Enjoying recently the very well written "Immortal Game" by David Shenk I read also that Isador Coriat, an American disciple of Freud, wrote about chess in 1937 that "...the sole object of the game for those individuals was to render the King -the father- helpless through checkmate, that is, castrate him. The winning of the game produced a feeling of intense pleasure, as a checkmate was unconsciously equated as a castration revenge".
Kindly please take a deep breath before you post your opinion! In 1956 the famous GM and psychoanalyst Dr Fine quoted that the game "...touches upon the conflicts surrounding aggression, homosexuality, masturbation and narcissism. (The King) stands for the boy's penis in the phallic stage and hence rearouses the castration anxiety characteristic of that period". And suddenly I loved again the 17 moves brilliancy Big Bobby-Fine 1-0, New York 1963, Evans Gambit Compromised Defense!
Am I the only one who considers the Freudians BS big time??
😀
Originally posted by black beetlewell I think it's interesting that dr. fine keeps bringing up homosexuality, masturbation, little boys with penises and using the verb 'stand' and '(re)arouse'.
Enjoying recently the very well written "Immortal Game" by David Shenk I read also that Isador Coriat, an American disciple of Freud, wrote about chess in 1937 that "...the sole object of the game for those individuals was to render the King -the father- helpless through checkmate, that is, castrate him. The winning of the game produced a feeling of int ompromised Defense!
Am I the only one who considers the Freudians BS big time??
😀
hmmm....
Originally posted by black beetleFreud is the one who should've been castrated, obviously. 🙄
Enjoying recently the very well written "Immortal Game" by David Shenk I read also that Isador Coriat, an American disciple of Freud, wrote about chess in 1937 that "...the sole object of the game for those individuals was to render the King -the father- helpless through checkmate, that is, castrate him. The winning of the game produced a feeling of int ...[text shortened]... ompromised Defense!
Am I the only one who considers the Freudians BS big time??
😀
Originally posted by dzhafnerWhy not? Ernest Jones, the biographer of Freud and his most beloved follower, quoted that "...the unconsious motive activating the chess players is not the mere love of pugnasity characteristic of all competitive games but the grimmer one of father murder". This way Jones perceived a connection between the Oedipus complex and chess. And it is quite Freudian;
Please don't ruin Freud's reputation any more by attributing the stupidities of his followers to him. Its very difficult to defend one's ideas from fools who appropriate them, especially after having died.
They still teach Freudian theory in Psychology, but mostly at the beginning levels, unless you're taking a history course. The reason being is that Freud really championed the notion of psychology... he got a lot of balls rolling, so to speak, but most of his stuff is now considered to be impractical and the whole anal/genital fixation theory really never comes into modern research.
Such a notion about chess would never be seriously considered in the scientific community.
Originally posted by ZerokWe agree in full Zerok dude;
They still teach Freudian theory in Psychology, but mostly at the beginning levels, unless you're taking a history course. The reason being is that Freud really championed the notion of psychology... he got a lot of balls rolling, so to speak, but most of his stuff is now considered to be impractical and the whole anal/genital fixation theory really never come ...[text shortened]... .
Such a notion about chess would never be seriously considered in the scientific community.