Philosophy of Chess

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Philosophy of Chess

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 10:18 am
Why is there not a Philosophy of Chess.

The game was designed around the battlefield
Was limiting the King an act of democracy
With Queens like Sheeba, Elizabeth, Victoria, Cleopatra ..etc, why not limit them as well. Yes it was a replacement of the General piece but why should a woman have more freedom. Why not simply replace the King and would she set up her house in the same manner as a King.
Why do we allow our bishop to continue to kill, when in this day and age we regect religious fanatacism and martadom.
Who are the pawns today if we seem so enlightened.

The game must change.
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 04:03 pm
The more appropriate philosophy related to chess would be, Sun Tzu's "The Art Of War," Chess is about war, or in a slightly more subtle way business, it is about strategy, strategy that you indeed can apply to life, in over coming the odds against you. The game itself was invented in the time of feudal war lords being the powers that be. The king just represents I think whatever the governing principle is, the analogy to modern day peace and gender roles is stretching it a bit. I shall be watching however to see if it proves at all fruitful.
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 06:21 pm
I think Sun Tzu was more of Go man but he would have loved Chess, though he would have bored with it quite quickly.

I ask because the game has become a stagnant match of mistakes versus recollections, where the life of the game has been replaced by forte and a ticking clock.

When I sit behind my force, I feel as though I have lost because the battle is in the hands of some other. If the front two lines are mine, why can I not develop my own structure of stronghold, be in offensive, defensive or neutral. From the onset of choice of piece between opponents the white must place half his pieces prior to the opponents, should that be the wish.

I believe the potential of Chess has been ignored, to highlight the significance of others. The Grand Masters and the Greatest Computers can be beaten by all but not the way they play, like each other on auto play.

You can fly a kite in no wind
You can fly a kite for archers
You can fly a kite as a distraction

In life, Chess has more relevence than on a board
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2008 03:05 pm
I've also wondered often on a philosophy of chess, but I think that chess is so rich and complex in ideas and symbolism that chess is philosophy expressed as a game.

Chess is another attempt by man to fit infinite ideas into a finite frame.

We must all take turns fighting for both good & evil, but why does the dark side always have to be the defender? Is good the cause of all struggle? If the white side never made a move, would we ever have a battle between good & evil? Could they just co-exist on each side of the board without interraction? Why does man force them into adjacency?

What is the initial cause of white's first move? Is it the individual, the opponent, god? Are our moves a definition of anything, be it ourselves or our opponents?

If the game is purely logical as some would assert, why is it sometimes the best move isn't the logically correct move?

A computer can not play chess.
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2008 07:03 am
Time for a new Chess a game of many adversaries but still with the guile that Chess requires no dice like it is a mousetrap game
Didymos Thomas
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2008 11:44 pm
The role of the Queen in chess has changed. Initially, the Queen was more of a protective piece for the king. The Tiger Tank she evolved into is a far cry from her original role. It's an interesting history.

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Philosophy of Chess
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/19/2024 at 06:11:34