Semiotics

Salutations

I was just wondering - are there any semioticians on this site? Furthermore, semioticians who have perhaps combined chess end semiotics in their studies.

Also, perhaps anyone knows of any authors who have thought of chess as a language (like Wittgenstein or so). The reason for asking this is that I am interested in ways of comparing chess with our (natural) language.

A.U.

I read where someone said of Capablanca that chess was his mother tongue. When I thought about it, it seemed an interesting way of conceptualizing the game. Does that help any?

I believe Reti said that ... also, Kasparov has written in his book "Chess as a model of life" something that he felt that he learned chess the way children learn their mother language. It is an interesting analogy, but there problems emerge when we try to see the communicative aspect in chess. As of speaking a language, the goal is to be understood . In chess, the goal is to make your moves as difficult as you can for your opponent to understand. Of course some moves - for instance opening moves - are mostly mutually understood or the meaning of them is conventionally agreed upon. But I believe in the middle game (also endspiel), the chess player secretly hopes that the calculation or evaluation abilities (the so called chess language) on which his concrete chess moves arise from, are of superior quality than his opponent's. To sum it up - it is probable that chess players want their "chess language" to be more complex than their foe's, perhaps even similar to a secret language. Of course one has to take note that it is impossible to invent a new approach to chess which contradicts the rules of the game (especially the fact that players are oriented to win). Tho even that has been done (like the Bongcloud play etc).

Thanks for your reply though! I had actually forgotten that there are more of "chess as a mother lounge" comparisons other than the passage Kasparov wrote.

A.U

Here's one of the reasons I think the language analogy could be useful in chess. Many chess masters are noted for their ability to permanently remember the complete move sequence of many games. Maybe it's like when you hear a lengthy speech given, for example, by a politician.  Although you will not be able to repeat the speech verbatim (unlike the chess master's recall of the move sequence) still you'll remember everything that was said such that if someone asks you "what did he say about x", you can answer completely and accurately, albeit paraphrasing. Or if someone were to say, " the politician said, 'xyz'",you could confidently say, "no, he said, 'xyw'". So too (perhaps) with the chess master's memory of the games. I speculate that for masters using this method, the game "speaks" to them in such a way that they know that the pawn moved at a certain point, or it was first the knight, then the bishop, because otherwise they would have "heard" and remembered a different message.

As a weak (alas) chess player, often I find myself in trouble in a game because I've forgotten (or did not even know) that certain preparatory moves in the position are necessary prior to attempting to execute a strategy or tactic. However, as I write this post, I notice that in the process of constructing what I want to say, almost automatically I am able to include certain clarifying phrases or other modifiers which I know will be necessary for my message to be more accurately understood. Maybe it's similar for the chess speaking master, who knows automatically, much like a language is spoken, that in a given position, desired conditions can be brought about with certainty only if it is "said" it in a particular way. And with respect to this way of looking at the subject, I would say that the chess master is not trying to disguise or hide the message, for it is not he who is speaking. It is the game that is speaking and the master is working to make it say, as clearly and as unequivically as possible, "the position favors you (himself)".

I worte a long reply, nicely construct etc ... and as I clicked on the "post comment", it was gone. So I am quite angry as I am writing this and I will make it shorter. I apologise. 

Of course, thank you both for your replies.

I am working on a comparative analysis of conceptions with deal with the problems of natural language using the (scientific) metaphor of chess.

So far I could say I've been merely mapping the issue -  searching for authors/texts. 

Until now I have: Wittgenstein, Saussure, Searle, Husserl, Isaak Revzin(!), I have been told that some authors from the Moscow Linguistic Circle (Methodological Circle) have dealt with the problem. Then there is Goffman (strategic interaction). Probably next week I will try to spend some time in the library working through the authors mentioned above (for now, my knowledge of them consists of bits of information; I do not have a systematical overview of their works where chess has been brought up).

As for Hjelmslev, it seems I have remembered falsely, that he didn't dare to define chess as made of a single layer of complex relations and used checkers (-like games) instead. Unfortunately, I dont remember where he discussed it - I would appreciate if you would help me. 

The deadline of my work is somewhere in May.

SquareDealers comment is indeed interesting, in fact it did bug me quite a lot some days ago.

Of course, any information will be most appreciated!

A.U