Aggression

I came across this and it struck a nerve with me.  I had the type of discomfort described in this passage long before I became a buddhist, and the discomfort is heightened for me as a practitioner.  Chess begs two questions for me: 

1) Is chess of any benefit to myself and others, or is it merely another worldly distraction?

2) Assuming chess has utility to a dharma practitioner, is there a danger of cultivating unwanted aggression through playing it?

"Our dinner* stirred up all sorts of issues.  I have never gotten along with alpha males and am unsure about the line between acceptable competitiveness and nasty aggression.  I had difficulty in gym class not just because I was inept but because sports seemed too brutal to me.  When is the urge to win not just about performing optimally and more about breaking your adversary, physically or psychically?  Assuming your opponent is not a jerk, is it immoral to want to destroy him?  To me this kind of attitude, which is common in chess, detracts from the nobility of the game.  Chess is said to be a safe way to sublimate aggressive impulses.  But is it harmless just because the aggression isn't physical?  The idea of "healthy competition: may be a myth when it comes to chess.  Can you really play a friend, go for each other's jugular, and be buddies afterward?"  ~~Paul Hoffman, King's Gambit

*The author had dinner with Garry Kasparov and found him to be wildly competitive/aggressive even in social situations.

What do you think? 

Here's a wrinkle....

If your opponent is not a sentient being, but a computer program, is the question turned on its head and now the aggression is no longer a whip lashing out, but a closed loop now wrapped around your own aggression? That is to say, you are no longer playing to beat another, but playing to not beat yourself (i.e. blunder)? There's no using psychology on AI, but you can fool yourself into making mistakes by being mentally lazy (e.g. assumptions, not going one move further, etc.).

One step further:
Play chess with yourself? The concept would be bootstrapping your own evolution: short-circuiting aggression with aggression by seeing the foolishness of trying to use your own psychology against yourself. When the feeling/emotion part of it exhausts itself like a burn-out defeats a wildfire, then all you have left is challenging yourself. You ever think what a game of chess would be like if you could hear everything the other person was thinking and vice-versa?

I have met Kasparov and he is very competitive. I imaging it takes that kind of personality to become a world champ. As for me, I play chess as a mental exercise and competition against myself. I try to improve and gain insight into my game and my limitations.

Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose but either way I just play chess.

Rich, can you elaborate on your second idea a bit?  I am interested in what you are saying, but not quite following it.

Key, I think you have a healthy attitude toward chess but wonder if you haven't ever wondered about the aggressive side of it as it relates to the attitudes we cultivate as buddhists?  With the amount of chess you play over the board, I'm sure you have insights that have led you to the place you're at.

To your point about Kasparov, having come close to the high levels of a couple of sports I participated in as a younger man, I found that at high levels the effort to cultivate/perfect one's own ability begins to include the cultivation of reducing one's opponent's ability.  Winning becomes a matter of being better than one's opponent at a given moment and that may include pulling them down below your capability. I found the whole thing very disillusioning.  I raise the point since it seems to be have always been a part of high level chess.

First off, a huge thanks to everyone. What a beautiful post. Well thought out responses from everyone. And thank you for allowing me to throw in my two cents.

I think this is a topic only a small percentage of the world would grasp.

Back in the '90's, the Chicago Bulls (incl. Jordan, Pippin & Rodman) were in a championship series with the Phoenix Suns (incl. Barkley.)

Right before one of the games, Barkley and Jordan were asked how they viewed the game they were about to play. Barkley was all, "We're going to go out there and crush them! It's our destiny to dominate!" Blah, blah, yadda yadda. Jordan stated, "I just plan on going out, to play my best, and to support my team members the best I can."

The Suns were easily defeated by the Bulls. And an objective observer could say "The Bulls crushed/annihilated/decimated the Suns." But, ultimately, one team simply scored more points than the other. And from what I saw, the leader of the team that one went into the game with total humility and a focus on helping his team mates.

I think the same principle can be applied to chess, as well as the rest of life.

I think chess, as well as any other thing in life, can foster aggression, or any number of other negative emotions, mind states, mental afflictions. But, it can also bring forth focus, nobility, understanding. It's up to each individual to make the choices.

If a child is about to touch a hot stove, you don't stand there and calmly say, "Oh child, I would please prefer it if you do not touch the stove, for I fear it will cause you undue harm, and wisdom dictates that you do not touch it."

Nope. You slap the kid's hand away, with an emphatic "No!"

What might seem an aggressive move has a noble motivation, and serves its purpose. The same principle applies to basketball or chess or anything else that's competitive. There are rules, agreed upon guidelines, and an end goal. Whoever reaches that goal first, wins the game.

Chess is a game. It has clear cut rules. You win if you capture your opponent's king. Very simple, black and white. If you don't have the goal in mind, something is missing, no? Why play?

But if one sees chess for what it is, a game, and is focused and intent on bettering one's own skills, then eventually you will win more and more games.

I believe when it comes to international championships, high level tournaments, etc. some may think they can gain a psychological advantage over their opponent by displaying aggression, pride, etc. And it probably is very effective against people who aren't able to control their own minds and emotions.

But my view is, and I believe that this statement will conform with the general principles of Buddhism, that a mind based on logic, compassion and wisdom will always be able to endure any type of aggression, whether it be OTB or from a guy driving in the next lane.

Kasparov doesn't win because he's more aggressive, or because "he wants it more." He has knowledge, experience and a synaptic nerve set up that create the conditions for him to win. If those things weren't in place, no amount of aggression or "drive" would have won him anything.

Once, when getting an in-depth explanation about the general mandala offering, we got to the "Precious General," who is supposed to be an enlightened being that a Wheel Wielding Monarch has in his cabinet. I thought, "How do I visualize a person that's loving, compassionate, wise, yet simultaneously responsible for such an aggressive thing as an army and carrying out wars?"

Finally reached a conclusion, and it was thanks to George Lucas.

Yoda.

Wise, compassionate, focused, powerful. Leads armies, but the motivation is pure.

And I wholeheartedly agree with Key. Chess isn't about defeating your opponent. It's about playing better than you played last time. That's the only way you'll ever defeat your opponents anyway.

May the Force be with you.

Always.

Dude, nice.  Very dude-ish. You do him proud. 

The guy who questioned my Smashing Pumpkins lyrics brings Yoda off the bench to play a bodhisattva position? Wow.... I thought I was antinomian!

(More serious comments later)

I had to look up "antinomian."  I fear I may no longer be qualified to participate in this thread! 

Yoda: Major archetypal image embodying wisdom and peace

Billy Corgan: Despite all his rage, still just a rat in a cage. (to use his own words)

antinomian: def: racial bias held against mythical humanoid woodland beings that are small in stature.

Deleted my post above. Have to remember not to post before caffeine intake has reached acceptable levels.

DOOD, UR DOIN IT RONG: you're confused with anti-gnomean.

The irony is that the opposite of anti-gnomean would be gnome-mercy (say it aloud... see what just happened?)

<laughing>

I should mention that I shared the original quote with a couple of chess-loving sangha brothers of mine and it was the catalyst for one of them quitting chess.  He had been very uneasy with the aspects mentioned in the quote, along with the obsessive nature of his enthusiasm for chess, and that was enough for him to step away and put the time and energy into his practice. 

I'm still too attached to chess for the time being, but I totally understand and admire the level of devotion and commitment he is displaying by renouncing it in favor of his practice.

What do you think?

I just this week read a Buddhist's blog where the guy quit his chess because of its mini-modelling of the birth-death-rebirth phenomena. He partially side-stepped the conflict angle as well as the self-improvement (wish I could find a link, but sorry). He couched it in terms of competition and being better than the other, not necessarily stopping himself from being bad.

He said that he was constantly trying to improve his game and that it was casusing suffering becasue of his fixation on memorizing openings, variations, etc. Ultimately he stopped playing because it was a time-sink. That suprised me that these other issues didn't occur to him.

Everyone's mind is different.

The first book that Thurman every translated was called "The Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti," who was a bodhisatva that completely lived IN the world, but not OF the world. Wealthy, involved in politics, etc. But, every single action committed was based on wisdom, compassion and the benefit of others.

Flipside, when I ran a retreat center, ran into so many people who were simply clueless, and wanted to use "higher" teachings as a way to get out of the discipline of foundational teachings. "Well, I know that's not normally accepted, and goes against Lam Rim/basic vows/etc, but I'm maintaining pure view!" They talk about maintaining pure view, but don't even know what the three principle aspects of the path are!

As for the "violence" in chess, there are violent analogies and metaphor used all over the place in Buddhism...but that's what they're seen as...analogies and metaphor!

And sometimes, seeming aggression may even be called for. I know for a fact that on the debate ground, opponents will yell, use derogatory terms, and even threaten physical violence...and all just to see if the other person can maintain there calmness and focus while debating!

Ultimately dude, each person is responsible for his or her own path. Some people can eat broccoli, others are alergic to it. Some people need penecillin, others die from it.

Some can play chess without any impact on their daily spiritual practice, and for others, it's a distraction.

If you've got your daily regimen together, and dharma is at the forefront of your mind at all times, I don't see how playing chess, enjoying a movie, etc. can be a bad thing.

But, if chess dominates your days and nights, you don't spend any time in study or meditation because of it, and you have mental afflictions because of it (anger, pride, envy) then maybe it is wise to give up for a while.

I hope this helped man.

Well, it is a clear definition of the issue.  As with so many other things, if they raise afflictive emotions that you are unable to work with either through taking them to the path, OR they are a distraction...maybe renunciation is the only choice.  I fear I allow chess to take too much of my time nowadays, at least without "sufficient compensation." LOL