How Life Imitates Chess

[Hrvoje]

Is it possible to be overly rational in chess? If we disregard the intended pun in the title of Kasparov’s book, one can say that chess as a simulation of life is far from perfect. Chess is a zero sum game, life is not always. Chess is all about fight, when it is not, it does not fulfil its purpose, while life is hopefully more than just fight. It is fairly easy to describe how can one act overly rational in life: if in certain situations one is guided by ratio instead of by emotions, instinct or intuition, one is described as a calculated person, if one always looks for compensation, utility, and counterfavours and never for charity one cannot be descibed as generous, if one is strict in controlling expenses one is said to be cheap. How about chess?

[Nick_A]

Is it possible to be overly rational in chess? If we disregard the intended pun in the title of Kasparov’s book, one can say that chess as a simulation of life is far from perfect. Chess is a zero sum game, life is not always. Chess is all about fight, when it is not, it does not fulfil its purpose, while life is hopefully more than just fight. It is fairly easy to describe how can one act overly rational in life: if in certain situations one is guided by ratio instead of by emotions, instinct or intuition, one is described as a calculated person, if one always looks for compensation, utility, and counterfavours and never for charity one cannot be descibed as generous, if one is strict in controlling expenses one is said to be cheap. How about chess?

Hello Hrvoje

I agree that chess is a zero sum game. But understanding the game reveals certain qualities similar to universal purpose. The art of chess is experienced during the process leading to victory rather than the win itself. I remember reading once where Dr. Emanuel Lasker once wrote: "The combination reveals the hypocrite" A player can be so caught up in winning that they miss the combination, the process of the game, leading to a loss. Humanity is the same. We've forgotten the meaning of life, the process, and are caught up with winning or losing. We lose both in life and in chess.

Pawn promotion is an interesting concept. Within the game the lowest of the pieces can evolve by reaching its eighth rank into a higher one. This is a Christian concept in which the conscious seed of the soul of Man has the potential to be a son of God, a higher piece on the chess board.

We define the value of human life by its societal results like success in business but perhaps the real value of human life is found in the process of life itself. What is the purpose of human life? Is it to win or lose but rather to serve a higher purpose. The goal of the pawn is to evolve to become a higher piece and serve a conscious purpose it feels but cannot rationalize..

The material pieces in chess can be sacrificed for positional gain (process) leading to mate. It is the same in life. A person can sacrifice for their child (pawn) not to win or lose but to give what is necessary for the child to become itself.

[Hrvoje]

Hi Nick,

nice response. What I wonder about is if rationality is the fundamental human virtue, if present in adequate extent. One of its aspects is the realization that its presence can be excessive.

[Nick_A]

Hi Nick,

nice response. What I wonder about is if rationality is the fundamental human virtue, if present in adequate extent. One of its aspects is the realization that its presence can be excessive.

Yes. Plato's concept of education stresses the importance of balance for the essential three parts of the tripartite soul to experience the "forms. It has been forgotten in modern times and all the emphasis is put on the "rational" mind supporting life in Plato's cave. This mistake leads to all the horrors experienced in the world today.

[Skepdick]

There's a fundamental distinction that makes chess a bad analogy for life.

Chess is a game of perfect information. Life is not.

In Life one doesn't even know what the rules are; or what it means to win or lose.

[Hrvoje]

True. Bridge and poker are also not games of perfect information, but they are still games in which pure luck is far less important factor in comparison with player’s skill and determination. As for life, well, maybe it is not entirely out of reach of our intuition to know if we win or lose, maybe pure luck is somewhat more important factor, and maybe we just should not be so determined to win, in order to trully win? Whatever that means.

[Nick_A]

True, our rational mind does not know the rules of the game. Suppose they can be known through noesis and experienced by objective conscience. By noesis I mean: "purely intellectual apprehension: a Platonism : the highest kind of knowledge or knowledge of the eternal forms or ideas —contrasted with dianoia.

We are really the Ship of Fools described by Plato. There are all these opinions but who on the ship has seen the North Star and is guided by it for direction.

José Raúl Capablanca the great Cuban world chess champion was asked how far ahead he thinks to make his move. He said "one move and it is always the best."

Capablanca has experienced the whole board and not just fixated on positions. On the ship of fools we argue opinions. We need those who have seen the whole board and can be guided by the North star or "home" for direction

[Hrvoje]

One such leader was Jesus, who on several occasions implied that people are too rational, worry too much about their prospects, and it sounded strange to many of them, then and now, followers or not.
As for the Information asymmetry, yes, that is another distinction, because in bridge and poker, visible and hidden part of information is symmetrically distributed between players, without it players would not have equal opportunity, to show their skill.

[Impenitent]

equestrian "L" be damned

-Imp

[Nick_A]

One such leader was Jesus, who on several occasions implied that people are too rational, worry too much about their prospects, and it sounded strange to many of them, then and now, followers or not.
As for the Information asymmetry, yes, that is another distinction, because in bridge and poker, visible and hidden part of information is symmetrically distributed between players, without it players would not have equal opportunity, to show their skill.

Yes, Jesus was a conscious being so experienced life in eternity He was not attached to arguing temporal opinions we experience in daily life.

What does the king in chess represent? He is limited in his range but without him there is no game. The queen is all powerful on the board but she can sacrifice herself for the king. Doesn't this remind you of the purpose of life?

[DPMartin]

Is it possible to be overly rational in chess? If we disregard the intended pun in the title of Kasparov’s book, one can say that chess as a simulation of life is far from perfect. Chess is a zero sum game, life is not always. Chess is all about fight, when it is not, it does not fulfil its purpose, while life is hopefully more than just fight. It is fairly easy to describe how can one act overly ratone'sional in life: if in certain situations one is guided by ratio instead of by emotions, instinct or intuition, one is described as a calculated person, if one always looks for compensation, utility, and counterfavours and never for charity one cannot be descibed as generous, if one is strict in controlling expenses one is said to be cheap. How about chess?

life follows instructions, if it be one's own then it best be by experience then one knows, otherwise one doesn't know and one seeks much of what you've mention here. hence one has to trust the instruction of the experienced to live the life one has. the hazarded there is who do you trust.


chess is a simple exercise of a certain kind of mental prosses that can be beneficial to have the agility of. like basket ball is to those who love play it.

[Advocate]

Everything is a metaphor for life. Chess as that metaphor leaves a lot to be desired.

[Hrvoje]

Everything, even a box of chocolates, but that is even further far from the perfect metaphor. And unlike chess, it does not make you wonder about this question: “Despite of the fact that a calculated person has a negative connotation in its attribute, isn’t a good calculation ability a fundamental human virtue?” Especially if this calculation yields the result that the best life strategy is to be always true to yourself. Like in a Eurythmics song, Missionary Man.

[KLewchuk]

It does and it doesn't. In chess, if you play one color and lose the game, etiquette would require that I recognize you as the winner of the game. It would be bad form for me to say that my color lost because of systemic oppression (i.e. identity politics doesn't apply in chess).

[bahman]

Is it possible to be overly rational in chess? If we disregard the intended pun in the title of Kasparov’s book, one can say that chess as a simulation of life is far from perfect. Chess is a zero sum game, life is not always. Chess is all about fight, when it is not, it does not fulfil its purpose, while life is hopefully more than just fight. It is fairly easy to describe how can one act overly rational in life: if in certain situations one is guided by ratio instead of by emotions, instinct or intuition, one is described as a calculated person, if one always looks for compensation, utility, and counterfavours and never for charity one cannot be descibed as generous, if one is strict in controlling expenses one is said to be cheap. How about chess?

Life would be like chess if you know every decision each individual makes. But you don't know. So sometimes life is like chess and in favor of you if you could see the future otherwise is a mess.