 |
|
MAP Links Contact Us Books Glossary ECO Search Tools FAQ News
HOME CLUBS BANNERS BLOG VIRTUAL MUSEUM 
ARTICLES CAISSA FORUM
 | |||
 Chess Theory - Menu  Chess TheoryQuick introductionCurrent Chess TheoryNew Chess TheoryDynamic classification |
|
|
|
|
We are pleased to illustrate this page thanks to the expressive and captivating work of the Belgian artist Michel Jamsin: 
«Michel JAMSIN - La Sensualité picturale»
of which you will have the pleasure to visit the gallery. His
pictures are presented under the topic: "pictorial sensuality"...
We invite you to read the very beautiful sentences by which Michel
Jamsin expresses what he wants to say thus... In any case,
Chess-Theory makes a point of thanking Michel Jamsin and of
wishing him all the success he deserves!
*** CHESS AND SOCIETY ***
«Bienvenue sur images échiquéennes - Michel Beaudry»
«Bill Wall's Chess World-Most Comprehensive Chess Resour.»
«Chess Curiosities - Tim Krabbé's Chess Curiosities»
«MJAE - Mieux Jouer aux Echecs - The Reyes' web site»
«Goddesschess.com - Chess: The Game of the Goddess»
«Art et Curiosités échiquéennes - Chess Studies - jmrw.com»
«Chesscafe.com - Book Review - (End)game Study - Archives»
«ChessBase.com-ChessBase News-English, German, Spanish»
«www.JeremySilman.com - The Jeremy Silman's web site»
«Chess Siberia - Boris Schipkov's web site - English»
«Chessville.com - Links, Instruction, Downloads, Reviews...»
«Welcome to the University of Pittsburgh Chess Club»
«EE- Europe Echecs - L'Actualité du monde des échecs»
Historically, and from the beginning, Chess were more or less a representation and a symbolization of the social structure of the epoch. And, in the same time, the development of chess practice took on the exact shape of the social hierarchy. In this respect, the Medieval period offers a particularly illustrative example. Indeed, during the Middle Ages, whereas Chess, coming from the Arab world, developed through all Europe, they were adapted, not from the point of view of rules, but primarily concerning the image and the symbolic representation. One knows the King thus represented well the king or the emperor, but also the high nobility. The Rook symbolized the fortified castle, the Bishop the High Clergy, the Knight the knight, and the pawn the peasant... Naturally the Queen was not other than the queen, with often a more prominent role than appear in her statute (See :
«Chess History - Comprehensive Timeline»).
In this representation, symbolism was pushed very far, going until justifying the rules in effect (power and relative importance of pieces) as well as the conception of playing (such the concept of sacrifice). But, another interesting aspect concerning the social impact of the chess game also appears by the many religious interdicts whose it was the object, chiefly among Arabs, then with the Middle Ages, for example under the reign of Louis IX.
*** SOCIAL STATUS OF CHESS ***
Then following closely the history, this royal tradition, relative to the practice of the "Noble Game", was perpetuated from Alfonso X of Castile (1221-1284) to Frederic II of Prussia (1712-1781) and even Napoleon I (Bonaparte) (1769-1781). "Game of Kings, King of games". However, during this half-millenium a considerable evolution occurred. It is nevertheless with Spanish and Italian Schools of Chess that appear the first serious breach in the royal primacy vis-a-vis Chess. It is due to the fact that the very first players emerge profiting from the semi-official status of leading chess players of their time. The fact is they were not kings and they were not even, generally, of noble blood. But however, to exert their art and to earn their living, it was necessary well that they go visiting kings and other powerful people in this world. Greco is, certainly, the best representant of this period. A decisive evolution was, gradually, the practice taken to play in inns and taverns; this as of the Middle Ages. People played there large sums of money, which was not without creating serious incidents and was the pretext for religious bans. The situation changed radically with the appearance of "coffees" mainly reserved to the chess game, of which the most famous was certainly the
«"Café de la Régence" à Paris (1670-1916)». But such a
practice quickly developed in all the large European capitals and
all particularly in London (since 1652). The period of glory of
the "Coffees" and "Circles" reserved to the chess game roughly
speaking extends from the middle of the XVIIIth
century until near the end of the XIXth.
*** EVOLUTION OF CHESS CONCEPTS ***
«Another view on Chess - History - Jean-Louis Cazaux» )
as well as the stabilization of its rules and the coding of how to
play well. Historically the following small miracle occurs, which
deserves more attention:
i) Chess asserts itself like a dominating game, compared to all possible alternatives (variants), in all the West, however divided from the point of view of its languages, nationalities and traditions. ii) Chess answers to optimal technical and aesthetic conditions which make it a "perfect" game (exclusion of chance, play with perfect information, of null sum, but also many other data which expresses the idea of an "optimization"). iii) The perfection of Chess is in particular the result of (Using) Time: the course of game is fast enough to captivate the interest of the chess player and slow enough to constitute in oneself a significant section of the life. iv) The perfection of Chess is finally the result of its unfathomable wealth, which induces, all at the same time, an unlimited toughness, an inexhaustible aesthetics and an inaccessible mystery. Starting from the Spanish School and the Italian one, we enter during a time of maturity where the chess game fully affirms its autonomy and singulality. But, although it had great predecessors like Gioacchino Greco (1600-1634) and the Syrian player Phillip Stamma (1700 or 1705?-1760), who published in French in Paris in 1737 "Essai sur le jeu d'échecs", then in English in London in 1745 "Noble Game of Chess", it is really starting from
«Philidor (1726-1795)» that we enter the modern phase of the
history of Chess.
*** HOW WELL PLAY CHESS ***
«Les grands joueurs qui ont contribué... - Par Eric Blineau»
«A History of the Development of Chess Strategy- By Eruk»
«Exeter Chess Club: The development of chess style!»
«Great Chess Teachers - Google translation from Spanish»
Quickly enough, towards the end of the XVth century, the centre of gravity of the chess game moved from Spain to Italy. If we owe to Spain the great figures that were Ruy Lopez (1530-1580) and Francesh Vicent, the reasons are numerous, after the death of Lopez, so that the Italian School was the essential one. That is due initially to the presence of strong players and the influence of their writings. Damiano, of portuguese origin , settled in Rome and published its celebre work, in Italian, 1512. But it is finally necessary to think of other great players like Leonardo and Polero. The Italian School preached a very dynamic play having for objective a high-speed attack on the opponent's castle implying sacrifices. The Italian Opening (The famous: "Giuoco Piano") is an excellent illustration of such a concept, but also the King's gambit. People sought to activate the game to the maximum, using gambits and other sacrifices; the essential objective remained the weak point f7. However there is another important aspect, about which Eric Ruch speaks in specialist:
«The Italian Rules - By Eric Ruch» . It is the matter of the
"passar battaglia" and the "free castling". You can
refer, at this subject, to the excellent Erich Ruch's article,
which defines this rules clearly and illustrates them by historical
games where they were played.
Eric Ruch analyzes - in the article online which I have just indicated above, but also in several columns that he wrote alone or in collaboration with "Le Scribe" in:
«AJEC - CDE - "Courrier des Échecs"» - consequences of the
use of such rules, which inevitably contributed to insulate Italy.
The fact is that Greco the Great, known as the Calabrian, by far
the strongest player of his time, left very young his country not
to return there never again. He went to France, to England; then
remained at the court of Spain, before accompanying a Spanish
noble in India, where he died at 34. If one speaks, in connection
with Italy, of the School of Modena, it is primarily because of the
great figure of Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani (1719-1796). This one
published in 1782 "Il Giuco Incomparabile degli scacchi". He
studies there many openings, of which that which bears his name.
We know that Philidor attached a great importance to the pawns ("The pawn is the soul of chess"), which had been practically neglected before him. He considered particularly necessary to have a flexible pawn stucture, a strong center and in particular a strong central pawn; thus with Blacks he liked to play c6 then enabling him to play d5. In the online article which he publishes on his site:
«"The Soul of Chess" - By Boris Alterman» GM Boris Alterman
called about Philidor, at the end of the analysis of the game
Count Bruel - Philidor, F, London, 1783: "Philidor has taught the
power of passed pawns. The game was very typical for a style of
Philidor. Already here we may learn a lot of rules: Bad and good
pieces; Space advantage; Open files; Pawn structure; importance
of center". This way we realise clearly at what point do
François-Andre Danican Philidor was in advance on his time and
finally his deep modernism!
After the death of Philidor, France continued to remain the leading country for Chess, with great players such Alexandre Louis Honore Lebreton Deschapelles (1780-1847), Louis Charles Mahe de la Bourdonnais (1797-1840) and Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint Amant (1802-1872). But during this period there had any theoretical projection, the Philidor's treatise "Analyze des Eschecs" (Analysis of Chess) remaining indisputably the bible of Chess. Then, two matches, which took place in 1843 between Pierre de Saint Amant and Howard Staunton (1810-1874), marked the end of a full century of French domination on the "Noble Game". It should be noted in this respect that Staunton deserved largely to be considered like the strongest player of its time. On the one hand taking into account the quality of his play, but as much by the innovation that it represented. At all events, it is largely justified to speak of the "English School", that Staunton, all particularly, symbolized by his strong personality. Howard Staunton was a theorist of very first plan, as Robert James Fischer recognized it. He had a thorough knowledge of the openings and brought many innovations there. He played the English Opening systematically, developed closed variations and practised the play on the wings, including the "fianchetti". Finally he beat about, with his pieces, behind the line of pawns, which was not practicing before, in such a conscious way.
*** CLASSICISM AND HYPERMODERNISM ***
Wilhelm Steinitz (1836-1900) is a considerable figure in the world of Chess under many aspects. First official world chess champion, he was a very strong player even if he was not in his nature, quite to the contrary, to devote himself to a spectacular play. It is particularly interesting to bring out the ascendancy of Steinitz on players of his time. That is explained by the fact that he was a great theorist and that he proved, in front of the chessboard, his ideas were right. He was relayed by Siegbert Tarrasch (1862-1934). Both were the father founders of a School which one says "Classical", but just as easily as you could name it modern. We will say that it is question of the "Classical Chess Theory" in order to avoid any confusion. This theory supports a "positional" play, in opposition to a spectacular and adventurous one. We don't must simplify this very elaborate theory in restricting our attention only to some fundamental precepts. But nevertheless it's good to point out them quickly: * "Forces", "Space" and "Time" are the fundamental data which govern a chess game. * It is initially necessary to complete the development of all his pieces before launching an attack. * The center must be occupied, the ideal formation for White being: e4, d4. * In the opening, you must not play the same piece twice. * After castling, the King must be protected by the pawns in front of him. In addition, the queen-side castling is riskier than the king-side one. * The Knights must be played before the Bishops. * It is necessary to open lines of attack and to control them. * The Queen is less strong than two Rooks or three minor pieces. * One may win a game by exploiting small advantages. Before continuing you would allow me some brief comments. There is an unquestionable dogmatism in the classical rules; more serious, they tended to freeze the game in some limit. But, one cannot say that without, in addition, doing justice to their worth, by recognizing that the "Classical Chess Theory" is deep, relevant, equilibrated and, moreover, presented by Dr. Tarrasch with an undeniable pedagogy. One can still add that Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch was a very great player, who would have probably deserved to be world chess champion, and whose contribution to the Opening Chess Theory is quite simply considerable. The "Hypermodern School" then brought a wind of revolt. It was represented as one knows by several players with an immense talent like Aaron Nimzovich (1886-1935), Richard Reti (1889-1929), Gyula Breyer (1893-1921), but also Alexander Alekhine (1892-1946), Ksawery Tartakower (1887-1956), Hans Kmoch (1894-1973) and some others. From the point of view of the theory the headlight writing is naturally "My System" by Nimzovich; however it is necessary to add his other books, the important Reti's work and the original and major contribution of Kmoch in his splendid book: "Pawn Power in Chess". With that we have also to take into account the significant share of all these great chess players within the framework of the Opening Chess Theory. The "Hypermodern School" claimed that the classical type of center (d4, e4) could be the object of attacks by opponent's pieces and pawns and that consequently better is "to control" the center than "to occupy" it. This only concept opened already the door towards a very broad range of new chess openings which, we all know, often correspond to a play of side (Wing openings), with control of the center by far, in particular thanks to one or two Bishops in fianchetto. Of course, the classical rules are ridiculed and one does not miss an occasion to put them at fault. Other strong Nimzovich's ideas are the notions of "centralization", "prophylaxis", "open file" (re-examined and specified), "indirect exploitation of a file", of "attack on the seventh rank", "blocking the passed pawn", "blocker", "doubled pawns and handicap", "strong or weak pawns (or points)" etc... Richard Reti defends, as for him, some frankly innovative ideas, like the distinction that he makes between "development move" and "initiative move". His studies of combinations or about the "weaknesses on the f-file", or concerning "chains of pawns", deserve also all our attention. We insisted on the great originality of the Hans Kmoch's work, but it is also necessary to say all the wealth contained in "Two hundred games" of Alexander Alekhine analyzed by himself.
*** THE SOVIET SCHOOL AND THE COLD WAR ***
« A time-line of Russian - World News - Politics - History...»
« The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) (CCCP) »
« Russian Revolution October, 1917 - Since 8th July 1917»
« Kings and Paws in Soviet Russia - By Olaf Ulvestad»
« Aledander Alexanderovich Alekhine (1892-1946)-Bill Wall»
« Soviet Chess 1917 - 1991 - By GM Andrew Soltis»
« Years of Reaction (1907-1910) - Lenine and Maxim Gorky»
« Victor Kortchnoi: My Life for Chess - By Frederic Friedel»
« Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Soviet Politics...»
« Chess Books from Amos Burn to Capablanca-Notes-Pictures»
« Analyses - Cold War Chess - By Daniel Johnson May 2005»
« La Révolution d'Octobre - 6 novembre 1917 - Petrograd»
« Russian Revolution (October 1917) - Lenin Museum Index»
«Leaders of the Russian Revolution - Microform Collection»
The bridge period between the Russian Revolution, October 1917 and the contemporary one saw such political dislocations that it would have been impossible that chess practice suffer any consequence; at all events, the break was beyond what was conceivable. First of all, concerning Chess in Russia, it is necessary to take into account that one played for a long time at this game at the court of the Tsars, among the Russian nobility and undoubtedly also in a certain social elite. There was thus a tradition of Chess. With that it should be added that we must not confuse social backwardness and cultural backwardness. Actually, Tsarist Russia reached a high cultural level; what reveals the Russian great writers Gogol, Dostoievski, Tolstoi, Turguenev, Chekhov and Gorki... It is also known that the Russian elite at this time usually spoke French; sometimes also German and English. Finally the Russians travelled as well a lot. All these reasons allow us to understand why was possible that a chess player of the stature of Mikhail Ivanovich Chigorin (1850-1908) could emerge. Indeed Chigorin was a player of great talent, which can be located at the top level, even if he was not world chess champion. Moreover, his strong personality clearly appeared by the originality of his playing and the depth of his theoretical conceptions. He was anti-dogmatic and did not fail to be opposed in this respect to Steinitz and his School. Tchigorin is, amongst other things, known by his preference for the Knight on the Bishop. For that matter, in the great Chigorin variation of Spanish Opening ...Na5 by no means corresponds to the intention of catching the White Bishop, but instead, playing ...c5, and then repositioning the Knight behind the pawn. In addition Chigorin had a clear vision of the relative value of pieces. Finally we must insist on his great creativity of play, which has influenced his School and has also perpetuated his worlwide reputation. Chigorin died a few years before the Russian Revolution of 1917. All great Bolsheviks leaders were good chess players, to start with Lenin and Trotsky, but however the play itself was initially banished, because it symbolized too much the Old Regime. However Russian leaders, and undoubtedly Joseph Stalin more than very other, became aware very quickly of the considerable political role that Chess could play in the future. Concerning interior politic, initially, one could recognize to Chess four major qualities: i) A Social Value, as a factor of stability. ii) An Educational Value, what is rather difficult to contest. iii) A Symbolic Value, as research of a high level of perfection. iv) A Political Value, demonstrating the superiority of the New Man lauded by the Communist society. It is impossible to take down here all the mechanisms of the Soviet Chess organization and besides I do not have competence for this investigation; in addition we would leave the subject thus. Aim at the essential. It is necessary to recognize the extraordinary success that was this enterprise. A whole people, a whole society was going to learn Chess and to improve in its practice. That supposed a gigantic and impeccable organization. But the fact is that all this could have been carried out in a general context of banality and mediocrity, what was absolutely not the case, as each one knows. Quite to the contrary, the Soviet School of Chess reached an exceptional level, without equal, as we may still see it today. That corresponded to: i) A major educational system. ii) A practice on a large scale and a high general level. iii) The emergence of a significant number of chess players reaching the highest worldwide level. iv) A priceless contribution both to the Theory and the Practice of Chess. In parallel we understand very well the considerable ambassador role of Chess, around in the world, and we know the intense propaganda of State which was orchestrated by the Soviet authorities, until at the top level, all the time that lasted the communist regim. To conclude this paragraph and to emphaSIZE=the following it is good to note that this splendid "Soviet School of Chess" remains still the first in the world, because it has survived, as a total entity, at the breaking-up of the Soviet Union and is today, through Russian, Ukrainian, Armenian, Georgian, Hungarian, Bulgarian and other great chess players at the top of its glory... And how imagine that the leading player of the next decade, which is perhaps only 15 years old today, would not come from one of these countries? ... Ah! Unless he would be Indian or Chinese, who knows!?
*** WHAT IS A GENIUS IN CHESS? ***
Robert James Fischer (born on March 9, 1943 in Chicago) is undoubtedly the best chess player ever!... For the course of his career an excellent resource is:
« Robert James (Bobby) Fischer - By Bill Wall»
Now I must justify such an assertion, even if it transpires that it is the most widespread opinion. A manner of seeing things consists to say that Bobby Fischer was the principal actor of what future historians of Chess will rather probably recognize like the greatest chess event in the history, occurred in so far. However, there is a risk and a limit to be satisfied to see the things thus. The "risk" is to give an erroneous interpretation of the event, like one shown many press comments. The first mistake is to see there a humiliating defeat of the Eastern bloc or of the Soviet camp, or still of Boris Spassky himself; they were outclassed, which does not mean the same thing at all. The second one is to construe this event as an unspecified victory of the Occident or worse still of the Western values. Finally the third one consists in detecting there the sudden arrival of the USA at the highest level in Chess. All this is not defensible. Initially, the fulgurating Robert James Fischer's transition did not modify anything about the ratio of forces, apart from his own person. In clearer English, Bobby Fischer was the leading player in the world, and alone he was able to tip the scales in his favor; but except him nobody could allow himself to dispute the absolute supremacy of the Russian School and its incomparable Armada. In addition there is also a "limit" thus to take into account only political and social aspects... It misses singularly here a human dimension. "A Time in America"... Yes America is a large country, dominating the world, and first in all fields, even as regards Art, where Europe however held bastions of very first order. According to ideas that I should undoubtedly develop with my friend Eric Ruch, in another article, it would have been more logical if USA was today the first chess power in the world. But, more complex factors intervene here to confuse the issue. You can think, initially, about relations between Athens and Spartes in the ancient Greece... Yes, by too much totalitarianism Soviets would have thus deprived the North-American Continent of a domination which returned to him from right. But reality is definitely more complex and more rebel! ... Indeed, let us suppose that, following a cataclysm without precedent, Great gods! I wish by no means, all Asia and all Eastern Europe disappear suddenly... then America should be satisfied with the second place, in the field of Chess, vis-a-vis the Old Europe which would seize the first place. This observation is very disconcerting and almost unexplainable for several reasons. Many US chess players were of higher world level (Paul Morphy, Frank Marshall, Robert E Byrne, Samuel Reshevsky, Pal Benko, Bobby Fischer...); US has a solid infrastructure of clubs, camps, schools devoted to Chess; it traditionally attract strong foreign players who become American citizens (Susan Polgar is a good recent example); it dispose of powerful levers: financial, media-related and finally via Internet... To term of such efforts can bear fruit. It is even probable!... But the fact is that today, as in years 60-70, the USA are far from weighing heavy on the international scene of Chess, in respect to Europe. Thus the destiny of Robert James Fischer is really out of the common run! It is by his own qualities that alone he reversed an empire. He showed a tough will to reach the goal; helped by his extraordinary memory, he has produced a considerable work in view to know all is necessary for a chess player of high level; he learned Russian to read Soviet reviews; he deeply studied the games and the style of his adversaries; but he had also an ultra-clearness, in front of the chessboard, as that had never been seen; finally he had a savage will to overcome which pushed at their paroxysm all his talents... And it's thus, only by the expression of his genie, that he ends up being the best, with the insolence everyone know, in front of an extraordinary coalition of players, who count all among the superstars of the Noble Game!
*** A NEW WORLD ORGANIZATION ***
«FIDE - Fédération Internationale des Échecs - History»
«Bill Wall's Chess Page - FIDE History»
«Chess-Poster.com - Brief Notes on the History of Chess»
«The First Chess Rating Lists - By Sam Sloan»
«World Champions - Chess world championship matches»
If we take a particular interest in major events it is necessary to note: the generalization of clubs, then of leagues like basic stuctures; the creation of national federations and, at the highest place, the creation in 1924 in Paris of the FIDE (Fédération Internationale des Échecs -_ World Chess Federation). During all the following period, national and international tournaments became increasingly frequent. Two important facts have been added to this panoply: the everyday usage of the clock and the officialisation of FIDE or National Ratings, for any player. While following the thread of our thought we find here again the topic "Chess and Society" of the beginning, which is not while oneself surprising, but this is in a radically new context, which, during this paragraph, corresponds roughly speaking to the XXth century. Individual confrontations are substituted by collective ones and every game played takes an universal dimension owing to the fact that it refers to a common heritage and that Inernational FIDE Rating, or National one, which returns to us, locates us in a world scale. This evolution leads quite naturally to the modern concept seeing the chess game as a "sport"; Sport of the spirit well, but not only because "Chess of competition", such as they are today conceived, induce a total implication of the player: intellectual, moral, pshychic and as much physical... and, taking into account the social and international status of "Sport" in our present world, we are thus led to throw a new glance on a game that we however thought well known. Nobody, to my knowledge, has well spoke about these questions like Rene Alladaye in his marvellous small book: "Little Philosophy of a Chess Player", of which I advise you to read it as soon as possible. Here two links on this subject:
«Editions Milan - Petite philosophie du joueur d'échecs»
«René Alladaye - Little Philosophy of a Chess Player»
Obviously this work, single in its kind, tackles many other captivating subjets and we will not fail to return there! This new order of things, which we quietly examine by stages, includes many other significant data, like the massive intrusion of Software and Databases in chess fields. Some people see there the appearance of the devil and a form of doping! ... Nothing, in my opinion, justifies such a pessimism. In each period of the history, men had his lot of progress and upheavals, and always they were able to adapt to change... Why wouldn't we be able to do this once more? Finally the Internet makes irruption in our lives what amplifies in a radical way a phenomenon of universalization like we had never known. On the Internet people find forums of discussions, search engines, online data, news about all great competitions through the planet, going and coming and press conferences from chess players of the Rating TOP 10, news from the FIDE, but also the fascinating "play chess online"... Thus Chess is becoming a new game being expressed in a new world... except for those which do not have memory and the very young people which, as to them, did not know another reality.
*** THE MAN IN FRONT OF THE MACHINE ***
At all events it is true that the defeat of Garry Kasparov against Deep Blue, in 1997, marked an essential date. Moreover the recent match Michael Adams - Hydra, London 2005, show well that we go now towards a divergence where programs will be able to outclass always more human players. That opens surprising prospects; thus the chess player - and identically in many other fields - will be unceasingly surpassing himself by using software outclassing him radically, although it is his own creation. In an article published in 1997, in the New York Times :
«How Intelligent is Deep Blue - By Drew McDermott»
Drew McDermott says this amongst other things: "Deep Blue is unintelligent because it is so narrow. It can win a chess game, but it can't recognize, much less pick up, a chess piece. It can't even carry on a conversation about the game it just won. Since the essence of intelligence would seem to be breadth, or the ability to react creatively to a wide variety of situations, it's hard to credit Deep Blue with much intelligence." Interesting equally are the ideas of Michael Genesereth, computer science professor, Stanford University, such that they are presented in the following page :
«PhysOrg.com - When computers play games, AI is...»
He defends the following original opinion: "Programs that think better should be able to win more games (various)". According to him, the program GGP (general game playing) is "radically different" from the computer program used in particular by program IBM Deep Blue. Genesereth explains about Deep Blue: "the computer just follows a recipe that has been given to him". And he adds: "General game playing (GGP) requires that the computer be able to learn and understand rules, something that Deep Blue cannot do." I still quote this very right remark of Michael Genesereth: "the nature of intelligence is synthesizing a vast array of information and making a decision." It is difficult to better say! The subject here is so vast and diversified that we cannot hope to arrive to a synthesis, especially within the framework of an article like this one. However I would still like to evoke the topping Miroslav Kubat's article:
«Advances in Computation: Theory and Practice - Games»
He begins his introduction this way : "Excellence in playing games like chess has always been perceived as a reliable indicator of keen intelligence. While a few prodigiously talented adepts have achieved the highest ranks in their teens, most players will never make it beyond the expert level. The feats of masters are shrouded in mystery. Indeed, what is it that makes Kasparov capable of beating other grandmasters and triumphing in simultaneous play? Does he command some deeper understanding of the game that makes him see patterns hidden to other mortals? Does his brain just work faster, or does it also possess some vital connections that other people lack?"
*** THE MAN IN FRONT OF HIMSELF ***
i) How is organized our brain? ii) How do we think? ... In particular with Chess? iii) How do we make our decisions? ... In particular with Chess? Here are some links, rather difficult to find - I want to say to select - likely to help us in this research:
«La Science d'ici et d'ailleurs - Le cancre des Echecs»
«Histoire des Sciences - Quand la pensée se dévoile»
«Research Report - Music Lessons Enhance IQ ...»
«Modèles de langage et de pensée - Alain Lecomte»
«Comparaison Between Chess and Go - Milton N. Bradley»
«A Cognitive and Neuropsychological perspective on the...»
«Cognitive Brain Research-The Game of chess-Univ. of Min.»
«The problem of functional localization in the human brain»
«Einstein (1879-1955) and Chess - By Bill Wall»
«Georg Friedrich Wilhem Hegel - Philosophe allemand, 1770-1831» It is known that towards the end of the XIXth century Franz Joseph Gall the first had the intuition that the brain is hierarchically subdivided in specialized zones (or regions). In particular he located the center of the language in the left temporal lobe of the brain. To the beginning of the XXth century indeed W.Campbell and K.Brodmann managed to carry out the first cartographies of the brain; since studies were deepened, but confirm these first observations. Various studies, like those undertaken with the unversity of Toronto At Mississauga, Mississauga Ontario, Canada, by E Glenn Schellenberg, in connection with the music, show well what most elaborated human activities can bring from the point of view of the development of mind. It is the same, in some way, with Chess. And yet it is advisable to remain very careful in this respect; all the more so, like already said, people usually attribute to Chess an excessive value, as a prototype of the mind in a pure state. One can always object to start that Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, all three friends of Philidor, Napoleon, Churchill, Enstein, friend of Emanuel Lasker, to quote only them, were rather modest players, in spite of an undeniable enthusiam, whereas it seems difficult, all the same, to doubt their mind! One finds in good part a response to this enigma in various recent works. Thus it was shown that a grandmaster, when he his vis-a-vis with a position, does not use the same zones of the brain as the average or inexperienced player. More precisely, American and Chinese searchers, basing themself - thanks to a technique of "functional magnetic resonance imaging" (fMRI) - on the study of the brain of players of Chess and GO, showed that the active zones, when they play, are not those generally associated to the intelligence. The principal searcher implied here, Shen He, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, considers that it is probably the memory of the played games or the known positions which plays here the lead role, whereas zones suitable for the intelligence would intervene only at the time of matches with exceptional stake.
*** A DIALECTICAL WAY OF THINK ***
A manner simple, and perhaps simplistic, to see the things is to consider that to any complex concept (thesis), in particular human, corresponds a counter-concept (antithesis) and that their dialectical connections generate a better approach (synthesis) of the unattainable reality that you seek to apprehend. Thus, it is not the reality which is dialectical in oneself, but the way in which we proceed to try to reach it. This way, there is a dialectic man/woman, peace/war, true/false, beautiful/ugly, good/bad etc... Thus the human intelligence can be interpreted in dialectic: reasoning/insight. When we play Chess we are carrying out this duality, this complementarity, between these two radically opposite forms of thought. Therefore, let us imagine that you are in front with the chessboard and that it is your turn to play. You can look at your opponent to try to guess his thoughts or take a distracted look to make him believe you are not very attentive. But let us neglect this psychological factors to come from there to the only way of thinking. You examine the position, you reason, you have a good intuition, but also you keep the thread of the game in head, finally you make work your memory for using your theoretical background, but also your personal experiment and your knowledge of grandmaster practice. You thus see here the role played by the memory and in addition a second form of dialectic, which is related to the reasoning: analysis/synthesis. Another dichotomy, concerning the brain and more precisely the intelligence, brought out by several searchers, helps us to better understand mental faculties of the chess player. According to Horm and Cattell (1966) there would be an influencial general intelligence dichotomy, with on one side a "crystallized" intelligence, based on acquired knowledge, culture, background, and on the other a "fluid" intelligence, the latter corresponding to an ability to treat new problems. This introduced a new dialectic, suitable for the description of the intelligence: fluid/cristallized. It is then understood immediately that the chess practice is especially related to the crystallized form of the intelligence.
*** LAST REGARD ON CHESS ***
People can however object that these cases are marginal, all the same, and that overall players of a certain level manage to carry out choices in conformity with their reflexions. In addition one can affirm without fear that universally the overall level of chess players does not cease growing, this rise being felt on all levels of the pyramid. One can estimate that this progress is "cultural", but it is also, to a great extent, connected with "data-processing" since we are now helped by software which play incomparably better than us... It is a chance that they generally reveal us how they play, but if not we would end by being unable to understand them. But the appearance of programs like Hydra, and those more powerful which will follow, poses slightly incredible problems; in theory at least they can reach a Rating of 3000, 4000, 5000 or even much more. But this time any comparison loses all signification. For a "theoretical" player, winning all his games and living an eternity, the Rating could approach the infinite... but at the same time that is stupid because he would not find any more adversary and that moreover this "perfect" player would, quite naturally, end up disliking completely to play... It is thus foreseeable that computers will play between them, with their own rating, and that human don't try to play with them more longer... Unless their capacity would be limited. This again leads us in the heart of Chess problem which is its unsoundable complexity; there resides its profoundness, its mystery, its charm, its ineffable beauty ... But there is in this reality an element little known and especially badly understood. Intervene in the chess game very great numbers; I showed that 2400 is one of them, but there are estimates which give numbers much larger. It does not matter!... The essential fact is that these numbers are too large so that one can use methods of enumeration, even by data-processing processes as powerful as possible, whereas Chess remains basically resistant, because their too large singularities, to mathematical analysis processes. You will find complements, on ideas suggested here, in the following pages:
«New Chess Theory - Chess Profoundness»
«Reflections and Debates- Philosophy -Correspondence»
In this world escaping, kind of comet in full drift, in the middle of the Universe, where space and time don't cease contracting, the Earth becoming a virtual point swivelling at an incredible speed on itself, we play Chess, as God plays Dice, halfway between stillness and frenzy... and always returns to me this Blaise Pascal's quote, in "Pensées" : "Le silence éternel de ces espaces infinis m'effraie".
«Arthur Rimbaud-©-1998-2005 www.mag4.net- Catherine»
«John Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1932) - Wikipedia...»
«Charles Darwin - British Naturalist (1809-1882) ...»
«www.sergiosakal.com.br - Historia Da Russia ...»
«Galileo Galilei - Astronome Italien (1564-1642) »
«Professor Stephen Hawking - Does God Play Dice?...»
«Is the relativity principle an unquestionable concept...?»
«Proof of the last Fermat's Theorem - By Andrew Wiles»
«Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) - Philosopher...»
«About Astronomy - What's new with the Big Bang? ...»
«Karl Friedrich Gauss-(1777-1855)-German mathematician»
«Bernhard Riemann-(1826-1866)-German mathematician»
«Welcome to the Worlf of Michel Foucault - Philosopher»
«Michel Foucault-Foucault-Info-Qu'est-ce que les Lumières ?»
«Jacques Derrida Algerian-born - French Philosopher ...»
«Federico Fellini (1920-1993) - Senses of cinema ...»
«Fernando Arrabal - Biography and the work of Arrabal»
«The Ancient City of Athens - Photographics archives»
«The Evariste Galois Archive- Evariste Galois (1811-1832)»
«PENSEES (1670) - By Blaise Pascal - Trans. by W.F. Trotter»
Michel Bruneau, Chess-Theory webmaster,
The Origin of Chess
History of the Chess Game
The Hypermodern Chess Revolution
Chess and Mind (or and Brain)
|
