You can define the point of chess to be anything. Checkmate, loss, stalemate, drawn by agreement, or even lasting as moves as you can. OR EVEN SUCIDE CHESS of least moves a game is finished. By that relative perspective each person in the world with their unique thinking process approaches the game in their own logic. Thus no 'winners' or 'losers'. Jus sayin. It baffles me how people resigns instead of just playing for ffs.
Philosophy, chess, intelligence and Turing Test
Sort:
You see... suppose the purpose was not to win, not to lose, not to get lowest rating (by this thread I am not defending my low rating or lamenting not to play like Carlsen...) but:
Suppose you want to design an AI and the Turing machine is so intelligent that it doesn't play like a machine brutally moving forward with incremenatal inch by inch gain.
Rather he depicts a weak human. He plays like a flawed, old, feeble weak player.
And fools the judge.
Thoughts?"