or at all. When you are playing, how do you decide your next move?

I'm not sure whether studying logic will improve four-in-a-row play. I can say confidently that the person who proved that four-in-a-row is a 'solvable' game - i.e. first player can always win on optimal play - was an impressive logician. Even if the proof was done by crunching cases, the programme needed to crunch the cases took a lot of skill in logic to devise.

I use the decision tree but also just playing as I already know what to do. It depends on the situation.

People tell me that since I am good at the game Four in a row I am very good at logical think.
Is this really logic at all? If it is, then what kind of logic is used when playing that game? — musicpianoaccordion

Every game requires logic to a greater or lesser degree. "Four in a row" or "Four in a line" or "Connect Four" does not require more logic than average. That is, I wouldn't consider it as a test for logical thinking. There are many other games that qualify for such a test: Chess, Checkers, Othello, Go, Sudoku, Rubik's Cube, Mastermind, Poker and other card games ... In general, games that fall under the category of "Strategy", "Logic" and "Math".

All that I can say is that a logician's moves are those that make victory necessary while a non-logician's moves are those that make victory possible.

I think Agent Smith has made the most intelligent comment in this whole dialogue. "Logic" describes a deductive or inductive system of evidence-based reasoning which leads to a definite conclusion. In the case of deductive logic, at least, the conclusion is necessary or unavoidable.

I think Agent Smith has made the most intelligent comment in this whole dialogue. — alan1000

You're too kind mon ami, too kind! Merci beaucoup!

"Speaking for myself, there's more to logic/rationality than just being able to think in step-wise fashion from one point to another."

Interesting stipulation! I'm sure there are those who would argue that logic/rationality consists precisely in thinking step-wise fashion from one point to another [provided, of course, that it is the logically NEXT point in the sequence, and not just a random jump...]

"You're too kind mon ami, too kind! Merci beaucoup! "

Mind you, Smithy, I reserve the right to label your posts as BS as and when I think appropriate...and I am sure you will accord me the same assessments!