I'm sure some people might consider playing a game art, just like some people think it's a sport. That would make playing Monopoly and Scrabble and tic tac toe art also. Art isn't defined as narrowly as sport. But I think most people agree there aren't as many rules for art. Art can be "wrong". For some people, the more "wrong" it is the more right it is. All that matters is that that someone likes the way it looks, no matter if it follows the rules or not. Chess is a game of rules. All the time you see people tell other people they did it wrong.
For chess to be art the person playing would have to have a reason, good or bad, for playing outside the rules, for doing it the way they think is best, regardless of the outcome so long as it looks good. I think it would be like solving the math problem two plus two. It's just numbers that have to be done a certain way. Art would be two plus two equals five, no matter what anyone else thinks.
They do have a reason...aesthetics.
This is just another analogy that doesn't work, because chess is not 2+2. When a player chooses between 3 different mates in 1, and picks the pawn check, or the promotion to a knight for the "prettier" mate, what would you call that? When a player chooses to eschew the "trade down to a pawn up endgame" in order to play out a more complicated game, what would you call that? Why are moves referred to in so many opening books as "beautiful" or "ugly"? When a commentator says "it's not a pretty continuation, but it's good enough for the win", what do they mean?
You still seem to suffer from this "one thing equals all things" mindset. For the umpteenth time: different games are different games. They have different characteristics. Games can be more or less "artistic". In terms of aesthetic opportunities, Chess > Scrabble > Monopoly > Tic Tac Toe. When somebody decides to place the word "sphinx" with "X" on a double letter score for 26 points rather than taking the low hanging fruit of "ox" on a triple word score for 27 points, why would they make that choice (we'll assume it is nowhere close to end of the game for the nitpickers)?
Chess is a game of right and wrong. Rules and regulations. Right moves lead to better results. Wrong moves lead to worse results. There is no right or wrong with art. Art is about aesthetics. Chess is only aesthetic when it's done "right". Computers play chess because chess can be reduced to simple right or wrong decisions. A painter or a sculptor doesn't care if it's right or wrong. All that matters is that it looks good.
When two people play chess and the first 15 moves have been repeated many thousands of times before, that's not art. Nothing is being created. It's not unique. If playing chess is art, then playing tic tac toe is art. For the same reasons. The player would have to think he is doing something unique and creative that's beautiful. Chess sets are art. Playing chess is not.
I'm sure some people might consider playing a game art, just like some people think it's a sport. That would make playing Monopoly and Scrabble and tic tac toe art also. Art isn't defined as narrowly as sport. But I think most people agree there aren't as many rules for art. Art can be "wrong". For some people, the more "wrong" it is the more right it is. All that matters is that that someone likes the way it looks, no matter if it follows the rules or not. Chess is a game of rules. All the time you see people tell other people they did it wrong.
For chess to be art the person playing would have to have a reason, good or bad, for playing outside the rules, for doing it the way they think is best, regardless of the outcome so long as it looks good. I think it would be like solving the math problem two plus two. It's just numbers that have to be done a certain way. Art would be two plus two equals five, no matter what anyone else thinks.
They do have a reason...aesthetics.
This is just another analogy that doesn't work, because chess is not 2+2. When a player chooses between 3 different mates in 1, and picks the pawn check, or the promotion to a knight for the "prettier" mate, what would you call that? When a player chooses to eschew the "trade down to a pawn up endgame" in order to play out a more complicated game, what would you call that? Why are moves referred to in so many opening books as "beautiful" or "ugly"? When a commentator says "it's not a pretty continuation, but it's good enough for the win", what do they mean?
You still seem to suffer from this "one thing equals all things" mindset. For the umpteenth time: different games are different games. They have different characteristics. Games can be more or less "artistic". In terms of aesthetic opportunities, Chess > Scrabble > Monopoly > Tic Tac Toe. When somebody decides to place the word "sphinx" with "X" on a double letter score for 26 points rather than taking the low hanging fruit of "ox" on a triple word score for 27 points, why would they make that choice (we'll assume it is nowhere close to end of the game for the nitpickers)?