What chess is all about

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]

Without the game of chess, there would never have been chess problems. And no, not all those are based on competitive play - in fact, in many of them, white and black cooperate to attain a mutual goal.

Now, these are not everyone's cup of tea, to be sure - but they do show that there is room for beauty and artistry without competition between players, or even the armies on the board.

Conan, what is chess all about?

"Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and the heir elimination of their women"

Originally posted by SwissGambit
... but they do show that there is room for beauty and artistry without competition between players, or even the armies on the board.

I'd certainly agree with this ... but would suggest that beauty comes second. Competition is the primary aim.

I've no doubt that some people would say they enjoy the beauty/complexity of the game more than the result itself. In fact I used to believe this was true of me.

Then I realised - and i observe this in other people - that my reactions when I won/lost were not consistent with my stated beliefs.

In truth it mattered (and continues to matter) a great deal to me. I see this in others behaviour after games too.


I'm not saying that EVERYONE thinks like this but I would suggest it's more common that perhaps some would suggest.

As a previous poster suggests ... we could be solving studies and probelms and so forth but when we play chess against somebody else we choose very deliberately not to do that.


Sometimes there seems to be an implicit suggestion that enjoying victory or the competitive aspect as somehow a less worthy reason to play chess than appreciating a fine sacrifice or a positional manouevre. I don't believe this to be true.

Of course we can and do get both together but i argue that it's the competition, in reality, that comes first.

To use an analogy from football (soccer - American RHPers)...

I'd love to see Southampton we 3-0 or 4-0 every game playing free flowing attacking football. However, if I can't have that I'd rather see them win 1-0 by scoring in the first minute then spending the rest of the game hoofing the ball over the stand into the carpark beyond than I would see them lose a 5-4 'thriller'.

and I certainly don't want to see them lose 1-0 at Bristol Rovers in the Cup. :-(

Hmmm....pushing wood about - would need a pretty good a motive to be able to spend so much time doing that!

Well, to me chess is about two minds working together to create someting beautiful. Both players want to lay claim to the final work of art and can only do so by proving they put more into it, you allways get what you put into chess. Which is where my competation comes from.

But if I lose then I guess the game wasn't worth having 😛

For me chess is just about winning, and like Jonathan B I don't care too much about the beauty of the game. Last Monday I played a league game against an old man of 70. I was White, outgraded him by 40 ECF points (200 FIDE points), was thirty years younger and he turned up late and so was fifteen minutes down on the clock. He completely outplayed me, refuting a line in my favourite opening which I've been playing for ten years, and I was probably five moves away from resigning when he blundered his queen and resigned on the spot. I went away just as happy as if I'd found a vipiu-like queen and rook sacrifice.

I've only been playing chess for 6 months but I'm hooked. For me chess is all about unabashed aggression. Over the years of casual playing since a kid I thought it was a neat puzzle, a smart person's game, etc but since I've started studying the game.... It is about winning, harder and smarter than your opponent. I second Jons opening statement.

(though I love the art of a good combo...)

If chess wasn't about winning then this site couldn't exist.

Originally posted by JonathanB of London
I'd certainly agree with this ... but would suggest that beauty comes second. Competition is the primary aim.

I've no doubt that some people would say they enjoy the beauty/complexity of the game more than the result itself. In fact I used to believe this was true of me.

Then I realised - and i observe this in other people - that my react ...[text shortened]... l over the stand into the carpark beyond than I would see them lose a 5-4 'thriller'.

Yeah, I agree...from experience, it's hard to get chess players to look at even composed forced mates, let alone some of the more esoteric problem types like retrograde analysis or helpmates.

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]

Chess is the search for the truth.
Each of us believes that our truth is superior and chess is one way of proving that.

For me chess is meditation. When you are poring over the board, searching for some tantalisingly ineffable combination, the outside world melts into abstraction.

Originally posted by renegade hotspur
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

Your profile says that a team coached by a 1500 was better than the national team. Are you crazy or have I misunderstood this? 😕

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]

Id have to agree with you here. Chess is similar to many sports in a way, especially when you consider how competitive it is. Chess is about winning and both players should have checkmate in mind with every move they make.
Not that theres anything wrong with playing a game artistically, youd just have to say that it wouldn't be a particularly strong strategy.
Great thread.

B.

Originally posted by Regicidal
If chess wasn't about winning then this site couldn't exist.

That is an irrational suggestion. Winning is a goal in chess, but that doesn't mean that chess is all about winning, if that were so then a lost game couldn't be enjoyed.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Frustration and self-loathing. With the rare ocasions of feeling that something was actually accomplished.

I like the way this guy thinks.