Does chess increase violence?

Reb, in the course of a day traffic changes on the major city roads. In the mornings you have rush hour, this eases off, gets a bit busier at lunch, then quietens down until 4-6 when you get the leaving work rush hour. It can be said to get busier and quieter, faster and slower. On a holiday, traffic increases. You still get busier and quieter periods in the day, faster and slower points, but you get a larger volume of traffic, when it's slow, it's really slow, and it's harder to judge when it's going to be slower or faster. The issue isn't drier or wetter, hotter or colder, but increased extremes and instability in weather. So yes, global warming can mean it can get hotter and drier, or colder and wetter.

I can say I really mean it when I say thank you

shakje,

could you please clarify what is desired clarified? Still, I have the feeling that your wish was directed to Reb --- in which case I beg for pardon   :)

For many a chess lover, it is very frustrating to learn that life is not like chess. That science is playing its game with natural forces that are neither clear-cut nor neatly framed can make certain chess lovers furious --- since beyond human control drives. Also, having to face the fact that what one has done (screwing the planet irreversibly in a manifold of ways of which climate change is just one type) obviously didn't match ones expectations, is also a tough teacher. By our own actions we have made an planetary inheritance to our kids and the future about which only seriously impaired people still imagine is still the good ole same and better. The 20. century will more be remembered for globalizing environmental destructions than for certain often-named politicians and wars. In 1972 the Club of Rome gave us the first knowledges that something was alarmingly wrong. 36 years after we continue to propel blind violence against not only ourselves but nature in general. What we in reality see is the demise of capitalism, its death knell. Already in 1972 we gained knowledge that there must be constraints when it comes to the relations between science and capital.        

 

Chess is a clash of egos.

 

Interestingly enough so is debating.  Both chess and debating when practiced properly would not appear to be something that would increase violence.  And yet, when egos clash who can be sure of the result?

I am personally of the belief that the longer an arguement goes on the more and more it becomes about semantics.  This is not a univeral idea of mine but rather just something I find that creeps up.

 

Global Warming means much more than its name implies.  Taken out of the current context it would appear to mean that the worlds temperature is getting err warmer.  Yet that is only a very narrow look at what the theory behind the human effect (or is it affect) on climate.  The mere fact that the name is wrong create room for arguements... many of which are strawman. 

As I asked in my last post, can anyone truely say that they believe that human activities have had no effect on our climate?  Look at smog - and that is just small scale.  The extent to which humans are responsible for current climate change can be questioned but whether or not we are affecting it, I don't believe can.

 

As a side, sadly violence is human nature, it is a natural response that needs to be trained out of us to stop it from getting out hand.  Violence is natural, yet often not the best response.

Is it the chess that causes violence or the proverable pint?

Someone here said that Chess is just a character REVEALER and I agree a 100%. Maybe the only thing that makes it different from all other forms of competition is the fact there's no way to escape the evidence. If you loose you can't call it bad luck. In chess a defeat is a defeat no matter how much you cry about it. So you just have to take it like a man (or woman)...  and there are many people out there who can't do that, since they love themselves too much.

 By the way... I don't quite get the link between them; but if chess violence and global warming are connected then I fear for us all.

"and that destructive effects cannot be comforted as so-called 'side effects'"

That threw me a little, wasn't sure which angle you were approaching it from, which made it difficult to grasp the rest of the post. Thanks :)

 As far as violence is concerned, I guess I would say that anything can be used as an excuse for violence. If someone is in the mindset to be violent, or has pent up rage under the surface, they'll use any excuse to vent it, be it losing at a game, or someone looking at them funny. When it builds up enough, the violence will stop just being swearing at the closest person, and might turn physical.

shakje refuses to be objective, but has reduced his claim of millions of years of data to recent fluctuations. Such fluctations are being observed on other planets. Must be Halliburton is there. Who are you to assign homework? Do you explain how climate models regard clouds as warming or cooling influences, or omit them. You did not answer regarding clouds, moisture, gamma rays, earth's position in the galaxy because climate models not only leave out variables, but guess with the ones that are used. That is known as garbage in garbage out. As Reb points out, it is heads I win tail you lose for global warming true believers.

I am not sure does chess increase violence, but I am sure violence incresae chess. Or... errr.. well, I mean, u need to be very violent to be succesfull in chess! As me.

GreenLaser wrote: shakje refuses to be objective, but has reduced his claim of millions of years of data to recent fluctuations. Such fluctations are being observed on other planets. Must be Halliburton is there. Who are you to assign homework? Do you explain how climate models regard clouds as warming or cooling influences, or omit them. You did not answer regarding clouds, moisture, gamma rays, earth's position in the galaxy because climate models not only leave out variables, but guess with the ones that are used. That is known as garbage in garbage out. As Reb points out, it is heads I win tail you lose for global warming true believers.

---

I don't purport to assign homework, but assume, while living in my fantasy world, that reading the evidence that is there might allow you to come to an informed decision, instead of basing it on your own opinion while calling scientists unscientific.

"Fluctuations" is a nice term, sounds so innocent, so pure so pure. Fluctuations then, fluctuations now, fluctuations at other planets in the galaxy, always to be fluctuations, fluctuations on the keyboard when I am shitting, the ever constant redeeming saviour, ergo: science is, insofar as it transgresses the regime of "fluctuations", a game of guessing. Variables left out and taken in: guess what? Guess-work! Oooooh. (Argument is a thing that must be learned; not all (in fact, not many) have learned what arguments and reasonings are all about.) 

Of course little shit holes like Halliburton is part of that "real" that exploded the neat frame of "fluctuations." 

While some, then, can let themselves be carried off at a stars and stripes spaceship searching for fluctuations in gamma rays at the far reach of the universe, still others try to solve problems on ground home here. Pick your choice! :) Focussing on millions of years of fluctuations, here or there: perhaps to be relocated to more of a museological interest?

I do not tell chess beginners to read 10 books before they can speak with me. I don't write "tag you're it, I get the last word." As for gamma rays, they do fluctuate with the position of the sun in the galaxy and with the sun's variation in energy. Gamma rays are here, not just in the far reaches of the universe. Their influence changes the formation of moisture and clouds in the atmosphere. Is it proper to assume that is my unread, uninformed  opinion, especially when those factors are not addressed here? I earned a scholarship to college partly because I understood the greenhouse theory of carbon dioxide as a cause of the earth's warming. However, there is not just a science of global warming, but a politics, economics, and history of it. The idea of carbon users paying for dispensations for "excess" use indicates there is a religion to the politics. Can common criminals pay for their excesses by giving money to private firms that will immunize them for their wrongs? Perhaps, we will need to use the welfare state to pay for the excesses of those too poor to buy dispensations or even to afford the excesses.

Quote: "timmaylivinalie, do you think what you refer to as "your government" perpetrated the 911 attack and the assassination of Robert Kennedy? Why not add Pearl Harbor?"

The government turned a blind eye and allowed pearl harbor to happen to win the american public's consent. The US government has a long history of such acts. Please google video "terrorstorm." 

As for global warming? Please. Even if its not real, we still have an obligation to the earth to save it from the myriad other things we plague her with. As for the evidence, its staggering. How can America be waist deep in a destructive evil war, our environment going to hell, our economy bellying up, our energy crisis continuing to grow, and people still are freaking out about global warming conspiracists who are trying to make us live more green lives? Get real.

bastiaan wrote:

people increase violence and chess increases thinking

 

---

 Unless you are a woodpusher . But in my personal opinion chess surely isn't what you call a violent sport...

American scientists from NSIDC, in Colorado, recently warned that Arctic may be without ice already this summer --- and it is at least 100.000 years since that last happened. The ice layers are both thinner and younger than ever before observed, and it happens faster than what models have suggested, much faster. It is a known fact that while cooling of the earth happens very, very slowly, heating happens fast; the problem of our times is that now it happens faster than ever observed/measured. Since the 70s the Arctic ice has shrunk by 8% a decennium. But last year it was 40% below the "normal." UN's IPCC has earlier suggested this to happen at the end of this century --- clearly too mild a prognosis, to say the least.

I agree with Greenlaser that it is bull to have people pay for dispensations; payments wont help much. And I also see that such a thought invites religion into it. And religion is always a problem, bigger now than ever before. What we need to acknowledge, however, is that such environmental catastrophes are the very death knell of capitalism, and that, therefore, capitalism is definitely not the end (goal, meaning) of mankind's history. Capitalism's chremastics (since, strictly speaking, the term, definition, and meaning of 'economy' is not known to capitalism) is simply the general and systematical plan for the fastest possible way to the ruination of the planet and the undermining of vital conditions of possibility of any future life form. And since capitalism's other, communism, shares too many of capitalism's flaws, there is a need to rethink the whole edifice of economy and politics --- and science. What tasks are to be set, what responsibilities are to be set, what science and technology is capable of and not. In my own opinion democracy is clearly not sufficient (failed by test) to secure a responsible securing of just the same resources and conditions that all generations before actually have enjoyed --- erhm, that is, up till our generation. A "flat" political system (like democracy) only takes into consideration its own "flat" population, its contemporary needs, its wishes, its dreams, its fears. Such a naive, rather cute, political system we have been able to afford for a long time, but when, as happens now, our own democratically motivated actions explode those naive frames and start eating into the very future itself, then clearly we need large measures of re-thinking. We need a politics that incorporates the human rights of future generations no less than existing ones, and democratic measures (remember that democracy was built (partly idea/partly realized) already 500BC) are simply not cut out for our current and future challenges. It would be silly to think that political ideas framed 2500 years ago still fit the planet. At that time they simply had no idea that humankind's actions could ever be such planetary and "futurally" destructive. Certain conclusions are easily drawn from here. 

 

:) 

I wasn't asking you to do homework, merely look at evidence. You lambasted schools for not teaching scientific method, and refuse to look at evidence that does not support your opinion. Without evidence, all it is is opinion.

If a beginner told you that 1. h3 ... 2. a3 ... 3. Ra2 was a great opening would you correct them? If they asked you how you knew that it was a bad idea would you not point out that years of chess theory has shown it to be bad and point them in the direction of some books on opening theory? It's not a case of saying "you can't talk to me" if you haven't read it, but unless you look at the evidence or provide some of your own, there's no reason to continue telling you that your opinion is wrong.

The average temperature of the entire solar system has been increasing in recent years, not just on Earth. I suppose the warming of the other planets has to do with human activity as well. Human activity as a cause of global warming is a crock. They can't even blame the right greenhouse gas. The majority greenhouse gas (and by FAR the majority) is water vapor NOT carbon dioxide.CO2 is only something like 1/2 of 1% of the total greenhouse gases so how can even an increase of as large as 50% have a measurable effect? All the greenhouse gases combined are still only a tiny fraction of the total atmosphere. Nitrogen (an inert gas is still the largest component of the atmosphere followed by oxygen). Anyone who can't see the complete fallacy of logic in the idea that an increase in a minority gas among a group of minority gases is somehow going to destroy the planet has been thoroughly indoctrinated beyond all hope of ever seeing the light of reason. Global warming and cooling are natural phenomena that happen in cycles, not anything that we need to be taking the blame for or doing anything to prevent because we CAN'T prevent it because we are NOT the cause of it.

Because you have read the sources I posted which explain why natural warming does not explain the current climate change.

It is always entertaining to watch people --- throwing some numbers on a dice in the air --- gainsay a whole generation of scientists from all over the world. Now, the evidence is not only from scientific communities; it also comes from those who for their work have to rely on nature's patterns.

Now, who is the hysterical, the irrational? The global scientific community, with generations of contributions to build their knowledge? Or the ones that base their opinions on a few eccentrics, eccentrics that having been expelled from established science find new life and their redeemer in being the cherished object for a media that has assigned itself the heroic mission of presenting a "balanced" picture?

 

rubenshein questions capitalism and democracy. Capitalism is what people do when they are left alone. This is essential to democracy. If we collectivize, we could end up with a tyranny worse than that of an individual selfish, cruel ruler because a torturer whose actions are "for our own good" is often worse.

Shakje still assumes opinions different from his must be due to not reading. Yet, he cannot reply to factors such as gamma rays and ice ages without saying, go read. When shakje defends the integrity of scientists, he ignores the scientific experts who testify at a trials on both sides as hired guns.

MarshallDillon (Gunsmoke was great!) mentions CO2. It was political not scientific that the US Supreme Court ruled CO2 is a pollutant.

Again to remind everyone of the sun's role, do you know that for 50 years during the Little Ice Age, there were no observed sunspots?