Chess is not an art

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.

I can hardly wait. I got this high concept piece where I place a 6" Staunton king into a jar of urine.

Nabokov spent considerable time during his exile on the composition of chess problems. Such compositions he published in the Russian émigré press, Poems and Problems (18 chess compositions) and Speak, Memory (one problem). He describes the process of composing and constructing in his memoir: "The strain on the mind is formidable; the element of time drops out of one's consciousness..." To him, the "originality, invention, conciseness, harmony, complexity, and splendid insincerity" of creating a chess problem was similar to that in any other art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Nabokov

Hm yes, chess problems come closer to being an art form because there the primary goal is indeed to produce an aesthetic effect. But personally I find a Tal game that occurred in 'real time' more impressive than any composed problem.

The word tempo is used in both music and chess.

Chess also has rhythm.

When I play it, chess not only has rhythm, but also blues.

Placing kings in jars of urine is so 1990s.

I get a kick out of your tastes in music, electricpawn. You might be surprised to learn I used to own that Mothers of Invention FREAK OUT album, and I had ABSOLUTELY FREE, too. I should have kept those - they're probably worth something today.

BTW, I'm not putting down Johnny 'Guitar' Watson or his playing; I just think it's fair to analogize him & his music with a comic book when speaking of art, that's all. Some of those cartoon artists can really draw!

It is impossible to debate the question without comming to a an agreed definition of art.  But one of your premises is clearly incorrect.  Chess uses both sides of the brain.

Very well said!

chess is just a game, a fun game that people love, and so they tend to romanticize about it a bit, and begin to exhalt it, and before you know they've given it more credit than reality would.  perhaps a chess player feels artistic when creating new games which is sane, games are solitary battles between one man (or woman) with another.  There is so much beauty that chess inspires and so the culture that follows behind chess is a lovely addition to the world.  These things that accompany chess are beautiful, and maybe the time spent between two people (or less or more) can be considered art, but chess is still a game.  A beautiful game, and the people that make games and a game as fancy as chess  can be considered artists.  So my opinion is that chess is simply a game, and that art can be seen in all parts of life so chess can be considered art... if you want.

That the brain is sometimes thought of as divided is not a logical argument for logic being the opposite of art.  Not to mention brain function is not so two dimensional.  Also, you don't support your main argument which is that chess is purely logical.

Many beautiful things involve symmetry and and proportions such as a sculpture of a person or musical scales.  Logical things like math and artsy things like sculpture and music are intertwined, they're not opposites.

Relatively few positions in chess require but one response.  If logic and art were separated, and if chess were purely logic, then there would be no way to resolve countless moves without first completely solving chess.  When a person has multiple logical continuations their style and creativity shows through.  Sometimes these moves are based on factors such as the clock or the opponent's temperament -- very logical consideration but  they can lead to surprising and aesthetically pleasing play.

Of course like Trysts said, it's ultimately in the eye of the beholder.  Many people throughout history, not the least of which were world champions, have found beauty and art in chess.

Some things are more artsier than others though.