Philosophy and Chess

In philosophy you ask questions like: What am I doing here? or What does it all mean? You can go so far as to call it a rational investigation or science.

I once new a very good chess player who liked to say: Yes, but what does it all mean? He said this to talk about a given chess position. Well, what did he mean? What was he talking about?

He was talking about threats! The further ahead you see and understand the threats in a given position (or posible position), the better you will be at playing chess. Not too long before he started saying this, he made a jump in his rating of about 400 points in the USCF! I think a lot of this was because of his concentration on threats.

Have a good defenition of threats in chess?

I hope there are other things to link philosophy and chess. Have any good examples? Love to hear about it.

Thanks

Interesting! I recently saw a book named "philosophy and chess" (or something fairly similar). Might be really interesting read!

One other thing comes to mind. I am no expert, so correct me if I am wrong. I do not know a lot about eastern philosophy, but I think I have read somewhere that at least one such philosophy may be based on reducing suffering. One thing they practice can be looking at situations as if you were a third party, and things that are happening to you are just happening to someone else.

I bring this up because one thing that helps me stop making errors on the chess board is to make sure I am looking at a position from both sides. Threats that both sides have, as well as plans either side may have for the given imbalances.

... Thanks for the heads up about the book!

Philosophy, is also about focusing the mind on the task before you. Same as in Chess.

Very good! Thanks for the post Ellbert

Reducing or increasing suffering on the chessboard is difficult to fathom. Complexity, on the other hand, ... Some players simplify the position as much as possible, in order to reduce the number of threats they need to watch out for. Other players maximise the complexity of the position, and develop several attacks simultaneously. This is a high-risk strategy, trying to keep several plates spinning at the same time. It's all too easy to forget that a particular piece has multiple guard roles.

I was not looking at it that way, Thanks for the insight artfizz :-)

Thanks, good point Tiger_Kid

#3 - No religious or political debate or commentary in these forums. Religion and politics are important and deeply personal, but Chess.com is a friendly community where we come together around a common love for chess and debating these two topics tend to pull people apart. If you would like to discuss religion or politics, you may want to join this group => Open Discussion Group. 

An eastern philosophy starting with 'B' holds that desire or attachment to things  - is the cause of suffering. If I exchange pieces (especially if I exchange them for nothing!), I am presumably reducing my attachment and thus approaching Nirvana. However, am I still too attached to the notion of winning? (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/you-cant-win)

Exactly - first one - vishy (complicated positions) and second -  kramnik (simplifies and keeps playing for draws.

Life is like chess - u win some u lose some.

Playing the game (and enjoying it) is more important than winning or losing - just like money and living our lives :-)

"There are deep waters here. If the game of chess is analagous to a battle, then the rules of engagement on the battlefield can inform the behaviour at the chessboard. To some people, every military battle should be treated as a historic, last stand. In the view of this group (I'm assuming), battles that have been fought honourably include: The Alamo, The Battle of the Little Big Horn, Rourke's Drift and, supremely, Thermopylae.

The opposing view is that while some battles are required to be a fight-to-the-death, most are not. Dunkirk is an example of a battlefield defeat where a strategic retreat paved the way for a future overall victory.

If we consider every chess game in isolation, it becomes both a single battle and the entire war. If, by contrast, we view any single game as a mere skirmish in the overall scheme of things, then it makes sense to accept one's defeats gracefully and conserve one's resources for a future encounter.

This discussion, therefore, hinges on a person's understanding or appreciation of military strategy and military history." (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/we-dont-need-no-stinking-resign-button)

Paul: What do you perceive as the problem? Your post #14 seems to be both complete and clear. Is some text missing? Is the formatting other than what you expected?

Did you make a subsequent post that has not appeared?

 Thanks for your post. Although I see how you might think it, a lot of what you posted was not true about this specific player. Some of this is probably because of bad word choices on my part.

I still like your post though. I am especially interested in what you were saying about Fischer ... What did you mean he was doing? ... using a psychological weapon? Very Interesting.

Thanks again

Also thanks to sss3006 and artfizz for their interesting comments as well!

my philosophy is that it is a honor to take the field    win lose or draw.

That is a good philosophy kman627! I feel the same way :-)

Here is a review of the book I mentioned even though I did not remeber the title:

http://www.chessvibes.com/reviews/review-philosophy-looks-at-chess/

Wow! Not that is a mouthful ... Thanks much farbror

When you lose, you need to be philosophical about it.