Chess in Movies
Sort:
bumiputra wrote:
Socrates: [274c] I heard, then, that at Naucratis, in Egypt, was one of the ancient gods of that country, the one whose sacred bird is called the ibis, and the name of the god himself was Theuth. He it was who [274d] invented numbers and arithmetic and geometry and astronomy, also draughts and dice, and, most important of all, letters.
Now the king of all Egypt at that time was the god Thamus, who lived in the great city of the upper region, which the Greeks call the Egyptian Thebes, and they call the god himself Ammon. To him came Theuth to show his inventions, saying that they ought to be imparted to the other Egyptians. But Thamus asked what use there was in each, and as Theuth enumerated their uses, expressed praise or blame, according as he approved [274e] or disapproved.
"The story goes that Thamus said many things to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts, which it would take too long to repeat; but when they came to the letters, [274e] “This invention, O king,” said Theuth, “will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memories; for it is an elixir of memory and wisdom that I have discovered.” But Thamus replied, “Most ingenious Theuth, one man has the ability to beget arts, but the ability to judge of their usefulness or harmfulness to their users belongs to another; [275a] and now you, who are the father of letters, have been led by your affection to ascribe to them a power the opposite of that which they really possess.
"For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem [275b] to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise."
I was talking about this very passage in The Phaedrus in my history of technology course on Wednesday (the lecture was on the history of printing).
I kind of remember an erm... ponderous essay by Elisabeth Eisenstein on the subject of the social impact of printing technologies.
Well, and Chess was also there... wasn't it?
My impression is that chess had a prominent presence among the first printed books (alongside the Bible obviously), but maybe my perspective is somehow biased, can't say.
bumiputra wrote:
I kind of remember an erm... ponderous essay by Elisabeth Eisenstein on the subject of the social impact of printing technologies.
Well, and Chess was also there... wasn't it?
My impression is that chess had a prominent presence among the first printed books (alongside the Bible obviously), but maybe my perspective is somehow biased, can't say.
Caxton, 1470s (the second ever book printed anywhere in English -- before the Bible!)
The thirde chapitre of the first tractate treteth wherfore the playe was founden and maad
bumiputra posted A Chess Dispute:
bumiputra wrote:
I kind of remember an erm... ponderous essay by Elisabeth Eisenstein on the subject of the social impact of printing technologies.
Their textbook has quotes from Marshall McLuhan. I'm certain that Eisenstein is less ponderous.
The long view from the Gutenberg Bible to Instagram and Twitter is useful.
Some folks are a little too serious about their chess.
Hey guys, anyone for a friendly Fischrandom, 7-day something?
You James have never tried it out? Bumiputra has.
The same game, the same logic and beauty, no preparation of any sorts, no routine opening play, thinking conceptually from move 1, position "normalizes" real quick, the castling rules keep it dynamic (without them the game would slow down and go back to middle ages).
Anyone?
I've switched to Fischer completely
Gligoric's "Shall we play Fischerandom?" here,
https://alonot.com/english/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Svetozar-Gligoric-Shall-We-Play-Fischerandom-Chess-Batsford-Chess-Books-2003-Batsford.pdf
thank you, RoaringPawn, that's a nice book you unearthed!
I did try, Team Italia is always in need of chessboards, but I'm not sure I can play Fisherandom at all.
I'm even worse at that, than I am at normal chess, and consider my knowledge of Openings - in practical terms - is erm.. null!
Speaking of revolutions... doesn't anyone think that one weaknesses of the 960 chess revolution may be that Revolutions aren't really supposed to come from the Top?
bumiputra wrote:
thank you, RoaringPawn, that's a nice book you unearthed!
I did try, Team Italia is always in need of chessboards, but I'm not sure I can play Fisherandom at all.
I'm even worse at that, than I am at normal chess, and consider my knowledge of Openings - in practical terms - is erm.. null!
That's exactly why we play Fischer - to eliminate opening prep
As for the book, got a hard copy, love to hold her tight and smell it and touch it
bumiputra wrote:
Speaking of revolutions... doesn't anyone think that one weaknesses of the 960 chess revolution may be that Revolutions aren't really supposed to come from the Top?
always been crazy about this type of thought provoking questions
but before I put something to your actual q, what Fischer weaknesses you are talking about, caro amico? One can see many, many, immeasurably more weaknesses of the classical.
Please, Bumiputra, gimme just few, the most fundamental (the one “from the top” aside), please, please...
Well it is so difficult to make one step beyond one single dazzling stupid intuition 
I'll try, for the sake of it and of our friendship.
Now, you certainly know that the Rules of chess have not always been the same. I think it would be interesting to understand HOW they changed.
A lot of research, mainly historical, has been done on the Great Chess Revolution. Probably the only major change in chess rules we know something about.
This Great Chess Revolution has been tracked back more or less to the end of the XVth Century.
I could give bibliography here, at least to show I'm not completely futile, but I think that would go beyond the possibilities provided by an erm... forum note.
In any case, I think the curious facts about that 'revolution' are a few.
The fact that it really was a Revolution is the first one. All the different new rules had been there for a while, but then the change in the "paradigm" came all in a sudden.
Second, it was not all and only about rules, it was also about the 'setting': the change made sense not only because the new chess was more pleasant and 'fast' for players, but also because it fitted in with a new way of representing chess or rather a new way in which chess represented the human society (this is not only about the Queen or the Court, but also about strategical thinking and chess related metaphors).
Thirdly, one of the most striking things is that this Revolution in chess rules did not happen at 'any' moment in human history. It happened in the exact historical period in which the Modern Era is universally considered to have begun (out of a cultural artifact know as the Middle Ages)
So then forgive me for being perhaps vague, but my point was would a Fischer Random revolution present all of these features? Maybe yes, or maybe there will be new features, I don't know.
...but in general, don't you think that it can't be simply a question of deciding if "technically" a variant is more playable.
So the question is are we, meaning the Chess Community (which may be much larger than the community of persons who actually can play chess), ready to enter a new phase of chess? For instances, are we really ready to give up the entire Opening edifice?
In New Chess will a stalemate be negative, as it clearly sounds in English, or positive, as "uno Stallo" used to be in the context of a medieval cathedral?
In other words, once Bobby's Vase were to be uncorked I think we should start seeing new analogies, metaphors, painting, poems and icons exploding out into the staring night of humanity let's all work in order for that to happen that's all thank you for your attention I will be listening to you on the radio cheers I'm gone
A beautiful, braintiful essay on the (r)evolution(s) of chess!!!
.
PS Bumiputra, as my original vocation happened to be in the exact sciences (aerospace engineering), and sadly and so frustratingly, Not educated in liberal arts to gain an expansive intellectual grounding in all kinds of humanistic inquiry, could I get some additional time to make any kind of meaningful reaction to your very bravura essay (so this would be like we're playing a game you in blitz, me in the classical
)
.
Here're @bumiputra and @RoaringPawn participating in a (chess?) discussion
