Why chess is not like war

 Oh, that's me!

Thank you.

You guys are right in the sense that chess is not "exactly" like war. Phhff! Obviously!... There aren't ammo depots and food rations, desertions and mutanies, but you fail to realize the big picture! If you simplify war, it's two armies taking risks to conquer the enemy postion. Some generals choose strictly orthodox defences and offences, while others turn to more shady tactics. There are diversions, attacks, counter-attacks, tactics, strategy, and ingenuity in every stroke of the hand in chess and every order on the field. And that's another thing. Chess was never meant to represent a war in general, it was meant to simulate a Battle.

I think the main difference is this:  other than pride, no one gets hurt in chess.  And, let's be honest; pride is not always a bad thing to have demolished.  There is no suffering. 

Also, the thing that most often appears to characterize modern war is madness.  The thing that characterizes modern chess is brutal logic and intense analysis.  There could not be two more different things. 

Pawns do not have feelings, humans do.

Not anything like war. Chess is about hedging against mathematical risk; hence the reason why there are plenty of reclusive idiot savants who are technically mentally handicapped and would not be classified as "intelligent", but who are fantastic at chess. You can have major neurological deficits and if your math & pattern centers are in overdrive you’ll actually excel at it.  This is also the reason computers are capable now of beating any human alive at chess, but putting one in charge of a naval, land, or air battle would be a bad idea.  It might be useful to have a computer fly a drone during a "merge", as that’d get rid of the g-limit a human contributes.  But other than that computers are pretty awful at war and probably always will be.  As computer scientists and heavy-weight mathematicians put it: algorithms, cellular automatons, and all this other stuff they design is essentially a "toy" compared to real life.  A fractal might produce a shell-like spiral, a flower-like fractal, or a zebra-like spotting.  But the actual processes that produce those in real life are far more complicated.  Che Guevara had something interesting to say about war. He admitted he was not much of a commander.  All he really needed were committed fighters.  Granted, that's related to guerrilla warfare.  But that's just one aspect of a subject that has about an infinite number of variables at work.  I think Clint Eastwood said the same thing about directing.  So maybe the most complicated and expensive art-form has some similarity to the most complicated and awful of human endeavors.  But chess has little if any relationship.  In fact, I would guess most of the quotes over the years comparing them where by people who knew nothing about war.  If I was a nation or a commander, I might perpetuate that myth and hope my opposition believed it.  Anyone who thinks war is elegant and mathematical would be easy to defeat in battle.

In war, men use guns, bombs, and missiles to try to kill one another.  In chess, men push plastic figurines about on a wooden tabletop.

Apart from that, the similarities are striking.

Then I want to introduce a new chess move, called the atomic bomb.  When you're losing, you grab the side of the chess board and flip it and the pieces up in the air.  Both armies are annihilated.

But if chess is not like war, then the Franklin Mint will have to stop selling all those Revolutionary War and Civil War decorative chess sets.

Any attempt to equate the two trivializes war to an offensive extent.

 +1

war is like a very speculative sacrifice.

no need to be so po-faced. The comparison has been drawn often enough. Is it offensive to compare 'risk' with war?

Purdy took that analogy apart.In chess both sides start with exactly the same resources.

Each side moves in turn.

There are strict rules .

 Truly one of the great philosophers of our time.  His "pawn endings are to chess as putting is to golf" also spoke to the human condition.

In chess, you have full knowledge of your own and your opponent's positions and capabilities. In war, you will almost certainly have incomplete knowledge of all of these factors. 

The uncertainty of knowledge in war also means there is an element of chance (one of the elements of Clausewitz's "fascinating trinity"). The loss of a battle or a war can result from luck (say, a key leader being killed, or [as happened when the French moved their fleet towards Egypt in 1798] an immense vulnerability going undetected and thus unexploited). The loss of a chess game, I would argue, is always the player's own fault--a failure to identify elements of the position that he could have seen.

Enough contrasting.

1) Resource management wins wars.

2) Suprior Strategy wins wars.

3) Leadership wins wars.

4) Individuals win wars.

5) Teamwork wins wars.

6) Sacrifices win wars.

Stop over analyzing things. When it comes down to a simple "Win/Lose" outcome, war and chess are very similar. And no one try to tell me "War has no winners". There is most definitely a winner and a loser. Someone won the Civil War. Someone won WWII.

 When it comes down to a simple "Win/Lose" outcome, chess and tic-tac-toe are similar as well.  As are war and a hot dog eating contest.  Or the battle for a fair maiden's hand and any financial transaction.

Just because you wish to simplify war to a zero sum game, however, does not mean we're over analyzing.  The "warlike" elements of chess are pretty much entirely metaphorical.  It's a simple game of geometry.  What we call an "attack" has about as much to do with actual attacking as putting on heels and dancing the Charleston.  What we call "forces" are little plastic figurines.  What we call a "relentless, bloodthirsty pursuit of the enemy king" is really just a nerdy guy counting squares.

I counter your "over analyzing" with "needless aggrandizing."

The differences between chess and war are pretty obvious aren't they ? You don't get killed or maimed in a game of chess, nor do you kill or maim others. That is why the similarities (or analogies) are usually pointed out.

**And I would agree with you there.

I also agree chess is highly metaphorical, but what's wrong with that? You didn't seem to disagree with any of my 6 points. In the grand scheme of things, humans are nothing more than pawns and knights. Go into war thinking anything more and it's nearly impossible to dedicate yourself to getting results, regardless of the means. When it comes to winning, that is all that matters.We're not worried for the lives of our pieces, what would make you think any true general would think more of his men?

If anything I'm not aggrandizing, but simplifying and reducing everything to its basics. I'm only doing the exact opposite of everyone who wants to tack on emotions and hunger into the equation. Is it wrong to dehumanize? Why must we always take the humanitarian approach and baby everything?

I can't recall the last time I called playing chess a "relentless, bloodthirsty pursuit of the enemy king."

I counter your "needless aggrandizing" with "trivializing appeal to Pathos."

Tuesday!  Chess is like Tuesday, while war is somewhat more bloody.  The BIG difference is I can lose in Chess many times, while in War, once is too much.

It may be similar from the perspective of a general, but most "players" participating in a war are not generals are they ? Why does a general's perspective matter more than the perspective of an ordinary soldier or civilian ?

Anyone who wants to try playing chess from the perspective of a pawn should simply seek employment in corporate America.