I would have to say that what is logical is art and it makes sense to me now. I've recently delved into issues of intelligent design etc., and by some design and purpose, everything is in fact a form of art.

The rules of Go are simple. Players take turns placing stones on a board, and in the end whomever controls the most space wins. Also, if you manage to surround your opponent's stones they're removed from the board. 

 

 

Go is like a really complicated connect four. That's what I heard anyways. I only tried to play it a few times.

Everybody seems to be arguing on whether chess is logic or art, but here is a question: why can't chess be both? I won't deny it, chess is just a combination of logic and blunders. But should that stop chess from being full of beautiful tactics and strategies, and make chess not considered an art. No, it shouldn't. And also, comparing chess with a story is completely irrelevent. Chess is just a game, but a beautiful game. And on to the subject of computers playing chess. Does it matter who an artist is, what inspired his creation, or what he thinks of his artwork? Or does it only matter the quality of his creation? I think you know what I'm trying to say.

 

PS. How do you play go anyways? I always wondered.

"For example may think that two King's standing side by side are an awesome sight but in chess, on the board that would be illegal."

We only think that this is an awesome sight because we never see it.  

 

As for computers, I would say that chess played by computers is not art, just as images created by computers is usually not called art. We appreciate the flash of brilliance when a human plays a move that is unexpected but powerful, even if it would appear only logical to a computer. It is the human characteristics and limitations that imbue chess with some degree of art.

Still, I am leaning towards chess being an artful thing but not art in and of itself. As a mechanic would look at an engine or a mathematician would look at a formula, the beauty is in appreciating how it achieves the goal. A powerful engine will look beautiful to a mechanic, if it is only polished up. Similarly in chess, a good move will look beautiful, if it is only played with creativity.

I guess I could buy that chess is art formed by two opposing forces that tell a story. The problem is that computers can beat humans and without the human factor, there was no emotional struggle. This takes the feeling out of the computerized games and deteriorates the meaning. At the same time, I may agree that two PEOPLE at the chess board are creating a form of art because the best thing about art is the span of emotions it makes different people have. A beautiful picture, an odd sculpture, a classic painting, a play and dance all ellicit emotions.

Clearer to me, but not crystal.

A few years ago someone wrote a computer program that could compose two-part keyboard inventions in the style of J. S. Bach. It was so effective that people who heard Bach's pieces and the program's played by a pianist couldn't tell which were which. Relatedly, several pop labels have started to employ computer analysis of new tracks to predict, with a fair degree of accuracy, which ones are likely to become major hits.

 

I don't think that music has ceased to be an art form because of this. Not to get too philosophical here, but art is bound up in the way it affects and reflects the human condition. A chess player can feel and express worry, glee, anger and even humor through his or her playing; machines can't express those things because they don't feel anything.

 

You could also argue that martial arts ceased to be arts when rifled gun barrels caused machines to overtake humans in fighting ability, but I wouldn't. Martial arts are as much about their effect on the practitioner as they are about hitting things. You could argue that go, which humans still play much better than computers, will one day cease to be an art, but that reduces the meaning of "art" to "something humans do better than their creations."

"If you are behind in material and have a truely lost game then you should lose barring a blunder on the opponents behalf. " Pthaloblue didn't say the game was truly lost, but that one player appeared to be losing due to a material deficit (see Immortal and Evergreen games). And while I agree that chess is something of a visual art, as there can be beauty on the board, and appreciating that beauty comes with understanding, and it works much the same way with classical music (or so I'm lead to believe, I don't know much about classical music)

But where chess's artistic side is closer to that of literary art. Every chess game tells a story of a struggle between to opposing forces, there are sly feints, daring gambits, and shocking surprise endings. And they can be read read with just the notation, no board, no pieces, none of the artists "tools" are needed, only you're imagination, just like with a book.

And also chess meets the first definition, and possibly the second, and thus many of the subsequent ones.

"At times a player may have a material disadvantage on the board.  Logically it may appear that he will lose, but at times the losing player may exploit a positional advantage and find a win.  Is it pure logic?  I don't think so.  There's a leap of creativity that makes a really good player." pthaloblue

See, that's where interchanging terminology gets dangerous. I contribute leap of creativity to luck in chess. If you are behind in material and have a truely lost game then you should lose barring a blunder on the opponents behalf.

I would say that based on definition, there is an art of playing chess but chess itself is not art.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

"Humans use tools in creative ways, not tools themselves. Because rules of play are attached to chess, there are specific limiting factors that don't allow an artist to be free to create whatever he want's without violating a rule."  -Chess Dweeb

Artists always operate within some framework of rules.  Whether we are talking about physical laws of the universe or social rules.  The beauty in art and chess is creating unexpected outcomes while pushing the limits of what one can do within the framework of rules  given.  Artists are said to break rules- the truth is that they just show us that some rules don't always apply.  At times a player may have a material disadvantage on the board.  Logically it may appear that he will lose, but at times the losing player may exploit a positional advantage and find a win.  Is it pure logic?  I don't think so.  There's a leap of creativity that makes a really good player.

All of these are good points but golden mean and rule of thirds are tools/guidelines or illussions for an artist, not the art itself. These tools lack a creator (artist) and don't exist for use on their own. Because the chessboard has 64 squares that together form a perfect single square (I know there are many more squares on the board etc) chess qualifies as art. If we call chess art then we have to give vredit to the human factor, the artist for making it art. Humans use tools in creative ways, not tools themselves. Because rules of play are attached to chess, there are specific limiting factors that don't allow an artist to be free to create whatever he want's without violating a rule. For example may think that two King's standing side by side are an awesome sight but in chess, on the board that would be illegal.

I'm still not sure what the answer really is. It may be an unanswerable question.

As forests said, logic and mathematics play a major role in art as well as music. The difference is that art is made to be beautiful, whereas chess is beautiful as more of a side effect. Does that qualify as art? A philosophical question.

You seem to imply that what is logical or computer-generated cannot also be artistic,  but look at the role of the golden mean and the rule of thirds in artwork. Also, consider that computers can generate fractal art that many consider beautiful.  :)