the belief that chess is war

He didn't defect to the communist nations. They will welcome him.

Chess was literally designed for the purpose of replicating war, but from a leader's perspective. You don't experience the battle; you experience the tactics and puzzles of commanding the army.

Do some reading and stop preaching your pacifism lmao.

Wow. Reread my posts. Especially my last one. I'm thinking Multicultural bishops is Exhibit 1 in my thesis...you need ludes man. Ludes

If that's a thesis then save your ludes for yourself. Yeah chess is series of puzzles, and so is war. In the realm of the chess board, you are battling an opponent with your army of pieces versus their army of pieces - it is the literal definition of warfare. Saying that it's ridiculous to see it that way is just your opinion of failing to recognize what chess was designed to be - a war simulator

So...you didn't read my posts, and you didn't take ludes. You don't follow instructions well

"Chess is above all a fight"--Emanuel Lasker. Principally it is a clash of ideas--which player's evaluation of the salient features of the position and their choice of means to exploit them is superior. An element of intimidation is present--who can take the other player out of their plan, who can make the other uncomfortable and unsure, leading to errors.

Some players need to build up a hatred for the opponent to "ratchet up" their determination and concentration. For example, "Viktor the Terrible" Korchnoi would work himself to such a rage that he would kick his opponent under the table, do everything possible to distract them, rave about how players that defeated him were cheating, and carry a grudge for years. Polugaevsky said Korchnoi told him in the early 1990s "We must do something about Petrosian" (who died in 1984).

"Precursors to chess originated in India.[3] There, its early form in the 7th century CE was known as chaturaṅga (Sanskrit: चतुरङ्ग), which translates to "four divisions (of the military)": infantry, cavalry, elephantry, and chariotry. These forms are represented by the pieces that would evolve into the modern pawn, knight, bishop, and rook, respectively.[4]"

Seriously, look up some history of the origins of the game before you say it has nothing to do with war

We should change that perception. Just like we change our perception of women's role.

Llama with the smack down! And to the guy that says we should change our perception/perspective: exactly. Citing the 13th century as the "correct" way to conceptualize the game seems to be a weak argument.

Chess is NOT Consider a war games, in a war, you need to face your opponents face-to-face without thinking any tactical sacrifice or deep calculations, something you will never see in any kind of war.

Chaturanga was probably thought of as a war game and some people have certainly thought of the assorted evolutions of chess as a war games. And there are some strategies that are effective in both war and chess, such as rapid deployment and concentration of force.

But as a game simulating war ... chess is HORRIBLE. The sides take turns moving, the forces are always evenly matched, there is no terrain to speak of, both sides have perfect knowledge, an "attack" on a piece always succeeds, the troops are never affected by moral and fatigue, and on and on.

To be good at chess, you need to study chess as an abstract game, not as warfare.

Chess!

Good God, Y'all

What is it good for?

Opinions may vary, but I am in no position to question Bobby Fischer, who knew the tactics, psychology and philosophy of the game more infinitely than I can ever dream of.

Blundering my queenie lol

It is.

i don't care

nobody cares

nobody asked

Again, I'm not asking what chess is, I opined on the relationship between anger/rage at losing with the conceptualization of chess as war.

When I beat my elder brother in other games like checkers, Othello, he accepted loss calmly. When I beat him in chess, he raged.