Are chess "schools of thought" related circularly?

Philisophical inquiry. Doesn't require a calculator or a bong, just chillax.

Here it goes: Is chess theory is similar to the game of rock, paper, scissors, in the sense that most advanced theories of today could be trounced using the popular theories of decades or centuries ago; that there is really nothing new under the Sun... that, while we think we're advancing further and going deeper,  we're really just retreating in other ways? Or have we really penetrated the chess metasphere in a way we never could before, through the use of computers, and dedicated chess clubs, and chess.com, emerging with the most powerful, untoppable tools?

Kind of a variation of the question, could the ultimate conclusions about existence by science be in agreement with conclusions reached by simpletons eons ago?

I stopped reading when I saw it didn't require a bong.

In some sports, such as American football, strategies are indeed cyclic. This is because there is no one way that is indefensible, but rather the opponent essentially has to make some best guesses as to what their opponent will do. So one team will get a bunch of huge strong guys and clobber their opponents with strength. Then everyone starts copying that approach. After a few years, everyone is doing the same thing, and so all of the defenses are built to stop big strong guys. Then someone will put a bunch of fast guys on a team and spread them all over the field, and the defenses are all filled with big strong guys (and slow), and the fast team will have a lot of success. Then the cycle repeats, and everyone starts getting fast guys instead of strong guys. on offense, the correct strategy is to pick the opposite strategy of your opponent. On defense, the correct strategy is to pick the same strategy as your opponent (you only want to cancel them out).

While it pays to be contrarian in American football, chess is not the same kind of game. Chess is a game of complete information, so it always builds on the knowledge from the past.

Now when you talk about science eventually proving what the uneducated common people knew thousands of years ago, that could happen. I always think, it seems very plausible that we live inside of some kind of simulation, like a video game. Scientists go around measuring things and they say, "this is the age of the universe", but if we live in a simulation, those kinds of measurements don't make sense. It doesn't make since if you are in a video game to look at the sky and zoom in on some pixels and try to measure the age of that universe. Science does a lot of good, and it's probably the best tool we have to understand the physical world we live in, but it's just a tool, and there is more to the world than what we can observe and reproduce in experiments.

Well that's the fundamental point - since we *really* don't know the first thing about the first thing, all of our layered "knowledge" is total speculation at best. All of it.

next?

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy - I have no reason to doubt you, which is reason enough.

It's turtles all the way down.

I kind of think it does circle in manner of positional dynamic positional dynamic.

 Its a bit oversimplified of course and each time both sides are refined a bit by the other.

Anderson dynamic beaten by Morphy positional

Capablanca positional beaten by Alekhine dynamic

Karpov positional beaten by Kasparov dynamic

Kasparov Dynamic beaten by Krammnik positional

Krammnik beaten by a dynamic Anand

Anand beaten by a positional Carlsen

So who is the next best dynamic player?

near as I can tell, yes.

that meaning that chess openings popular in the past, are "rediscovered" by modern masters - because of factors that are pertain to current modern chess. 

alot of times, these openings are played differently than the masters did it in the distant past.  so you might say that they are reinvented by a new generation of Chesss masters.

IMHO.

I agree with Jimmy that chess doesn't 'retreat' as it discovers new ideas. 

BTW, when many chess authors use the word 'theory' they are most definitely talking about chess openings and not general principles of the game.  thus old openings come back; because of the advancement of our understanding of the basic principles of the game and not because there is some kind of loss of insight.

if you mean in the context of Chess, than absolutely Not!  our earliest simpletons had no appreciation of the power of a position and played strictly on the idea of attack/defense.

Keep in mind, these early opinions were formed just as several chess peices gained new powers;  thus, the earliest masters was just beginning to explore the power of coordinated bishops-queen- and rook. 

I suggest you read the works of John Forbes Nash, Jr.

< this dumb reply deliberately left blank >