As a metaphysical celebration of finger turkeys. How do you view it?
Meta-physical chess
Sort:
A celebration between what you see controling what you don't see.
we should not seek to win but to celebrate the travel between all of your weekness and strengths. what and how you will feel in adversity, hope fully no one will ever have to feel the pain of king trap.
please anybody give me your point of view
Inanimate objects infused with life.
May 1, 2014
0
#9
What makes chess metaphysical is you don't need a board to play....correct me if I'm right....
The ultimate in metaphysical chess--double-blindfold. Nothing is real.
Quite ironic considering that Chess is a scientific process of finding the truth.
May 1, 2014
0
#12
(GOB)....but how scientific is it really when a computer isn't involved ?....and yes, truth seeking is big when you're trying to win someone - but not all of us feel that's the most important thing....does science copy the artsy fartsy ? (I'm a painter)....does our nature copy science ? (computers)....if so, why ?
Artistry is a cherry on top once you have your science consolidated and checked as sound. Ether theory was beautiful, but Einstein singlehandedly scrapped it once peer review, mathematical proofs, and observation determined his Relativity superior (GPS relies upon Special Relativity even whereas nothing relies upon a light propagating medium permeating space)
Steinitz, Capablanca, and Botvinnik had no computers (well... Botvinnik in his prime, he helped develop computer chess in the 70s) yet still applied a scientific approach. A computer is a tool like a calculator. The idea is to understand the reason why computer moves are so when we're doing a post-mortem, either in our games or after a guess the move session.
Our natures stemp from science because we adapted and evolved within a world that conforms to scientific laws. In the real world being incorrect could have dire consequences, such as astronauts dying if things aren't calibrated or calculated just so.
Lasker said the hardest game to win is a won game (maybe this explains is relatively weak opening prep?) and did a lot of psychological stuff, but he always wanted it to have an objective basis too.
how do you view chess