Pros and cons of chess

Thanks, Lampman. There have been quite a few perceptive comments made by people, sprinkled throughout the discussion.

Trysts has it exactly. Where is the beef? I've never seen NM tonydal do anything outside the TOS.

He made posts which consisted entirely of insults and personal attacks. He claims they have been deleted by someone else (which would have to be a chess.com administrator), but it has been suggested he deleted them himself to avoid them being seen by an administrator, and then lied about it.

Nothing against you Elroch, I just thought these pictures were cute for an avatar

which means the beef is gone....and we won't be able to judge.

Tonydal will on occassion say something to the effect of: "this entire discussion is dumb/dull/ridiculous"  and I generally think to myself "thank you tonydal, for saying what I wanted to say!" -- rarely, but every now and then I think, "Come on, Tonydal don't be a such killjoy it's not that bad" 

But, Elroch's fussy, hissy, -- 'oh god an ad hominem attack! oh I'm bleeding, ohh, the terms of service forbid such violence against my soul!...' it strikes me as more disruptive (and certainly more annoying to my sensibilities)  than anything tonydal said. 

And was that an ad hominem attack I just gave? ... no, it's called criticism... I think Elroch needs to get perspective on what constitutes allowable forum criticism, vs. actual abuse.

I didn't see TonyDal's deleted posts... maybe they were inappropriate, but if they were it'd be out of character IMO.

You may interpret Chess in whatever way you like. Chess is whatever the individual finds in it. And, you can make any pro's and con's list based on your interpretation. Certainly every great player brought some new wrinkle to the meaning of the game, and they were fortunate enough to find an outlet for it.

Is Chess life? No, it is only a mirror of life. Literature is not life, either, nor music, nor art, nor any of mankind`s creations designed to hold an incomplete mirror to life. But it can absorb one`s life, like all of the above. Remember Tarrasch`s famous quote. I`ve seen chess save lives. I`ve also seen it destroy lives, marriages, etc. I have also seen the profession of literary scholarship ennoble some, provide others an outlet for brilliant creativity, yet drive others certifiably insane, destroy marriages, and perhaps worst of all, reward the chronically mediocre yet technically adept with a comfortable life cheerfully destroying others` imaginations.

In its own way, it is a remarkably LIMITED game. Its finiteness CAN be calculated, and while immense beyond human comprehension, pales in comparison to the capacity of human language to create new thought. It cannot compare to the capacity of DNA to define an organism. It cannot approach the potential of pure mathematics. Yet it fascinates.

And now, a question: Has anyone ever investigated a relationship between chaos theory and chess? It may be possible to create a model to explain certain aspects of positional analysis.

Criticism should be limited to facts, and not about the person. For example, saying "Your statement ... is clearly contradicted by ...". By contrast saying "you are a total a-hole" is against the rules. Saying "The line you suggested has a huge blunder in it" is fine, saying "You can stick the chess.com rules up your rectum" is not ok. You may see that two of these statements have some factual content which might be useful, the other two are merely insults to the person. Well, that's my opinion, and is how I read the (very simple and concise) rules of the site.

The one from the wizard of Oz? I was thinking of using it.

"Has anyone ever investigated a relationship between chaos theory and chess?"

manavendra, I'm still investigating the relationship between you and chess! I even have a pet name for your comments(which for some reason I always read): The peyote posts of mana.

Interesting - how do you know this?

 And now, a question: Has anyone ever investigated a relationship between chaos theory and chess? It may be possible to create a model to explain certain aspects of positional analysis.

@mavanendra It's an interesting question, which i'm completely unqualified to consider, beyond this: I think there's an order of magnitude's difference (or several orders) between the incalculability of a complex chess position and the incalculability of turbulence.

You really should

…one flew east, one flew west,
One flew over the cuckoo's nest.

I too have a pet name for your comments trysts: "One flew over the cuckoo's nest".

Has anyone ever thought, chess.com forums are a bit like black holes, in that you can put information, but it generally gets converted into thermal noise eventually?

The black hole information paradox

Thanks a lot JG27Pyth. Now I'm going to have to read mana's reply!

criticism of facts vs. about the person is IMO a false dichotomy.

For example I criticized your tone/ attitude... that's neither a factual critique nor an attack on you of the "so and so's an idiot" variety (which I agree is not ok) ... it's a subjective valuation, an opinion... one which may or may not be just and which can be agreed with or disputed...  Obviously restraint is necessary, and people's feelings can be hurt but on these forums subjective content is allowed, in fact more than allowed, IMO essential.  One is not compelled here to speak in facts and facts only. That's my opinion, anyway.

I've got one! I was just thinking about the irony of manavendra's avatar: "A.I.". Now I thought how that refers to artificial intelligence=fake intelligence. Computers it is claimed, will be able to "think". But I suppose that is a claim dumbed-down, and believed, because people don't consider what thinking is. Thinking has qualities that can't be programmed into a computer, i.e., doubt, and empathy. Therefore, "intelligence", in the context of my joke about "irony" above, would equate with "thinking". And "thinking" would manifest "doubt", and "empathy".