Does "Chess" Exist?

This parodying needs to stop.

"Cogito ergo sum...", Rene Descartes

No, it doesn't.  And stop mimicking Capablanca.

If you think a thread is stupid, don't read it, don't post in it.  Don't parody it.  Just don't have anything to do with it.

* Ahem *

1. Giving orders, again?

2. Try living up to your own advice.

If it is about going off-topic, I am not going off-topic, as this thread is a parody, and I am talking about parodying.

Why?  I happen to think parody is fun.  I was also under the impression that this whole post was a parody; I mean, not that oinquarki is ever anything other than completely on the level of course...

Because it is extremely rude to the person being parodied.

Uh-oh, looks like we got us another politenik on our hands.  I've noticed that "extreme rudeness" is often in the eye of the beholder; but maybe--just maybe--the average chessplayer could benefit by being a little less stiff, serious-minded and strait-laced.  I mean, why look like this:

When you can look like this?:

Im lovin teh parody

I play chess therefore i am, therefore chess is, but "is" my opponent ? (not so sure)

Chess exists as a name only. The idea itself is cognitive. Take for instance high level players who can play entire games in their head. In that case the game doesnt fit the always accurate wikipedia definition but its still considered 'chess'.. but what chess really is, and what its defined by is its rules and limitations. Take for instance those puzzles that make you form a picture by sliding the squares horizontally(preferably lol) or vertically. The game itself is created by not being able to move the pieces freely, but only in a certain way just like chess pieces.

To exist is to exist as something, meaning to be bound by finite limits which define the actual thing that exists (since per law of identity, a thing is what it is or A = A). Chess by its very rules and logically finite possibilities therefore not only exists but defines the very essence of existence...you cannot speak of the concept of existence without invoking chess.

You, however...I have no idea who or what the f--k you are, therefore you don't exist.  You don't think, therefore you are not. Who am I addressing?  Exactly. Does the addressee exist?  Go back to the first sentence of this paragraph D.C. al fine...uh...fine. 

Hash brownies, shredded, not cut: they define existence as well since they are limited by their composition (ingredients) and texture (shredded, not cut). Therefore, they too exist and play chess?!...I gotta think about that one. Just re-read the first 2 paragraphs and forget this one...no, no...just read the first paragraph...those are MY hash brownies.

 If Plato didn't exist, then who created Socrates?

Xenophon

 P'shaw, he hated folks who weren't Athenian.  It's not politically correct to consider him real.

Also invented by Plato, I reckon.

The OP says chess doesn't exist--then immediately goes on to explain how Chess exists.

WRONG!  Each player begins the game with eight pieces and eight pawns!  Pawns are not pieces, thus making your whole argument invalid...