We can hardly analyse our mental features[1]. We appreciate them only in their effects[2]. We know, that they are a source of the largest enjoyment. As the athlete finds his delight in the hardest exercises, so the analyst finds pleasure in enigmas, conundrums, and hieroglyphics. An ordinary man thinks that it is just magic. The wonderful results have, in truth[3], the whole air of intuition.
The faculty of resolution can possibly exist thanks to the mathematical study, and especially to that highest branch of it which is called analysis. But to calculate does not mean to analyse. A chess-player, for example, calculates but he does not analyse. So the game of chess is greatly misunderstood. I am not now writing a treatise, but I am sure that the game of draughts[4] is much cleverer than chess. In chess, what is only complex is mistaken (a not unusual error[5]) for what is profound. The most important thing here is attention. If an oversight is committed, there is a defeat. The chances of such oversights are multiplied; and in nine cases out of ten[6] it is the more concentrative rather than the more acute player who conquers. In draughts, on the contrary, where the moves are unique, less attention is required. To be less abstract-let us suppose a game of draughts where the pieces are reduced to four kings[7], and where, of course, no oversight is to be expected. It is obvious that here the victory can come only by the good movement, the result of some strong exertion of the intellect. The analyst tries to understand the spirit of his opponent, identifies himself therewith[8], and very often sees thus, at a glance[9], the sole simple methods by which he may hurry into miscalculation.
Whist[10] is famous for its calculating power; and men of the highest order of intellect are known to play it, while eschewing chess as frivolous. Beyond doubt it demands the faculty of analysis. The best chess-player in the world is merely the player of chess; but proficiency in whist implies capacity for success, here mind struggles with mind. I mean that perfection in the game which includes a comprehension of all the sources which lead to the victory. This is inaccessible to the ordinary understanding. To observe attentively is to remember distinctly; and, so far[11], the concentrative chess-player will do very well at whist. People think that to play well just means to know how to play. But the analyst makes, in silence, many observations and inferences. So, perhaps, do his companions; and the difference lies in the quality of the observation. Our player examines the face of his partner, comparing it carefully with that of each of his opponents. He notices the cards in each hand; often guessing them through the glances bestowed by their holders upon each[12]. He notes every variation of face as the play progresses, thinking about the expression of certainty, of surprise, of triumph, or of chagrin.
The analytical power should not be confounded with simple ingenuity; for while the analyst is necessarily ingenious, the ingenious man is often incapable of analysis. Between ingenuity and the analytic ability there exists a difference far greater, indeed, than that between the fancy and the imagination. In fact, the ingenious are always fanciful, and the truly imaginative are often analytic.