Great (Chess) Art Begins Where (Chess) Grammar Ends

Donde termina la gramatica empieza el gran arte.—Pedro Henriquez Ureña (1884-1946)

Ureña was a Dominican essayist, philosopher, humanist and philologist who taught a generation of Latin American cultural figures (Ernesto Sabado was one of his pupils) that they weren't living in a backwater after all, but that they were actually at the forefront of the revival of civilization in the Spanish world.

"The above maxim is certainly true for literature, and by extension for all other arts: a thorough technical competence is the climbing frame for inspiration. Inspiration might never come, of course — there are plenty of well-schooled mediocrities in every field — but if it comes to the unprepared the result is a breech birth at best."— Clive James, Cultural Amnesia

If chess has elements of art, then the quote applies to it, too.

To be successful in chess, and to become sort of chess artist, we need to acquire a set of essentials, let's call it Chess Grammar. The trick is to see the art latent in the grammar, and to realize what the grammar can release when it is mastered: expression.

Now the question is, WHAT CONSTITUTES GRAMMAR OF CHESS LANGUAGE?

.

The hint:

As I wrote on my blog, there is no meaning without structure.

Once we mastered the structure of a domain, we could depart from it in any direction to express our artistic freedom and creativity.

© Ivan Llorens

Well said!

Thanks my Kamalakanta friend!

....not that I understand anything....

As you mentioned on your blog, if No. 2 in the world, Vladimir Kramnik, said that he didn't fully understand chess, how could we?

You read the blog post and it's still devoid of meaning for you? Well, go read again, it might help...

So if I understand this, you are saying that learning the game as a series of dynamic relationships between pieces that is dependent upon criteria in a given game is the best way?

On a side note I hope it is possible to play the game using geometric intuition based on the positional relationships between pieces. 

No..

What I think he is saying is that IF chess is to be considered 'art' (and this claim has certainly be made), THEN at least some of the characteristics of ART should apply.

(Shouldn't they?)

Especially the main ones, such as, for example, the fact that Art is supposed to be meaningful, that is to 'have some meaning', or - otherwise said - 'mean something for an erm... group a persons'. 

The next step is that 'meanings' (in a mundane, possibly linguistical sense) are not given 'atoms' floating in the air, but they only exist as 'relations'...

Now... one may not want to go to all the trouble of thinking and quickly dismiss the problem by concluding that chess is not ART at all.

After all, deciding that something is (or isn't) ART is again up to a group of persons.

My final thought on this is that defining something is not so important when you consider what that something (chess) is in the present or has been in the past.

If I define something as art, this doesn't really change what it is or it has been.

Chess is chess and the Immortal is beautiful independently from the fact that somebody calls it 'art' or 'a jogging session'.

However, defining may turn out being very important in influencing what the phenomenon will be in the future.

Here is an excerpt of what RoaringPawn is talking about....from a previous post of his:

https://www.chess.com/blog/RoaringPawn/why-chess-teachers-should-convert-to-relationists

"It was fascinating to see in the previous post how the same principles of building a network of simple relationships apply to both domains, soccer and chess. In fact, any complex system in existence (ecosystems, organisms, society, the human brain, the living cell, a game of chess, a football match, the entire universe) is created and can only be understood by the relations between its objects, elements, or members. Position, value and other properties of things are only meaningful relative to other things. Space doesn't even exists without interrelated objects. Time doesn't exist either without events when things act upon other things re-forming their configuration in Space. In chess, these events are the moves that represent change in, or transformation of structural relations between pieces. The art of chess really consists in knowing how to beneficially improve this structure, or position of pieces (position, def: a particular way in which something is placed or arranged, Oxford Dictionary).

We know from before that every system is an integration of structure and function. Form is function, and function is form. They are One, joined in a union (Frank Lloyd Wright, btw, the great architect was a son-in-law of Montenegro). Every system is an architectural whole (and we can add another, aesthetic element, or beauty).

Some two thousand years ago, Vitruvius, the Roman author, architect, and military engineer declared that architecture is a package-deal combining firmness, commodity and delight. He also talked structure, function and beauty!

It is becoming obvious that in order to understand how a system, organism, or society works we need to learn the art of interconnectedness and collaboration between system members. One individual doesn't bring meaning to the game. A relationship of two is beginning of the process of building a structure. It is a basic building block of accumulating intelligence as members gather to work together.

At this point I can't but cite a brilliant description by Lewis Thomas in the On societies as organisms chapter from his fascinating The lives of a cell book. On this blog we discuss chess. Yet, we talked of teachings of a soccer coach last time, today we mentioned a Roman architect, now let's hear what a physician, poet, essayist and educator has to say about interrelationships,

"The bees and termites and social wasps , seem to live two kinds of lives: they are individuals, going about the day's business  without much evidence of thought for tomorrow, and they are at the same time component parts, cellular elements in the huge, ruminating organism of the Hill, the nest, the hive... a solitary ant, afield, cannot be considered to have much of anything on his mind; indeed, with only a few neurons strung together by fibers, he can't be imagined to have a mind at all, much less a thought. He is more like a ganglion on legs. Four ants together, or ten, encircling a dead moth on a path, begin to look more like an idea. They fumble and shove, gradually moving the food toward the Hill. It's only when you watch the dense mass of thousands of ants, crowded together around the Hill, blackening the ground, that you begin to see the whole beast, and now you observe it thinking, planning, calculating. It is an intelligence, a kind of live computer, with crawling bits for its wits."

Good morning, everyone.

Here's the point. Grammar studies the structure of language (and language is a revelation of mind).

It examines the rules how words and phrases form (syntax), and semantics explains meaning.

Similarly, chess position has an underlying structure that gives meaning to it and also defines direction how it should change over time (=strategy) to meet the goals, express oneself.

There are only four letters of chess alphabet, attack, restriction, protection and cover (pin) that form "chess words and phrases," a certain code for our "chess thoughts" and ideas.

Similarly, the genetic alphabet is written in only four letters, too, A, C, T and G, and they define all life around us. The DNA code contains instructions for making proteins our body needs for survival.

That is why we need to start in chess with Relationships between pieces from Day One so this chess alphabet and grammar become our second nature.

Only then we are ready to express ourselves artfully.

Chess is life, the Batuan style

Chess as a metaphor for life, as seen by Aleksander Filipi

The point you make is gigantic.

For most us us, being taught chess is just telling us how the pieces move. "the knight moves like this, the bishop moves like that."

But we are not taught the relationship between the pieces and each other, or the concepts of time and force! These we learn much later (at least I did).

That doesn't really describe art, but any skill:  you need the basics first.

Also the quote was more the opposite, that mastery is knowing when and how to break the rules.

Nimzovich sensed this perfectly when he said (1929) that our traditional approach on Day One with the moves first was "fundamentally flawed."

The basics of chess, actually the basics in any domain is mindset.

The nature and behavior of any system as a whole emerges from interactions between the parts, so we need to make the four relationships between chessmen integral part of that mindset.

All chess diseases and ailments (bad board vision, lack of understanding, etc.) come from an ineffective mindset.

Exactly, but you need to master Grammar first to be able to break things in an artistic, creative way!

I am soon glad that I am too uneducated to take part in a debate like this!!! ,😂 Always a joy to read your words of wisdom my roari g friend. Speak soon mate.👍

The point you make is most important.....one of the great positive side effects of the Soviet system was that, at the Pioneer's Palaces, children would be taught by chess "uncles", who would teach them the love of the game (yes, LOVE, the FIFTH ELEMENT), and kindle in them the fire of curiosity and marvel....depending on the quality of the teacher and the student, and the talent provided by the Creator, (add a dose of DESTINY), these would determine the ultimate progress achieved.

As you know, I keep emphasizing the importance of studying the games of the great Masters, from Philidor on! I was inspired in this direction by Bronstein, and Kramnik....

There is an organic teaching, a silent teaching, that is achieved by moving the pieces of a game played long ago by a Master of the Art....it is like feeling the paintbrush in a great Painter's hand, or feeling the phrases of a great Musician, as if you were playing it yourself!

This is a beauty that chess has, and almost an advantage, may I say?

Because in music, for example, I cannot play the piano like Horowitz, and I cannot paint like Monet, but I can move the pieces of a great game played by Lasker, and I can do it in slow motion, and pause, and contemplate, and admire and absorb the wisdom inherent in the moves of a great Master; the willpower, the imagination, and yes, even the technique and brilliance in defence or attack!

Chess is unique in that aspect!

Here is Bronstein's method of study....

Bronstein's method, recommended by him in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice":

"You should not "read" a chess creation but you should move the pieces on the chessboard and make move by move exactly as the work of Chess Art was created for the very first time. On your own chessboard with your own chess pieces and in complete silence, to be able to follow closely the events as they unfold before your very eyes. The best way is to do this in three stages."

"First, play through the whole game without hesitating more than a couple of seconds at each move. If you have the urge to pause longer-don't! Take a piece of paper and make some notes if you wish, and continue to play the game to the end. Then get a cup of tea or coffee, relax and try your best to recall from memory the spectacle you have just seen. Try to establish the reasons why certain decisions were made."

"Second, play through the game again, somewhat slower this time,and make notes of everything that you did not see the first time."

"Third, now go straight to those pencil marks and give your imaginative and creative energy free reign. Try to play better than my partner and I. If you do not agree, look closely at each decision, either for White or for Black, with a critical eye. If you look at a game like this you will discover a lot of new and useful knowledge, which you can use for your own benefit."

"Write your findings in a notebook in order to look at them later when you are in a different mood, especially if you like the game. If, during stage one, you took no notes, don't look at this game again. Go on to the next one that, hopefully, will give you more pleasure and satisfaction. It just means that it did not appeal to you. Although I consider chess an Art, I will not blame you at all if you do not like a particular game. In a museum you cannot like every painting you see. As French gourmets say, taste is a very personal matter."

"When I was learning to play chess, I studied thousands and thousands of games played by the older generation in exactly the same way and gained a lot from them."