What chess is all about

Petrovitch said (in another thread)
The game of chess is not about checkmate or attacking the king; it's about finding the beauty of solving complex problems.

I find this statement very interesting but with due respect cannot agree.


Chess, it seems to me, is about winning and losing. It's a game afterall.

Anything else, e.g. rather abstract concepts like beauty, is secondary. It may well be that this is what maintains our interest in the game but without the competitive aspect there is nothing else. No context in which this 'beauty' may arise.

So I think anyway.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by JonathanB of London
Petrovitch said (in another thread)
[b]The game of chess is not about checkmate or attacking the king; it's about finding the beauty of solving complex problems.

I find this statement very interesting but with due respect cannot agree.


Chess, it seems to me, is about winning and losing. It's a game afterall.

Anything else, ...[text shortened]... else. No context in which this 'beauty' may arise.

So I think anyway.

Any thoughts?[/b]

That's interesting. I would say it is about solving complex problems with the intention of checkmate. I suppose on a very basic level I play because I can be aggressive without any moral responsibility, like intellectual boxing.

Some of my most enjoyable games have been those I've lost, but only, I think, because I've been exposed to some beautiful play that I can then employ against others to beat them.

If you solve complex problems better than your opponent, it will lead to checkmate anyway.

I'd say chess is about pitting two human minds against each other, struggling to outmaneuver, outthink, and thus outplay the other mind. I think it is the most testing object one can find for the mind.

Originally posted by JonathanB of London
Petrovitch said (in another thread)
[b]The game of chess is not about checkmate or attacking the king; it's about finding the beauty of solving complex problems.

I find this statement very interesting but with due respect cannot agree.


Chess, it seems to me, is about winning and losing. It's a game afterall.

Anything else, ...[text shortened]... else. No context in which this 'beauty' may arise.

So I think anyway.

Any thoughts?[/b]

The wonderful thing about chess is that it has the capacity to offer numerous paths to enjoyment; You don't HAVE to agree with someone else about what's most important in chess. Each person is free to choose his own priorities - competition, solving (or creating) chess problems, chess history, computer chess, the social aspects of chess, etc. Chess is a "big tent" game that attracts many different types of people, and I think everyone benefits from this property. At least, that's my take on it.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
The wonderful thing about chess is that it has the capacity to offer numerous paths to enjoyment; You don't HAVE to agree with someone else about what's most important in chess. Each person is free to choose his own priorities - competition, solving (or creating) chess problems, chess history, computer chess, the social aspects of chess, etc. Chess is a "bi ...[text shortened]... f people, and I think everyone benefits from this property. At least, that's my take on it.

Certainly ... that was kind of the inspiration for my post. Find some of these different views.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
The wonderful thing about chess is that it has the capacity to offer numerous paths to enjoyment; You don't HAVE to agree with someone else about what's most important in chess. Each person is free to choose his own priorities - competition, solving (or creating) chess problems, chess history, computer chess, the social aspects of chess, etc. Chess is a "bi ...[text shortened]... f people, and I think everyone benefits from this property. At least, that's my take on it.

Agree.

Some people play for the pleasure of breaking their opponent’s ego but such a sadistic superficial premise for playing chess is not ultimately satisfying for most people. Neither is winning. Most people play chess for the pleasure of wading through a forest of complications. In correspondence chess, this challenge is significantly reduced as one can enhance calculation strength by means of the analysis board; however, chess requires one to know what setups to aim for [positional knowledge]. This constitutes much of the problem of learning chess at a 2000+ level because one can play normal moves that do not fall to a short term combination and still be blown off the board because some moves may not detected to be inferior until many moves down the line. So there is a distinction between lower and higher level chess regarding precisely what aspects in a position that players find enjoyable.

Originally posted by JonathanB of London


It's a game afterall.

Its a Sport, the sport, a sport of Kings. King against King, Lord against Lord. Death to the loser. Its not a game ........... Its WAR!!!!!

Renegade

I say chess is about chess.

chess is pretty good, but chess and food together is just heaven. 😀

Frustration and self-loathing. With the rare ocasions of feeling that something was actually accomplished.

Originally posted by Yuga
Some people play for the pleasure of breaking their opponent’s ego but such a sadistic superficial premise for playing chess is not ultimately satisfying for most people.

It was for Fischer. 😉 Although we all know what happened to him after he stopped playing chess. 🙁

See the interview: http://cavett.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/was-it-only-a-game/

Actually, I agree with you. It's much more than just about winning.

Give two opposing sides armies of the same strength and following given rules, see who can think/see better.

Originally posted by JonathanB of London
Certainly ... that was kind of the inspiration for my post. Find some of these different views.

I think most people would be in your camp on the issue. But I'm sure there is a small group of people out there who couldn't care less about competitive chess.

While at times I enjoy the artistic qualities of chess, I tried to imagine if I were given the following ultimatum: That I could continue to enjoy chess, but that I would never again be allowed to play a competitive game of chess. Only problem solving, looking at studies, reviewing past games, etc. Could I live with that situation?

My answer is that I don't think I would enjoy chess as much as before. I might be able to live with the situation, but I definitely wouldn't be a real happy camper. I would be missing out on "The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat." Also, not having the feedback of ratings updates, I would find it harder to gauge my chess improvement.