Chess is not an art

Your pasta is a means to your end? Mine goes straight to my love-handles.

I could see you at a restaurant: "I ordered 'Schindler's List'. What's a schnitzel?"

If your brain could calculate 80 moves ahead with perfect accuracy, then yeah, you'd just choose the best move. But because of these limitations, there is a huge level of uncertainty in knowing what the future will be, and this allows for creative judgement, explosive moves, etc, and this definitely requires a certain level of creativity.

In fact, if I'm told a move from some master game and am asked to calculate it, I can do quite well, as I can see pretty far ahead and can logically slog through common tactics. But that's the thing. Finding those pretty moves and somehow having the ability to see chances (most notably, attacking chances) in a position that may look very solid, that's very hard, and I do think that lots of master games have that artistic feel.

So logic and everything is certainly a big part of it, but I think there is also enough room for people to show an artistic side as well. Perhaps this is more likely at very high levels, but I think in some way it applies to just about anyone. For a beginner for example, any sacrifice may have required them to really think outside the box.

You related to ilikeflabs?

I think chess is like a mixture of English (or first language) and maths. It has the logical parts and calculations of maths, but a few creative choices to express your feelings, such as writing a story or essay. So why don't people call essay writing a form of art?

What do you think of this, Guitarzan? This is my kind of art!

A little more guitar? Here you go!

Well, I'd say that chess at high level has elements of art, but actually calling it an art is a bit over the top. It is a competitive game with predefined rules and doesn't allow as much freedom for creative expression as art does. It is creative to a certain extent, but not every creative activity can be characterized as art. The primary goal of a chess game is to win, if the winning line happens to be also aesthetically pleasing then it does. For every game of Morphy or Alekhine or Tal that was filled with sparkling combinations, there were probably two or three that were decided in a Rook and pawn endgame or some such.

I've never really cared what art is, but I think people are overlooking a very big distinction between music (and most "art") and chess. Chess is discrete whereas music is continuous.

I suppose music can be represented discretely (in an mp3 file) but it is not feasible that a human could memorize any high-fidelity discrete representation of a song. It is very possible to memorize and exactly reproduce a chess game however.

electricpawn wrote:

"What do you think of this, Guitarzan? This is my kind of art!"

Hmm, ... Johnny 'Guitar' Watson, huh? I first saw him on Soul Train over 30 years ago. What a hoot! I guess if a comic book were art, then Johnny 'Guitar' Watson would be art, too - the guy is a cartoon character! Honestly, the most art going on there is designing his suits! LOL!

The point I was making in post #3 is that music can indeed be represented discretely, and that an algebraic representation is enough of a definition for music. A pianist can memorize the algebraic form of a piece of music, and translate it through his fingers (and feet) into audible music. Similarly, someone who understands chess notation can translate a game onto a chessboard. Other people cannot appreciate either without the translation.

Still, I would consider music an art even if it's only in one's head. After all, that's where it begins before it's first put down on paper. With the same argument, chess can be considered an art.

You say that it isn't feasible for a human to memorize a high-fidelity discrete representation of music. But for a computer, it is possible! That only means that chess has few enough variables for a human to memorize the essence of a single piece, while music has too many variables for the human mind. Surely, this cannot be the distinction between art and non-art?

Maybe his style of music doesn't apeal to you, but you have to admit the guy can play. I kind of miss Soul Train.

Well I'm not saying what is or isn't art, or that "discrete memorizability" makes something not art. After all, you can memorize a poem but people call that art. I guess I just wanted to point out there's a big difference in the way the human brain (at least mine) processes and appreciates chess vs. music.

But it brings up an interesting point. Is sheet music art? Is an idea in a composer's mind art? I say no - it is the performance that is the art. The sheet music/movie script is just a guide. But that doesn't apply to books... maybe I'll just declare this argument non-canon.

I think art is an abstract quality that exists even without an actual embodiment. Static art (paintings, sculptures, etc.) needs to be embodied for anyone to acknowledge its existence; but dynamic art (music, theater, etc.) only needs a guide to be written down, from which a performance can later be interpreted - and there can be different interpretations depending on the performer. Still, it is the creator, and not the performer, who should get the credit - if I recited one of Shakespeare's sonets, I wouldn't expect to be hailed a great genius for it.

Chess could arguably be a form of improvised dynamic art, and the best performances are recorded to be replayed over and over. We remember these performances by the name of the player, and not by the software we use to view them.

But that's just the way I see it.

This thread was good until it was hi-jacked by serious people.

Tdal gets medieval with an aluminum ball bat!

Sure there are official definitions, but in my opinion it's safe to say it has elements of sports, and most especially art.