How to Never Lose a Game of Chess
Sort:
One player wins, the other player learns.
The delivery of checkmate is a great gift, as it allows the expeditious and dramatic refutation of an idea which the opposing player thought to be superior. In delivering this gift, the "winner" reveals the flaws in the opposing player's strategy. This lesson is delivered DURING the game, and can be reviewed in search of a superior idea. The player who has received checkmate can only be made better by having been checkmated. By having their idea thoroughly refuted, they are shown a future path to victory without having been subjected to the labor of finding it.
In delivering checkmate, a player has done the work of learning for their opponent.
Take, for instance, a player who seeks to better themselves at chess. A player who truly wishes to improve. Can this player possibly improve without having checkmate delivered to them? I assert that this player cannot improve, as only one of two realities can be true. The uncheckmated player either has an idea which is truly superior to all other ideas, which makes improvement impossible, or will be limited by their own analysis of their ideas which also makes improvement impossible.
We're told that the objective of chess is to deliver checkmate, and we enjoy the sport of it so much that we seek ways to deliver checkmate more often than we receive it, but this desire to be the winning player is directly contradictory to the means of improvement. If we accomplish our goal of not being checkmated, we cease to improve, yet if we fail in our counterproductive goal, we're declared the game's "loser".
Therefore, I contend that no player whose goal it is to improve can lose a game of chess. They can, and should, be checkmated, but in receiving checkmate they are propelled closer to their goal.
twitch.tv/timalick for more insane philosophical rants
Apr 27, 2021
0
#2
timalick wrote:
One player wins, the other player learns. The delivery of checkmate is a great gift, as it allows the expeditious and dramatic refutation of an idea which the opposing player thought to be superior. In delivering this gift, the "winner" reveals the flaws in the opposing player's strategy. This lesson is delivered DURING the game, and can be reviewed in search of a superior idea. The player who has received checkmate can only be made better by having been checkmated. By having their idea thoroughly refuted, they are shown a future path to victory without having been subjected to the labor of finding it. In delivering checkmate, a player has done the work of learning for their opponent. Take, for instance, a player who seeks to better themselves at chess. A player who truly wishes to improve. Can this player possibly improve without having checkmate delivered to them? I assert that this player cannot improve, as only one of two realities can be true. The uncheckmated player either has an idea which is truly superior to all other ideas, which makes improvement impossible, or will be limited by their own analysis of their ideas which also makes improvement impossible. We're told that the objective of chess is to deliver checkmate, and we enjoy the sport of it so much that we seek ways to deliver checkmate more often than we receive it, but this desire to be the winning player is directly contradictory to the means of improvement. If we accomplish our goal of not being checkmated, we cease to improve, yet if we fail in our counterproductive goal, we're declared the game's "loser". Therefore, I contend that no player whose goal it is to improve can lose a game of chess. They can, and should, be checkmated, but in receiving checkmate they are propelled closer to their goal. twitch.tv/timalick for more insane philosophical rants
HOW DO YOU KNOW???