Again, why do we play chess?

Again, why do we play chess?

Hm. Like most "logic-based" activities, I would assume we do so for intellectual stimulation, which all humans (supposedly) need. But hey, that's just me...

Leo

Why do human beings do anything that's not directly related to immediate survival? Why do guitarists play the guitar, or painters paint? Why does the footballer play football? I suspect activities such as this fulfil a primal instinct of some sort, possibly related to evolved sexual selection, or perhaps a member of a tribe making himself useful by the application of logical thinking to sepcific problems, thus increasing his chances of survival and the passing on of his genes.

Consider, the modern sportsman exhibits similar physical attributes to the hunter of pre-history, the champion of the tribe. Thus, certain tyoes of inhereted genetic traits will have been useful for that individual's survival as a member of a cohesive group. Modern sportsmen have inhereted this trait, and since such physical skills are no longer necessary for survival, they find expression of it in physical sport.

As human groups are complex organisations requiring the different application of skill sets for the overall group survival, there would have been a type of individual who would have thrived on problems of logic, for example, how to best manufacture an effective spear. Once again, the need for such inhereted traits has been removed, but a small proportion of the population finds satisfaction in the game of chess, excercising as it does these highly evolved centres of logic and problem solving, albeit in an extreme and abstract way.

I'm fairly convinced that all human behavior is a result of evolution by natural selection, and so all human activity is as well.

So why do we play chess? Because chess satisfies the logical prehistoric tribesman in you, whose traits you have inhereted randomly.

Or that could be nonsense. Who knows?

ErrantDeeds-

Well said! I fully agree. Though I'm not sure many grandmasters would be... happy to hear that they have spent their life satisfying primal urges thanks to that first "logical prehistoric tribesman"  and really it's nothing more than that. Fortunately for their egos, I believe that it was that logician in the time of cavemen that made the difference for the human race.

Cheers,

Leo

 I do not believe that there is such a thing as a higher intinct. The only place anything in our brain could possibly have come from is Evolution by Natural Selection. There is nothing higher than the primal.

Heretic! 

*I was going to respond similarly, but you beat me to it.

No room for experience, learning and adaptation?  Outside influence doesn't play a role?  In the nature versus nurture argument you come down firmly on the side of nature?

My issue is with "higher instinct" as a concept in general.  Instinct is instinct -- no conscious thought involved, it truly is primal response.  Anything "higher" is, by definition, not instinct.

 Perhaps my language was too harsh. No, there is nothing higher than the primal, in that no extra capacity has been granted us that was not placed there by natural selection. However, this does not diminish an appreciation of beauty; if anything, it enhances it. We are creatures of nature who, by virtue of liguisitics and abstract thought, can use what nature has given us to transcend simple physicality. 'Nothing Higher than the Primal' - and proud of it. It's what makes us the marvels we are. Cave paitings are a primal urge to beautify our surroundings - this is far from an insult.

I think that's a pretty loose interpretation of "primal".  We've been granted incredible capacity for learning, adaptation and creativity.  While that capacity is clearly innate, the results of our application of it clearly transcend what is "primal".

 By Primal, I mearly mean that which we physialogically have as a result of natural selection. How is this transcended? Learning, adaptation & creativity are all traits that conferred on our species advantages that increased survival chances. In that context, these things are 'Primal'. Everything else is emergeance, directed or otherwise.

(side note - this is the kind of thing we should be talking about in the forums! Great stuff)

Do emergent attributes not, by definition, transcend the basic conditions that enable their emergence?  I see emergence and transcendence as nearly synonymous.

 1. It is only mechanical if that is your perpective of it. I find it quite staggeringly beautiful. We are fortunate indeed.

2. I do not deny the fact that evolution has granted us abstract appreciation. I wholeheartedly agree that it has. But the mere fact that this appreciation comes from evolution makes it, by definition, a primal mental capacity. Again, and I stress, this is not a denigration of that capacity; on the contrary, it is an afirmation of its wonder.

 Ah! Now that is an interesting thought... So from that point of view, something like, say, appreciating a painting has transcended from the primal merely by virtue of it's emergence.... Interesting. I'm going to have to chew on this one for a while and think about my definitions.

Adaptation and the capacity to learn are part of natural selection.  Experience, on the other hand, has to fall on the nurture side or the coin.  Experience, as it pertains to human beings is particularly special as humans have the ability to pass down experience through the millenia.  I think this is why humans have the ability to "transcend the primal."

So, to return to the origional question, why do we play chess? Is it to 'Transcend the Primal'? (i really like that phrase)

Yes, good point -- culture is a clear example, however I still think that in the absense of culture, an individual in isolation also has that ability.

Chaps, we should start a group on chess.com called 'The Primal Transcenders'

A group for those interested in the crossing place of the primal urge for logical solutions and a transcendant appreciation of the abstract.

That would make for a highly interesting--not to mention barbarous and unethical--sociological experiment!

I think that it has the ability appeals to many in the same way as great music or art does, but I don't know that that's necessarily the reason beginners who don't necessarily have the capacity to see the inherent but esoteric beauty get hooked.

I think that on a very basic level it appeals to our problem solving capabilities and, for the same reason puzzles in general are a popular pasttime (look at the incredible explosions in popularity of Teris or Soduku when they occurred).  We do have an innate craving to solve problems and on a fundamental (perhaps primal) level chess plays right into that.