1 edit
Originally posted by VarenkaI don't think it could be put in science, because it's principles aren't yet defined in concrete (as in mathematical) terms, coming from relations of necessity. That's what science is in my opinion. Only some little parts of it could be called scientific, like some endings. But "rooks belong behind passed pawns" or "try to develop all your pieces instead of moving the same pieces over and over" certainly cannot be scientific arguments.
I think it's an art, science and sport. 🙂
and it's not a sport because it doesn't involve physical activity. So we're left with art again.
Originally posted by diskamylWe won’t reach agreement on this because it’s too subjective. 🙂
I don't think it could be put in science, because it's principles aren't yet defined in concrete (as in mathematical) terms, coming from relations of necessity. That's what science is in my opinion. Only some little parts of it could be called scientific, like some endings. But "rooks belong behind passed pawns" or "try to develop all your pieces instead of ...[text shortened]... t a sport because it doesn't involve physical activity. So we're left with art again.
Something like “rook behind passed pawns” is based on principles of logic. Surely this is more mathematical/scientific than it is artistic? Or consider “calculation” of variations. The term is a mathematical one and the process can be very systematic in some cases. Engines highlight the scientific nature of chess and rely upon it to play so well.
Also, psychology is a branch of science. I believe there is a significant aspect of psychology in chess.
I won’t debate what makes a “sport” or not. Substitute what term you think best highlights the competitive nature of chess. I don’t think “art” includes this aspect, but I do think chess has artistic factors too.
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonThanks for correcting me. Next time you post something in Dutch I will be glad to help you too 😉
ah but punctuation has rules too ... and your sentence is still understandable despite breaking them ... so perhaps chess can't be defined by rules after all?
A language serves many purposes, and for some of them it is not a problem if you brake a rule or two. This is not true in chess: the purpose is part of the rules.
Originally posted by diskamylI think Botvinnik would not agree that chess is not science. He defined details in chess in strictly mathematical terms. He was the first serious chess programmer in history.
I don't think it could be put in science, because it's principles aren't yet defined in concrete (as in mathematical) terms, coming from relations of necessity. That's what science is in my opinion. Only some little parts of it could be called scientific, like some endings. But "rooks belong behind passed pawns" or "try to develop all your pieces instead of ...[text shortened]... t a sport because it doesn't involve physical activity. So we're left with art again.
It is more than the sum of it's parts. Chess is chess, it defines itself for you while playing. For some it takes a second for some it takes a year. Some never get it. When you do. You are stuck!
It's like a chair you have to sit on but hold up yourself. It so cool that such a simple game has such a tremendous depth. People spend their whole lives studying it and we have not solved it yet.
Chess is chess and if you want to know what I mean you need to play it.
That's how I describe it to people. :p