philosophy and chess

I think chess is anti-philosophical. Philosophy is largely abstract. 

Chess on the other hand is very concrete. You have to move physical pieces around in your minds eye.

Chess turns the philosophical method upside down.

@ natural
That's interesting, but at the same time seems somehow superficial.  Are these aspects and interpretations of the game itself or of humans who play the game?  Couldn't the same comparisons be made for many different games?  And after all don't computers play just fine without discovery of truth, interpretation, or Hegelian dielectric synthesis?

It seems much more interesting to talk about these subjects directly than to bend chess to fit them.

I think there are two characteristics that philosophy and chess share: pattern recognition and the principle of searching for the strongest move.

The first is I think easy to understand what I mean, the second I will explain. To get to a meaningful philosophy one must face reality. A good philosophy is not build upon dreams or wishes, but sincere observations. Nietzsche for instance had a very specific, yet intense capacity for observations. He had the power to strive for living a life in the consciousness that we live above an abyss. All good philosophers have in some way this solemnity of self consciousness and describing what they perceive. Not trying to make it more beautiful or more in accordance with their personal likings. IMO is philosophy the unveiling of the world from a certain perspective. That is comparable with the principle of the searching for the strongest move.

The better you are in chess, the more you will try to look for the best move in a situation and not the move of your preference or anticipating on a bad move from your opponent. Every top chess player will do that in a certain position, but there are some players who do not stop by that, but want to delve deeper into a position and really understand it.

I think some chess players do this/have done this. Morphy and Steinitz for instance. Maybe Aljechin and Kasparov and Ivanchuk. On the other hand are there also top chess players who do not strive for objectivity at all. They can try to optimize beauty or their optimal personal position. I prefer those players to call artists and Tal, Nezhmetdinov and maybe Topalov and Aronian are examples of this style.

" karpov mentioned that one of his teachers Botvinick said: if you deeper develop your philosophical ideas. you can deeper understand chess."

Do you have the source of this quote? I'd like to check it out more and see in which context he said it...

I think that in both disciplines, one is in need of a strong logical system!

This puzzle is impossible to start with. That white pawn can never be at h6 without at least three captures. Black still has all his pieces and pawns, hence the problematic situation can never exist. Any chess variant following this starting position is by definition absurd.

In philosophy this puzzle would be called a fallacy. You don't have to look at the move list to know that the moves will be another fallacy as well. This person probably thinks that the subject of this thread is crap (most likely because he thinks philosophy is a waste of time) and hence produces crap to prove his point.

Yes. I am getting a bit overwhelmed by the possibilities...how do you even start a discussion about the philosophy of chess? There are several books and academic articles published on the topic. Shouldn't it start with its ancient history? It probably arose in India and China (perhaps concurrently) as slightly different forms about 2200 years ago. This was an age of absolute power, Kings, mysticism, deep religious beliefs....how did these factors shape chess. Was chess used as a mystic tool to predict sucess in future battles? If so, how would these results be interpreted? Well, they would have deeply rooted philosophical underpinnings that would shape the nature of the game over time as experience and society changed...Its just so terribly fascinating! If we can agree that chess was influenced by these factors (especially religion, which is a philosophy in and of itself), then it just logical leads to the conclusion that chess was representative of some greater cosmic or social structure. Its such a mountain of a question....where to start! It must be with the history.

I am reading "The Immortal Game" right now, and its excellent. There are many philosophical underpinnings and great stories of rulers from the ancient Persian empire playing chess during battles as enemies were crashing down the castle gates. Since all was lost, at least the king could beat his favorite eunuch in one last match. He was beheaded when captured..right after he gave mate in his final game. Can you imagine? However, I have yet to finish it, let alone study it...

then go somewhere else and take your comments with you.

I don't block people, but what is this? Can't we just have a conversation? If you don't like it then just leave. If you have sincere objections to rational posts, then make them...this is sh-t

Waffle. I do agree with you to an extent. What we are now talking about is not real philosophy....its more like what you said...discussing the topics individually, with history and a touch of philosophical exploration.

I love history, and the history of chess is deeply fascinating to me. I like to explore some of the philosophical roots without going to abstract land where we don't even know what we were discussing in the first place.

That's how these discussion naturally occur if you let them. Have you taken philosophy courses? Then you know what I mean, right?  And you took my quote out of context...lol Are you serious? Read the whole statement. Its there for everyone to see. Open you eyes...your not being as clever as you think.

I don't care of you opinions about lofty expressions or whatever. If you have a problem with that, or cant comprehend what we're talking about, then  that's your own insecurities talking to you.Not my problem ma'am.

As much as Andy was joking about Botvinnik and dialectics, actually I think dialectical materialism is very applicable to chess.

There is a quote from Lenin or Trotsky which defines the dialectical method as something like this*; looking at the different strands and threads running through a situation, detangling them, seperating what is relevant from what is less so, and forming an overall strategy to advance the struggle. This could just as well have been talking about chess.

*I'm not going to google this and give the exact quote, as that would involve reading Marxist theory in work, which has a tendency to get you fired if your boss notices

Your insight is breathtaking. That story must have took  minutes out of your life...lol. Maybe you can explain the point another time. See here...

 "I mean, didn’t you notice on the plane when you started talking, eventually I started reading the vomit bag? Didn’t that give you some sort of clue like, ‘Hey, maybe this guy’s not enjoying it’? You know, everything is not an anecdote. You have to discriminate. You choose things that are funny or mildly amusing or interesting. You're a miracle—your stories have none of that. They're not even amusing accidentally!

‘Honey, I'd like you to meet rmurray, he's got some amusing anecdotes for you. Oh, and here's a gun so you can blow your brains out. You'll thank me for it.’

I could tolerate any insurance seminar. For days I could sit there and listen to them go on and on with a big smile on my face. They'd say, ‘How can you stand it?’ I'd say, ‘Cause I've been with rmurray. I can take anything."

And you know what they'd say? They'd say, ‘I know what you mean. The a--hole internet troll. Whoa.’

It's like going on a date with a Chatty Cathy doll. I expect you to have a little string on your chest that I pull out and have to snap back. Except I wouldn't pull it out and snap it back—you would. ‘Aah, aah, aah.’

And by the way, when you're telling these little stories? Here's a good idea—have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the listener!”

You are a talking contradiction!

If you don't care about chess, you wouldn't be ranting here and devoting god knows how many hours to improving your game. The more you talk, the more you reveal yourself as hipocrite. If you are going to troll and start trouble, be intelligent about it or humorous. You sound like a nimrod, ma'am. lol.

Im outty! lol.

Murray, you seriously need to find a new bridge to hide under!

Just proves to me there is little or no correlation between chess rating and intelligence he he

Also proves my point that there IS a correlation between rating and the ability to expend more hot air, talk is indeed cheap.....3 days, random,rated, I am waiting lol

No there's plenty of hot air for everyone.

wow i have some reading to do... and i there is some "nasty" atmosphere here..... i'll take my time and see if i have something sensible to say??

the Karpov quote is from this docu.. it's part one of 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDCZazV57qw