I think tthat chess is a mathematical puzzle, and I don't think it is a sport.

I agree with the author on the fact that one must have been exposed to the several facets of chess to truly appreciate it. At the same time, I think it’s impossible (unfortunately) to convey the “amazingness” of chess. But I guess that’s true for all games. Therefore some sarcasm/cynicism from some of the comments below is understandable.

In regards to Qubit’s comment, I disagree that one’s opponent must have a mental lapse in order to allow for brilliancy. Everyone knows that the true level of a game is given by the quality of the loser’s moves. Otherwise, why would you think that Dr. Byrne vs Fischer is considered to be the game of the (XXth) century? There are no obvious bad moves from white’s part. They might not have been the best moves but only a Genius is able to see that the Queen sacrifice is the winning move!

Anyway, in my opinion, the beauty of chess lays on the following question: how can such a game have so many facets, allow for so many possibilities, with such simple rules?

Chess is a game

Like all games played by lots of people (Cricket, Football, Golf, Poker, Monopoly, Backgammon, pool/snooker ......) there will always be people who are passionate about it.  The people who are passionate about it turn the study of the game into a science, the playing of the game into an art, and the struggle of the game into a fight.

As with all games, the lucky few who are talented can make a living from it.  The 99.99% of the rest of us play with all degrees of passion for the game.

Chess can be compared to ballet.  To some people it is a gracious display of art played out on a grand stage.  To others it is a waste of time.

Thanks for your thoughts zug, great article.

I think chess is fun.  Fun to study, fun to play, not fun to get beat by my 9 year old nephew (ok that's fun for him and my daughter and wife have fun mocking me so even that means the fun quotient is positive in total).

Chess is a 'board game'. I am sure everyone knows that. What varies is individual interpretations of the game. What you get out of chess is what you put into it ! Calling it as science or an art is simply naive !. I'd like to see a game by any grandmaster where he plays a trully beautiful game without any mistake by his opponent. What makes Kasparov-Topalov 1999 brilliant is that both players played those moves..If Topalov had played a better defense then it wouldn't have ranked as the best game of Kasparov...or if Topalov would've blundered his major pieces on 3-4 consecutive moves as well..it would've been considered as a mental lapse on his part than a brilliancy by Kasparov. Can a two-move checkmate  or the scholar's mate be called a 'brilliancy'? Something unlike in art [performing or fine arts] where Beethoven doesn't need a mental lapse by Mozart to create a brilliant symphony...and so on.

To some, chess is more than just a game because they put in a lot of effort to win the game..the point being is that they get the rewards/frustrations of the intense energy and effort they put in a single game.

That way, you can even view american football as a science, an artform and game all at the same time. For that matter any competitive game / sport ranging from sudoku, go-moku to rugby and cricket can be interpreted as more than 'just a game' ! It's just a perception which varies depending on the individual who indulges in that particular endeavor....

In today's world where eastern mysticism is compared to particle physics, anything can be related to any other thing in the world. All it takes is a fertile imagination and free time!

I truly feel that this is a beautiful article that like GM Kasparov says in his book How Chess Imitates Life, "Chess is a sport, a science and an art" The summation of these part and what they mean in this article is perfectly accurate and refelcts how I feel about chess. Again, great read!

-Tournament Director Christopher Weir.

I would agree with Robert Fischer, "Chess is life".

ADK

Chess, as well as life, is defined by its very lack of definition. :D

To uritbon:

Thanks for your thoughts.  For pure beauty and combinational gifts, study the games of Mikhail Tal.  He had the amazing ability to sacrifice at the most wonderfully unforgettable moments.  After going over some of his gems, you'll realize that chess isn't dead, yet.

Regards, Mike Petersen

(some personal thoughts written at the small hours of the... day already...)

i have thought about the question a couple of times, and came to about the same conclution, but then i thought, what does it take to play chess? what perception of the game is needed?

sometimes chess seems so dark to me, as if in order to play beatifull chess you have to build a computer. people now play for the win (=money,title). and leave the study of the art of chess to the poor computers who analize games relentlesly, and a few who dedicate thier life to the cause and publish a book. it is as if chess has been solved before it has been solved, the peak elite of chess do not have any further knowledge about the concepts of chess than thier fellow GM's, only a better preformance and use of them. so now it's all up to who thinks of the moves in real time, because they are metaphoricaly laid before you to chose? is the art of finding the right move over? is the mystery blown away?

but then i think about my chess and other players chess in it's evolving. and realise that it's still an art if you treat it like one, no man living can store the whole game of chess and the concepts that lead to win in his mind (i hope), the feeling of acomplishment when finding a good move is greater than the feeling when you beat your opponent in the end, so it doesn't matter if chess is so advanced today that double checking with computers is essetial for every move to be perfect,i truly believe that people will still enjoy the game at all levels, even when they will be no mach to the computer analysis and there will be a mathematical formola (i don't thinks it's that easy, but you never know) to solve a position..

i hope i wrote it clearly enough so someone would understand what i'm going through, i love chess but hate it, it's fasinating but boring... i hope it never ends!

To GreenLaser:

You like to nitpick.  Okay, how about this...Lasker said that chess was a fight.  I, on the other hand, said that playing chess was a fight, but you decided to ignore that, and proceeded to attempt sarcasm, but based upon an incorrect premise that I agreed totally with Lasker.  I do not agree totally with Lasker, only in part. Lasker had one of the facets, but not all.

Why not just read and enjoy?

Regards, Mike Petersen

PS - Thanks to all others for their comments.

Mike wrote, "Lasker said simply, 'Chess is a fight.'  This is undoubtedly true.  But that seems too trite to me.  How come it is that chess can be so relaxing, yet still be a fight?  When did you last get into a fight you came away from feeling relaxed and satisfied?" This seems to accept, but question Lasker. Yet, by adding, "The PLAYING of chess is a struggle, a fight, a sport," Mike still agrees with Lasker. Perhaps, describing what chess is is a fight or sport, or maybe a science, no, an art form. Oh! A mystery, no, not that. Yeah! Just another thread for us to weave a multi-colored Josephic wrapper.

Chess is about managing chaos!

Interesting topic. Nice article and well said.

The chess is one of battle-games. I agree with you that chess is science, sport and art all at once. It's very interesting to hear the opinion of grandmasters shall we say 81 years ago. Those are in my blog. (What is the chess? - Answers from 1927) Thanks you for the valuable article.

Eloquently put.

I agree, Chess is the GRANDEST game ever invented!!!

What an amazing articles! Truly GREAT

Wonderful...Simply Wonderful.