I get it, you write indefensible garbage that makes no sense and then have the manners of a 6 year old when you get asked about it. I wonder how many accounts you've had closed, man-child.
Why is "theory" called theory ?
Sort:
Nov 27, 2016
0
#24
I just asked you to clarify your comment in a normal manner but YOU were the one who decided to go all keyboard warrior. Have a good day sir.
Nov 27, 2016
0
#25
sorry my post made you cry. it wasnt intended for anyone that couldn't understand it.
Nov 27, 2016
0
#26
The guy who equates an opinion with scientific theory validated by empirical evidence is accusing someone else of lacking understanding. The irony is hilarious. 
Nov 27, 2016
0
#30
Fixing_A_Hole napisał:
The guy who equates an opinion with scientific theory validated by empirical evidence is accusing someone else of lacking understanding. The irony is hilarious.
https://youtu.be/Jne9t8sHpUc?t=2m42s
Daimonion wrote: "...The irony is hilarious..." What is even more hilarious is the opposite of "irony"
Someone like Supdok would answer, "wrinkly"
Chess theory is not a static doctrine. A great chess master (I don't remember who) once said that chess theory is nothing more than good practice. Meaning that what's theoretically sound is a function of what works practically over the board. As insights deepen and practices improve, so too must chess theory.
The implication of post 3 (and not only post 3) is that the word can have only one meaning.
This expectation, not surprisingly, tends to cause disputes.
fieldsofforce wrote:
There are 2 Theories of Chess:
1. Classical - Control the center (d4, d5, e4, e5) by occupying it with your pawns and pieces
2. Hypermodern - Control the center by using the power of your pawns and pieces. The advantage of this theory is that deprives your opponent of targets to attack in the center.
There are ancillary theories concerning advantages in space, time and material. These are acquired with superior piece development, and superior pawn structure development.
Opening Theory is based on the above stated principles.
I posted this previously. If I am missing the point please explain.
Thanks.
The OP took issue with opening databases being called "theory". My post deals directly with what he took issue with by explaining that the underlying theory concerning control of the center is the theory upon which those databases are built.
Your great concern with definitions of the word "theory" is a circuitous route which will eventually bring you back to the issue. However, there is always the danger as with all of philosophy that you will fall into the endless loop of trying to determine the meaning of meaning.
^I think that's the key. The databases and opening catalogs represent the set of hypotheses on which the actual theory is built. "Chess Theory" is a set of guidelines describing what the best currently known play is, which provide the highest level players with repeatable results predicted by those theories. The databases and catalogs are specifically tested methods of enacting theory, which show why the theory is sound... it's easy to debate semantics since the popular and scientific notions of theory don't match perfectly, and the chess community is sloppy itself in calling the specific moves the theory, when the truth is that the specific moves are theoretically predicted to be the best no matter what response the opponent makes (assuming that your next move properly capitalizes on the theory of the position). Do any practicing scientists take issue with my comments?
Nov 28, 2016
0
#38
The points above me are excellent. To paraphrase and summarize, I would say it like this...
- Theory in Chess takes on the same definition of "theory in science" (Something observed and proven)
- In this case Opening, Middle, Endgame theory can be defined as methods that have been analyzed and observed to be effective/ineffective for use in chess play.
- it is not like theory as in, "I believe the Scotch Game is a pretty good opening."
- Theory in chess is like this: The Scotch has proven to be an effective Opening choice for white in terms for White according to the database.
Nov 29, 2016
0
#39
richie_and_oprah wrote:
Wandle wrote:
The implication of post 3 (and not only post 3) is that the word can have only one meaning.
This expectation, not surprisingly, tends to cause disputes.
With regard to chess thre is only one meaning.
With regard to the word at large, then yes, there are multiple meanings, some metaphoric and some that stretch credulity.
The disputes come from ignorance of people that do not recognize that in specific fields words often need to be narrowly construed in order to build point of reference.
Once again, I'm agreeing with richie_and_oprah. If you've been on this site long enough, you may realize how rare this is.
Re post 41: the original question is: 'Why is theory called 'theory'?' This is asking directly about the meaning of the word. This can be answered, as it has been, by considering what it refers to.
The way it is used in the phrase 'chess theory' is clearly related to other established meanings of the word, and to its etymology.
go fix your hole, docker.