Are We Looking at Chess All Wrong?
Sort:
Carwasher_Superdrunk
Dec 18, 2021
0
#1
I was watching game 6 of the FIDE world chess championship and a thought occurred to me: maybe we are looking at chess all wrong.
I think when most of us play chess, we are so focused on winning that we just look at it as a competitive endeavor. It's just a game, or a sport.
What if we looked at it as two people collaborating to create art? That's really how I saw game 6, and occasionally, I can see the same thing in my own games, even when I lose.
It just seems to be a healthier way to pursue chess.
Dec 18, 2021
0
#2
There are some people like that. I just want to win, but there was at least one guy I talked to at a tournament who said he'd rather lose 9 games and win 1, if the 1 is very beautiful, so he likes to sacrifice and play interesting things. Also he said winning in a dull way is about as bad as a loss to him.
So yeah, different people play for different reasons... as for me, my games are pretty boring 
Dec 18, 2021
0
#3
I play Chess to win. That's the whole point. There's nothing more to it, and I bet every master who ever played in a tournament setting agrees with me on that. Or in other words: A loser remains a loser, no matter what his perception tells him to believe.
Dec 18, 2021
0
#4
llama47 wrote:
There are some people like that. I just want to win, but there was at least one guy I talked to at a tournament who said he'd rather lose 9 games and win 1, if the 1 is very beautiful, so he likes to sacrifice and play interesting things. Also he said winning in a dull way is about as bad as a loss to him.
What he doesn't realize is that unsound sacrifices are not just dull, but ugly. He ends up making 9 ugly games just for one beautiful one, which isn't an artistic win.
It's fairly difficult to pull off a beautiful win, maybe we succeed once every ten tries?
Dec 18, 2021
0
#6
The same can be said of poetry, sculpture, etc. Not every work is successful, and in fact it often takes a lot of tries to come up with something beautiful.
Sure... it's art created through competition.
The moves and end result might look artful, but at no point are they working towards the same goal, even if they are working at the same game. They have no mutual team work collaboration mindset going...unless...you read an account of someone doing the other player a favor for a special game. Also ... unless they are working on an agreed upon draw.
You cannot focus on winning. You can only focus on avoiding mistakes that lose. To win you need your opponent to make a mistake. Game 6 should have been a draw. Nepo missed the perpetual check.
Carwasher_Superdrunk wrote:
I was watching game 6 of the FIDE world chess championship and a thought occurred to me: maybe we are looking at chess all wrong. I think when most of us play chess, we are so focused on winning that we just look at it as a competitive endeavor. It's just a game, or a sport. What if we looked at it as two people collaborating to create art? That's really how I saw game 6, and occasionally, I can see the same thing in my own games, even when I lose. It just seems to be a healthier way to pursue chess.
i might be mistaking it but i think bobby Fischer was the first to coin that idea, and i agree with both yours and his analysis
Booby Fischer quit because he was scared to lose the title...Later on he came up with 1001 excuses about why he no longer loved chess.
Chess is not art or science or sport. It is a medium so two brains can fight.
CooloutAC wrote:
JoeLovesCoco wrote:
Carwasher_Superdrunk wrote:
I was watching game 6 of the FIDE world chess championship and a thought occurred to me: maybe we are looking at chess all wrong. I think when most of us play chess, we are so focused on winning that we just look at it as a competitive endeavor. It's just a game, or a sport. What if we looked at it as two people collaborating to create art? That's really how I saw game 6, and occasionally, I can see the same thing in my own games, even when I lose. It just seems to be a healthier way to pursue chess.
i might be mistaking it but i think bobby Fischer was the first to coin that idea, and i agree with both yours and his analysis
are you being sarcastic? Bobby Fischer said creativity is far below memorizing and prep. He quit chess because he said it was all rigged by politics. But then again yess chess is like that when looking at as a fan. But not whn following or playing a competitive sport which is what all games strive to be imo.
just checked ( really should have done beforehand ) that tal said it was art, not fisher, but i remember watching searching for bobby fischer where it said he said that, but i should have checked
Jan 2, 2022
0
#14
llama47 wrote:
There are some people like that. I just want to win, but there was at least one guy I talked to at a tournament who said he'd rather lose 9 games and win 1, if the 1 is very beautiful, so he likes to sacrifice and play interesting things. Also he said winning in a dull way is about as bad as a loss to him.
So yeah, different people play for different reasons... as for me, my games are pretty boring
Sure, everyone wants to win, but one thing that amateurs must do if they want to get better is change the must win attitude to a do not lose attitude. This is especially true as Black. Equalize first. Then press! Sure, I win a lot of games as Black in the French Defense, but rarely are they quick. White would have to do something really stupid. They come from equalizing the position, and then White pushing for more. If White wants a draw, white has a draw. Do not press to win when it is not there - with either color!
The most important thing about the game of chess is keeping your king safe.
Another problem amateurs have is they do not know how to evaluate pieces. They see the Rook as 5 and the Bishop as 3 and latch onto it like it's gospel.
A prime example would be the game I looked at just last night. Korchnoi was White, Nijboer was Black, Netherlands 1992/93. It was a King's Indian Defense, and White shows what little material count means. For example, in the King's Indian, Classical Variation, that Black light-squared Bishop is worth more than a Rook. Korchnoi offers him the Rook for it, Black takes, and his attack is gone. Korchnoi won!
I want to win
Jan 2, 2022
0
#16
The idea that there is an artistic aspect to chess pre-dates Fischer and Tal. Botvinnik was the one that said "chess is the art of analysis". But appreciation of the artistic qualities of playing chess is probably as old as the game itself. For example, today Morphy is lauded as the one who first played with positional ideas--harmonious development, gaining a favorable position before attacking, liquidating into a won position when his mating threats had been avoided. In his day it was the creativity, daring, panache, pulling unexpected brilliancies "out of thin air" and attacking spirit that led to his contemporaries praising him as the unparalleled genius and supreme artist of the game.