Chess is not an art

Why do people say that chess is an art? Chess is pretty much the complete opposite of art. There are two sides of the brain: the logical/reasoning side and the creative/artistical side, and chess is all logic and reasoning. It's all precise calculations and deep thinking in order to find a rational solution.

I enjoy chess, but I do not believe that it is an art. It may or may not be a sport, but I will not go into that in this topic. But let's look at the reasons why some people think it is an art:

1. The chessboard is like a canvas where you can develop whatever crazy ideas you think of onto it.

2. The moves are like a symphony of music that flow together so well, but if one incorrect move is wrong, it makes the whole thing flawed.

What are your thoughts?

I go undecided on this matter

If you compare chess to the very basics of music (only tones and rhythms, i.e. no sound quality such as different instruments), you'll find the two to be quite similar. Just like chess, music can be expressed in purely algebraic form, which can be read and translated into a performance or just imagined in one's mind. Music is generally understood through sound produced by instruments, whereas chess is generally understood through visions produced by instruments (board and pieces). Once created, either can be reproduced with a variety of different instruments, for the purpose of intellectual or emotional satisfaction within the beholder.

You may claim that the difference is that nobody gets emotional satisfaction from chess. Even if that were true, the fact is that there's also plenty of music out there that can only give intellectual satisfaction, and they are more likely to be considered as art than as just music.

You know that feeling where you have just sacked a piece and a so nervous cos you don't want your compensation to evaporate and you just want to completely smash your opponent quickly but elegantly? That is like the tension in a piece of music. The crazy, manic, chaotic nature. The complicated variations that you are calculating in the middlegame are like the deeply complex and sophisticated contrapuntal machinations of Bach. 

The opening displays our personal style, our temperament. Whether it be baroque, classical, romantic or modern. 

The endgame is like classical music. Simple, logical and fluid. 

Sure in the future when opening memorization reaches a ridiculous amount and people hardly make blunders, the 'art' factor of chess will diminish. But chess has been and will always be (well at least for the next few decades) an art.

Da capo al fine

I am one who believes chess has elements of art, science and sport. The greatest players of the past and today create "master pieces" that long outlive them just as Da Vinci, Van Gogh, Bach , Beethoven and other "artists" did.

Interesting question. The best definition of art I can think of is the creation of something which has aesthetic value. A beautiful queen sacrifice followed by forced mate in 8 definitely has this quality. I suppose the only thing is, you have to be a chess player yourself in order to appreciate the beauty, whilst you do not have to be a musician to appreciate music.

It might be in the eye of the beholder. I've looked at many Capablanca games. I see move sequences that seem graceful, effortless, and elegant. The resulting positions are beautiful.

I've seen the same thing in computer code and well written prose.

Besides, both can be true at the same time. It depends on the perspective.

Chess games & studies have artistic value, that's certain

Humans don't play "perfect" chess.  Those who play well must be both logical and creative.  Since we can't calculate the outcome of every possible move like a computer program might, we must use intuition and artistic abilities to find good moves to consider. 

Depends on the extent to which creativity as against calculation is your generative process. Maybe.

Isn't art in the eye of the beholder?

The best part about a debate like this, for me, is how it leads to the non-existence of the "artist". A painting is just a painting, until the spectator calls it art, no? Is this not why a debate would ensue on the matter, because it's comparing 'liking something', and 'not liking something' and the gradations therein? Such as "I like that", and "I more than like it, I think it's art". But how could one intend to create "art"? The judgement always rests with the spectator, even if that person had, moments ago, made the final brushstroke on the canvass, that s/he is now judging as a spectator. The question of the author's existence is a wonderful, complex philosophical question

I've looked through all of these replies and they seem to be very interesting, well-thought out comments. The more I think about it, chess is a lot more artistic than logical. I mean, until we actually master the exact moves, we are relying on intuition to try to figure out a long term plan from just short term calculations and an overall strategy. Also, the tension that builds up after a sacrifice makes you want to know if you were right or wrong to do what you did.

ah Duchamp....

“The chess pieces are the block alphabet which shapes thoughts; and these thoughts, although making a visual design on the chess-board, express their beauty abstractly, like a poem... I have come to the personal conclusion that while all artists are not chess players, all chess players are artists.”