Forums

CHESS QUOTES WHO IS RIGHT?

Sort:
tarikhk
tarikhk
Dec 24, 2009
0
#21

well, speaking from experience, a lot of things.as with anything, moderation is the key.

kenneth67
kenneth67
Dec 24, 2009
0
#22

"What is this life if, full of care,

We have no time to stand and stare?"  (W.H.Davies)

[Just over 100 years ago George Bernard Shaw received a small parcel through the post. It contained a self-published volume of poems. W.H. Davies was a tramp on both sides of the Atlantic for 12 years rather than weeks, and most of that time he was motivated by nothing nobler than an aversion to work. W.H. Davies's The Autobiography of a Super-Tramp, published in April 1908, has seldom been out of print since.]

philidorposition
philidorposition
Show your flair!
Dec 24, 2009
0
#23
tarikhk wrote:
sicilliandissecter wrote:
Oldlad wrote:
sicilliandissecter wrote:

chess is no more of a waste of time than t.v., movies, or anything else we waste our life with. and chess is the one that involves your brain the most

Thats true but some of us strive a lifetime pouring through games, studying openings and endings and barely scratch the surface of chess. Maybe all those hours could have been put to better use!

true but what im trying to say is 3 hours of chess/day is more well spent than a movie or 3 hrs. worth of t.v., which is so common

(this is for philidor position as well)

not necessarily. Film is necessarily an artistic medium, whereas chess's artistic merits are debated; the prevalence of computers that are stronger than any human only gives credence to the fact that it could be argued as maths as opposed to art.

then again, no one can really tie one aspect that is shared by all art, therefore it is impossible to define satisfactorily, therefore this conversation's going to be futile soon.

 furthermore, you could conceivably argue( and this is not a view I hold, although I have a hard time justifying the opposite in my head) that art itself is not particularly useful for society, that it is the antithesis of practicality( in comparison to say bridges, roads, third runways) and waste of time.

My opinion is on that chess is strictly an art, so I agree that the conversation may become futile soon, we have different stances on the topic. Smile

I don't agree with the function of arts on society with you either. It's what makes us humans tick. Art is not limited to Mozart or Mona Lisa, it's on your chess com screen (the design), it's on your mug, it's on your car, it's on you (what you wear), it's everywhere.

electricpawn
electricpawn
Dec 24, 2009
0
#24
philidor_position wrote:
tarikhk wrote:

Playing chess doesn't contribute to the betterment of society.

Of course it does! Just like any other art (and/or indulging yourself in any other art) does. Plus, it's good to use your brain every now and then .

 Strenous mental exercise like chess has been shown to slow memory loss and and keep your mind sharper as you get older. So there is some tangible benefit to playing.

electricpawn
electricpawn
Dec 24, 2009
0
#25
Reb wrote:

Whats wrong with wasting time ?  Is there some commandment : " Y'all shalt not waste time. "  ?? 

 My Dad says the same thing and I agree! To Hell with the Protestant Work Ethic!

philidorposition
philidorposition
Show your flair!
Dec 24, 2009
0
#26
Reb wrote:

Whats wrong with wasting time ?  Is there some commandment : " Y'all shalt not waste time. "  ?? 

I think the term "wasting your time" means doing the some worse when you can do something better.

electricpawn
electricpawn
Dec 24, 2009
0
#27
philidor_position wrote:
Reb wrote:

Whats wrong with wasting time ?  Is there some commandment : " Y'all shalt not waste time. "  ?? 

I think the term "wasting your time" means doing the some worse when you can do something better.

 Who says you have be doing or accomplishing anything? If you're paying the bills and you're not hurting anyone, who cares?

tarikhk
tarikhk
Dec 24, 2009
0
#28
philidor_position wrote:
tarikhk wrote:
sicilliandissecter wrote:
Oldlad wrote:
sicilliandissecter wrote:

chess is no more of a waste of time than t.v., movies, or anything else we waste our life with. and chess is the one that involves your brain the most

Thats true but some of us strive a lifetime pouring through games, studying openings and endings and barely scratch the surface of chess. Maybe all those hours could have been put to better use!

true but what im trying to say is 3 hours of chess/day is more well spent than a movie or 3 hrs. worth of t.v., which is so common

(this is for philidor position as well)

not necessarily. Film is necessarily an artistic medium, whereas chess's artistic merits are debated; the prevalence of computers that are stronger than any human only gives credence to the fact that it could be argued as maths as opposed to art.

then again, no one can really tie one aspect that is shared by all art, therefore it is impossible to define satisfactorily, therefore this conversation's going to be futile soon.

 furthermore, you could conceivably argue( and this is not a view I hold, although I have a hard time justifying the opposite in my head) that art itself is not particularly useful for society, that it is the antithesis of practicality( in comparison to say bridges, roads, third runways) and waste of time.

My opinion is on that chess is strictly an art, so I agree that the conversation may become futile soon, we have different stances on the topic.

I don't agree with the function of arts on society with you either. It's what makes us humans tick. Art is not limited to Mozart or Mona Lisa, it's on your chess com screen (the design), it's on your mug, it's on your car, it's on you (what you wear), it's everywhere.

that's your definition. another person might say that reality TV is art, most wouldn't. There is no definition that anyone agrees with, only working ones.

and, as much as I think that there were creative, artistic elements to the early, romantic days, because it was new, being made every step of the way. Every combination that worked was duly noted, analysed, and the pattern leanr, thus turning it into an almost science. Nowadays, with the volume of games played, and the amount of literature on the subject( more than any other sport, game, whatever) it is 'almost' maths.

nuclearturkey
nuclearturkey
Dec 24, 2009
0
#29
tarikhk wrote:

and, as much as I think that there were creative, artistic elements to the early, romantic days, because it was new, being made every step of the way. Every combination that worked was duly noted, analysed, and the pattern leanr, thus turning it into an almost science. Nowadays, with the volume of games played, and the amount of literature on the subject( more than any other sport, game, whatever) it is 'almost' maths.

Sorry, but I really do very strongly disagree with that.

Madeinthemind
Madeinthemind
Dec 24, 2009
0
#30
Oldlad wrote:

My Favorite chess quote is by F J Marshall, former U.S. champion which reads..

"My entire life has been devoted to the game... I don't believe a day has gone by that I have not played at least one game of chess- and I still enjoy it as much as ever"

My wife's favorite is by Bernard Shaw, Playwright which reads...

Chess is a foolish expedient for making idle people believe they are doing something very clever when they are only wasting their time.” 

But which one of us is right?

Your quote is about the theoretical and idealistic vs. the practical and worldly. It's an argument as old as nature vs. nurture.

electricpawn
electricpawn
Dec 24, 2009
0
#31
tarikhk wrote:
philidor_position wrote:
tarikhk wrote:
sicilliandissecter wrote:
Oldlad wrote:
sicilliandissecter wrote:

chess is no more of a waste of time than t.v., movies, or anything else we waste our life with. and chess is the one that involves your brain the most

Thats true but some of us strive a lifetime pouring through games, studying openings and endings and barely scratch the surface of chess. Maybe all those hours could have been put to better use!

true but what im trying to say is 3 hours of chess/day is more well spent than a movie or 3 hrs. worth of t.v., which is so common

(this is for philidor position as well)

not necessarily. Film is necessarily an artistic medium, whereas chess's artistic merits are debated; the prevalence of computers that are stronger than any human only gives credence to the fact that it could be argued as maths as opposed to art.

then again, no one can really tie one aspect that is shared by all art, therefore it is impossible to define satisfactorily, therefore this conversation's going to be futile soon.

 furthermore, you could conceivably argue( and this is not a view I hold, although I have a hard time justifying the opposite in my head) that art itself is not particularly useful for society, that it is the antithesis of practicality( in comparison to say bridges, roads, third runways) and waste of time.

My opinion is on that chess is strictly an art, so I agree that the conversation may become futile soon, we have different stances on the topic.

I don't agree with the function of arts on society with you either. It's what makes us humans tick. Art is not limited to Mozart or Mona Lisa, it's on your chess com screen (the design), it's on your mug, it's on your car, it's on you (what you wear), it's everywhere.

that's your definition. another person might say that reality TV is art, most wouldn't. There is no definition that anyone agrees with, only working ones.

and, as much as I think that there were creative, artistic elements to the early, romantic days, because it was new, being made every step of the way. Every combination that worked was duly noted, analysed, and the pattern leanr, thus turning it into an almost science. Nowadays, with the volume of games played, and the amount of literature on the subject( more than any other sport, game, whatever) it is 'almost' maths.

 Although math isn't art, the beauty of it can still be appreciated. If you don't want to consider chess an art, at least aknowledge that there is beauty in the game.

tarikhk
tarikhk
Dec 29, 2009
0
#32
electricpawn wrote:
tarikhk wrote:
philidor_position wrote:
tarikhk wrote:
sicilliandissecter wrote:
Oldlad wrote:
sicilliandissecter wrote:

chess is no more of a waste of time than t.v., movies, or anything else we waste our life with. and chess is the one that involves your brain the most

Thats true but some of us strive a lifetime pouring through games, studying openings and endings and barely scratch the surface of chess. Maybe all those hours could have been put to better use!

true but what im trying to say is 3 hours of chess/day is more well spent than a movie or 3 hrs. worth of t.v., which is so common

(this is for philidor position as well)

not necessarily. Film is necessarily an artistic medium, whereas chess's artistic merits are debated; the prevalence of computers that are stronger than any human only gives credence to the fact that it could be argued as maths as opposed to art.

then again, no one can really tie one aspect that is shared by all art, therefore it is impossible to define satisfactorily, therefore this conversation's going to be futile soon.

 furthermore, you could conceivably argue( and this is not a view I hold, although I have a hard time justifying the opposite in my head) that art itself is not particularly useful for society, that it is the antithesis of practicality( in comparison to say bridges, roads, third runways) and waste of time.

My opinion is on that chess is strictly an art, so I agree that the conversation may become futile soon, we have different stances on the topic.

I don't agree with the function of arts on society with you either. It's what makes us humans tick. Art is not limited to Mozart or Mona Lisa, it's on your chess com screen (the design), it's on your mug, it's on your car, it's on you (what you wear), it's everywhere.

that's your definition. another person might say that reality TV is art, most wouldn't. There is no definition that anyone agrees with, only working ones.

and, as much as I think that there were creative, artistic elements to the early, romantic days, because it was new, being made every step of the way. Every combination that worked was duly noted, analysed, and the pattern leanr, thus turning it into an almost science. Nowadays, with the volume of games played, and the amount of literature on the subject( more than any other sport, game, whatever) it is 'almost' maths.

 Although math isn't art, the beauty of it can still be appreciated. If you don't want to consider chess an art, at least aknowledge that there is beauty in the game.

of course there is. I couldn't never deny that.

tarikhk
tarikhk
Dec 29, 2009
0
#33
nuclearturkey wrote:
tarikhk wrote:

and, as much as I think that there were creative, artistic elements to the early, romantic days, because it was new, being made every step of the way. Every combination that worked was duly noted, analysed, and the pattern leanr, thus turning it into an almost science. Nowadays, with the volume of games played, and the amount of literature on the subject( more than any other sport, game, whatever) it is 'almost' maths.

Sorry, but I really do very strongly disagree with that.

there is nothing to say that math isn't an art.

Bur_Oak
Bur_Oak
Dec 30, 2009
0
#34

I think you guys missed the point of the Shaw quote. He's not saying that chess is a waste of time, but that for a certain group of people to play chess, thinking they are being clever by doing so, is a waste of their time. To paraphrase the quote, chess is a quick but silly way to make fools think they are doing something very clever when actually nothing will ever show them to be clever.

nuclearturkey
nuclearturkey
Dec 30, 2009
0
#35
tarikhk wrote:

there is nothing to say that math isn't an art.

Ask any strong player and they'll also state that there's nothing to say to suggest that chess is even close to math. At a very high level above all else it's a game of deep creativity. The only people who believe chess is a dry analytical game are those who have never actually seen a (well annotated) top level match. 

tarikhk
tarikhk
Dec 30, 2009
0
#36
nuclearturkey wrote:
tarikhk wrote:

there is nothing to say that math isn't an art.

Ask any strong player and they'll also state that there's nothing to say to suggest that chess is even close to math. At a very high level above all else it's a game of deep creativity. The only people who believe chess is a dry analytical game are those who have never actually seen a (well annotated) top level match. 

on a human level, yes. It's a game of ideas and creatively setting about to have those ideas and plans realised, while stopping the plans of your opponent. I think the can of worms that I've resisted for this long is computers. Sorry to say it, but even after a man's superior knowledge of positional play and openings to computer, rybka will still come up trumps without some sort of odds involved, due to its calculative ability.

Don't think I'm slighting chess. Everyone's getting very defensive; I'm just as obsessed about the game as you are.

and nuclear, I pour through GM game after game( even OTB, analysing it myself, A new habit, albeit). I think this criticism was a little presumptous. Just to (somewhat) prove it to you, I like Keene's annotations very much, because they are backed with analysis( but not unmanagable reams of it) and I hate Nimzowitch's.

nuclearturkey
nuclearturkey
Dec 31, 2009
0
#37
tarikhk wrote: 

on a human level, yes. It's a game of ideas and creatively setting about to have those ideas and plans realised, while stopping the plans of your opponent. I think the can of worms that I've resisted for this long is computers. Sorry to say it, but even after a man's superior knowledge of positional play and openings to computer, rybka will still come up trumps without some sort of odds involved, due to its calculative ability.

Don't think I'm slighting chess. Everyone's getting very defensive; I'm just as obsessed about the game as you are.

and nuclear, I pour through GM game after game( even OTB, analysing it myself, A new habit, albeit). I think this criticism was a little presumptous.

I apologize. It's true though that anyone who says that on the human level chess is mostly a mathematical exercise hasn't seen any top level games. I didn't know you were talking about computers. 

Just to (somewhat) prove it to you, I like Keene's annotations very much, because they are backed with analysis( but not unmanagable reams of it) and I hate Nimzowitch's.

I'm sure you do go through a lot of games. It shows in your play as well. I also don't care much for Nimzowitsch.

EDIT:

Actually I will add that I'm not quite sure why you were talking about comps since apart from how they help us prepare they haven't changed the amount of deep beauty and artistry in top level human games as mentioned.

nicholalexander
nicholalexander
Dec 31, 2009
0
#38

i believe that math, at the edges, is an art.  an art of finesse, logic, finding new ways to combine old ideas... there are physicists who are inventing new kinds of math in order to describe new theoretical ideas in quantum physics and string theory.  

in fact, i imagine that how these gentlemen and gentlewomen think about their science is very, very close to how a grandmaster reflects on a particular position.

chris212121
chris212121
Show your flair!
May 21, 2010
0
#39

Isn't life itself (the perfect) waste of time?

Oxbloom
Oxbloom
May 21, 2010
0
#40

 Coming from a doctor, or a cutting edge physicist, or some kind of world-renowned social activist, this might be a biting critique.

From a playwright?