There is another forum here on chess.com on the philosofical question whether chess exists -- and there is one about Socrates' way of thinking (about chess). Have a look !
What Is Chess? (Socratic Debate)
Sort:
Jul 30, 2015
0
#3
It is funny to read, only a pity that the end conclusion of Socrates is not very good. 'A collection of rules' etc. can be applied to a lot more games and activities than chess alone. Furthermore is checkmate not success and being checkmated a failure. That might be a definition for the chess player, but not for the game itself. A game of chess can end in several ways and getting checkmated is one of them. It is an intrinsic part of chess, but it is for the game itself of no more importance than any other rule of the game.
What does ancient Greek philosophy and literature have in common? More than you'd think. They both use what can be called negative demonstrations; that is, they both prove a mode of life by showing how NOT to live. In literature, the character (who, by the way, is an autobiographical character of the author) goes through a journey in which, by the end of the book, he learns of his futile attempts at self-pride and accepts that humanity is all the same. Plato used this method as well, to great effect. In his 38 dialogues, the character cannot define what something is. You can see it as a self-dialogue; assume something exists and then try to say what it is. You can't...
Well, at least you can't "say" what it is. But does that mean it doesn't exist?
Plato was just a shadow of the great Socrates. Socrates never left a discussion unfinished or in the dark as Plato did. His discussions sometimes end up with a discrete, precise result and other times he would lead the discussion in a certain direction and then let his pupils ponder over.
So yes, chess does exist. Here is probably how Socrates the great would argue about it with some of the renowned figures in chess.
Socrates: I learn you all have been some of the top masters in chess ever to appear in the history.
Alekhine: Most chess players would agree.
Socrates: So Grandmaster Alekhine, I ask you this: what is chess?
Alekhine: To attack the enemy's king in such a way that he cannot be saved. That is chess.
Socrates: No, no. You are defining a chess victory. A victory or loss is a shared concept for all competitions. I ask, what is chess?
Alekhine: No. I did not say that one always succeeds in checkmating the opponent. I said that is the purpose, the motive of the game.
Socrates: You are defining the objective, but leaving the whole. What is chess?
Kasparov: The accurate usage of the chess pieces, namely Knights, Bishops, Rooks, Pawns, Queen and King for the purpose of checkmating the enemy, that is chess.
Socrates: Are all these pieces a part of the game?
Kasparov: Definitely.
Socrates: Then Grandmaster Kasparov, you are defining chess from it's parts, not the whole. It is as if I ask you what is a human and you reply that a functional collection of limbs and senses, powered by a brain is a human. The question remains, what is chess?
Kasparov: If you remove the pieces, chess would cease to exist.
Socrates: That is like saying if you dismember a human, he will die. Of course he will. But a human is more than a collection of organs. Is chess merely a collection of a board and pieces?
Fischer: I think I can answer that. Chess is a game like other games, with it's own rules and objects of play.
Socrates: That defines that chess exists. But what IS it?
Fischer: An effort by both contestants to checkmate the enemy's king.
Socrates: That is the objective again, not the whole.
Philidor: Master Socrates. I don't think chess really exists. It's all just an illusion.
Socrates: Grandmaster Philidor, you so remind me of the sophists! And I strongly disagree with that. Chess exists.
Carlsen: What is it then? We fail to understand.
Socrates: A collection of rules and techniques to manipulate those rules for the achievement of the ultimae purpose, that is chess. To checkmate is success, to be checkmated is failure.
Philidor: Indeed it is. I do agree to that.
*Socrates starts walking away with his disciples*
Socrates (to Plato): We must move from what we see and do, to what is the reality of what we see and do. Chess is, but one of a thousand faces of competitive sports. If we keep moving upwards, we shall reach the truth that has no face.