 |
|
MAP Links Contact Us Books Glossary ECO Search Tools FAQ News
HOME CLUBS BANNERS BLOG VIRTUAL MUSEUM ARTICLES CAISSA FORUM
 | |||
 |
|
 Chess Practice - MenuChess Pract. PresentationGreat TournamentsInternational NewsGame over the boardPlay by CorrespondenceChess HistoryReflections and debatesChess Practice - Forums |
|
|
Let me propose, for begining, to explor what a realist point of view may bring in the chess game understanding. How all coherent and autonomous discipline, the chess game leads to develop an internal language and this way to begin dogmatic. But the idea that chess game covers a kind of reality, and also the study of the link between this one and more concret levels of reality, is essential; in particular because it's well known the realist point of view is fruitful in literature and epistemology. In this way, don't forget the conception of the chess game owes a lot at the war metaphor. Evidently, speaking like this, I have myself some reservations and I know very well it will be rather tricky to find an example, in another reality that the chess game, of notions like the pin of a chess piece, the discover check, and the fork tactic (but I'll come back on this last example). But this remark don't close the debate. Effectively, I can't believe this game is only a technical exercice which don't need an external comparison. This will be evacuate too quickly the question of the meaning. At this subject, we may consider the notion of sacrifice. What is more spectacular than the sacrifice of a major piece (Rook or Queen) in a grandmater game? It seems to me it's not easy to find a so perfect representation of this notion than in chess. Nevertheless, the idea of sacrifice lies amply outside the game field. People may think to animal sacrifices to gods. But we may easily object this kind of sacrifices is founded on complex beliefs and not on a strategic calculus. It's not a minor difference; in the chess game it will be like a Knight sacrifice played without a clear idea of its justication. Only through intuition, what certainly isn't a good think for a novice chess player. Here you may perahps make the comparaison with the Sophie's choice... But really isn't at all the same situation. Effectively in this last case how envisage the notion of compensation? The famous English mathematician Hardy said in the "Proof by Contradiction" - is also known as reductio ad absurdum, which is probably Latin for "reduce it to something absurd" - the best example of sacrifice, because if the chess player gives a piece, the mathematician give the game! Like I indicated before, I want to speak about fork, in the chess meaning. I ask me and you equally the following question: does exit a similar situation in our reality? When the classic way for win a piece is to attack this one with more pieces that those used by the opponent for its defence, fork don't need such an heavy artillery. The fork chess tactic realize this magic trick: a piece is able to keep a piece because the first one attacks two pieces in the same time. It's true, sometimes it's possible, for many tactical reasons, to escape a fork; but nevertheless this chess tactic is really surprising for all non experimented player. Yes indeed, nothing in the daily life prepares us to face this notion. I have think at the prisoner's dilemma, where two prisoners, accused of the same crime are in two different isolated cells without be able to communicate - It's not necessary to develop considerations on this famous non-zero-sum game, for which you may find a lot of good sources and references - ... But this problematic is enough rather different from the chess tactic fork problematic. I apologize for this rather long post, but I was certainly induce to go a little farer than I thank. Anyway, I be very pleased if other people might equally tackle this kind of question, certainly with a rather different point of view.
************
*** FOR PLEASANT SURFING AROUND THIS SITE:
*** FOR DISCOVERING WHO WE ARE:
******** ©-«Chess-Theory.com»-2004-2008 ******** |
 |
