More than just a game?
Patrick Carroll
begins:
<<Chess is art ... art in one of its purest forms. . . . Chess has drawn to
its breast king and pauper, young and old, high and low. Bridge draws to its
fold people of a distinct genteel nature, poker draws those of nerve and
vigor, blackjack those of a clear and logical mind. But chess has a
universal appeal that transcends its rules ... a crystal clarity that
penetrates the spirit.>>
What do you think? Any truth to it? Is he right or wrong about bridge,
poker, and blackjack in comparison to chess? Any other board games that
could be described the same way?
Despite the typos and hyperbole, I liked the article. Falls into the "more
than just a game" category--which (as many here are painfully aware) is my
favorite.
--Patrick
Ananda Gupta
<fxu8a.36475$xb.10...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>:
> At http://www.concentric.net/~salisar/chess.html there's an article
> that begins:
>
> <<Chess is art ... art in one of its purest forms. . . . Chess has
> drawn to its breast king and pauper, young and old, high and low.
> Bridge draws to its fold people of a distinct genteel nature, poker
> draws those of nerve and vigor, blackjack those of a clear and logical
> mind. But chess has a universal appeal that transcends its rules ... a
> crystal clarity that penetrates the spirit.>>
>
> What do you think? Any truth to it? Is he right or wrong about
> bridge, poker, and blackjack in comparison to chess? Any other board
> games that could be described the same way?
During the 60s and 70s bridge was a hugely popular pastime among college
students; my mom hustled at bridge in hotels to help pay for school. And
she had a good many friends she played with too -- and I doubt they would
fit any normal definition of "genteel" (this was, after all, Berkeley in
the mid sixties).
That said, I would definitely argue that bridge, well played, is a pure
art. One of Victor Mollo's books with lots of hands to quiz yourself on
has, at the end, ten hands that came up at the championship level, and
descriptions of how the masters played them. The level of subtlety,
deception, and sheer card sense is astounding.
ASG
Robert Rossney
news:fxu8a.36475$xb.10...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> At http://www.concentric.net/~salisar/chess.html there's an article that
> begins:
>
> <<Chess is art ... art in one of its purest forms. . . . Chess has drawn
to
> its breast king and pauper, young and old, high and low. Bridge draws to
its
> fold people of a distinct genteel nature, poker draws those of nerve and
> vigor, blackjack those of a clear and logical mind. But chess has a
> universal appeal that transcends its rules ... a crystal clarity that
> penetrates the spirit.>>
>
> What do you think?
I bow to no one in my admiration of art in its purest forms. But I don't
hold with this notion that purity admits of degree. I like my art 100%
pure. If there's any taint at all, any hint of whatever it is that art can
be tainted by, I'm not having any of it. I don't want any of that art
that's *of* the purest forms without actually being the *purest* of the
purest forms. Being a creature of highly refined aesthetic sensibilities,
I'll leave impure arts to the great simpering mass of mankind that eats
hamburgers and watches television. You can have all that art that's tainted
with not-art. I'm keeping the pure stuff for myself.
Similarly, if my spirit is to be penetrated by anything, it must be clarity.
I pity those who will allow their spirit to be penetrated by ennui,
lampblack, shards of ice, coffee grounds, bits of string, or pork
cracklings. It's sad, really, the state that most have been reduced to.
For me, it's clarity or nothing.
And not just *any* clarity: for me, only the crystal kind will do. In
fact, only the crystal clarity of universal appeal. Those other forms of
crystal clarity -- the crystal clarity of the shock of recognition, say, or
the crystal clarity of the moment of utter despair -- none of these crystal
clarities can touch, in my view, the crystal clarity of universal appeal.
Because that clarity, based as it is in a transcendence of the rules (how
dull it is to merely follow the rules, when you can transcend them), is
poised for a kind of spirit-penetrating that other forms of clarity (no
matter how crystalline in aspect) can never achieve.
And my God, how I love a good spirit-penetrating! That puts a spring in my
step like nothing else.
I also feel a twinge of sadness for all the people that chess doesn't appeal
to. Don't they know that its appeal is universal?
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Chris Lemon
news:aqw8a.293327$iG3.35835@sccrnsc02
> I bow to no one in my admiration of art in its purest forms. But I
> don't hold with this notion that purity admits of degree. I like my
> art 100% pure.
I like my soap 99 44/100% pure.
And yet soapmaking is said to be a 100% pure artform.
I'm confused. :)
--
Chris Lemon
clem...@attbi.com
http://home.attbi.com/~clemon79
EFNet: FredSmyth
Patrick Carroll
> I bow to no one in my admiration of art in its purest forms. ...
> And my God, how I love a good spirit-penetrating! That puts a spring in
my
LOL! I liked *this* article too--for different reasons.
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> <<Chess is art ... art in one of its purest forms. . . . Chess has drawn to
> its breast king and pauper, young and old, high and low. Bridge draws to its
> fold people of a distinct genteel nature, poker draws those of nerve and
> vigor, blackjack those of a clear and logical mind. But chess has a
> universal appeal that transcends its rules ... a crystal clarity that
> penetrates the spirit.>>
>
> What do you think?
Sorry, but it's self-evidently cack. I know *lots* of people that don't
play Chess because they don't want to (too much like hard work, dull,
etc.): hardly "universal appeal", is it?
I was introduced to Bridge in high school, where we played most
lunchtimes. We weren't "distinctly genteel".
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Patrick Carroll
> Sorry, but it's self-evidently cack.
Well, maybe this one's more to your liking:
http://www.jlevitt.dircon.co.uk/philo.htm.
Similar view, but much drier and more reserved.
--Patrick
Patrick Carroll
Then again, here's another blurb that demonstrates how, for some,
chess can be an art to rival life:
<<Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) was a French chessplayer and renowned
artist. A competitor in the world amateur championship of 1924, four
French championships from 1924 to 1928, and four Olympiads from 1928
to 1933.
<<His obsession for the game intensified as he grew older. Of his
marriage in 1927 Man Ray writes: 'Duchamp spent most of the one week
they lived together studying chess problems, and his bride, in
desperate retaliation, got up one night when he was asleep and glued
the chess pieces to the board. They were divorced three months later.'
<<Duchamp used chess themes in several of his paintings and
collages.>>
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/chess/Chess/Trivia/Duchamp.html
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> Well, maybe this one's more to your liking:
Not really.
I frankly don't see Chess as art. Elegant solutions to problems subject
to known rules as limited as those as Chess is at least as much to do
with good craft as it is with "art". While admirable and to some extent
related, good craft isn't really the same as art.
Have you read Herman Hesse's "The Glass Bead Game", btw?
Eric Nielsen
quality one, upon which brilliant play can appear very beautiful.
Sebastian Bleasdale
>At http://www.concentric.net/~salisar/chess.html there's an article that
>begins:
>
><<Chess is art ... art in one of its purest forms. . . . Chess has drawn to
>its breast king and pauper, young and old, high and low. Bridge draws to its
>fold people of a distinct genteel nature, poker draws those of nerve and
>vigor, blackjack those of a clear and logical mind. But chess has a
>universal appeal that transcends its rules ... a crystal clarity that
>penetrates the spirit.>>
>
>What do you think? Any truth to it? Is he right or wrong about bridge,
>poker, and blackjack in comparison to chess? Any other board games that
>could be described the same way?
<tongue in cheek> I notice he doesn't mention go </tongue in cheek>
--
Sebastian Heaven is full
- God Away
Patrick Carroll
> I frankly don't see Chess as art. Elegant solutions to problems subject
> to known rules as limited as those as Chess is at least as much to do
> with good craft as it is with "art". While admirable and to some extent
> related, good craft isn't really the same as art.
Depends on where you want to draw the line, I guess. Do you think
Mondriaan's paintings are art, or just geometric design craft? And
what about Marcel Duchamp's "found art"? Some of those who've reached
the highest levels of chess play say that at a certain point chess
becomes entirely an art, not a craft or science. (Curiously, lesser
tournament players seem more often content to call it a "sport.")
Even without reaching chess mastery, one can regard chess as an art
simply by taking checkmate, opposition, en passant, castling, and
other features as metaphors of various elements of life. One can do
that with any game, or most anything else. If one wants to see art in
something, it's there for the seeing. At the other extreme, if one
refuses to see art in anything, I suppose all of life can be bland and
ordinary.
As to the problem-solving aspect of chess, I don't find that's where
the art lies. Yesterday I worked my way through a chess problem,
going over and over it until I understood how it worked. At that
point my feeling was, "Ah! That's interesting." But my next thought
was, "Now, what does it *mean*?" By that, I meant what does the
"smothered mate" signify--what message does it convey about how life
works? A beginning of an answer is that the king needs room to
breathe, just as groups in go need "liberties" to survive: i.e., the
Inner Self needs freedom just as the physical body needs air.
I won't bore you with more. But that at least vaguely points to where
I see art in chess. At the problem-solving level, chess is just OK,
amusing, challenging (and sometimes trying and frustrating). But
beyond the problem solving, I see much more. Or at least I think I do
(some may say I'm just hallucinating). There's something--well,
semiotic--about it.
> Have you read Herman Hesse's "The Glass Bead Game", btw?
No. But you're not the first to mention it to me. A couple months
ago I picked up a copy in the bookstore and leafed through it, but it
didn't really call out to me, so I put it back. In the introduction,
I read that a friend of Hesse's, upon reading the manuscript,
correctly observed that it was all a great joke--but that readers
would fail to see that in it. When I read that remark, I decided I'd
be one of those readers who fails to see the joke--and who'd be
disappointed if ever convinced that it is just a joke.
(Yes, with books, as with games like E&T, I sometimes make preliminary
judgments based only on critics' comments. And yes, I sometimes
change those preliminary judgments after reading the book--or playing
the game.)
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> Depends on where you want to draw the line, I guess. Do you think
> Mondriaan's paintings are art, or just geometric design craft? And
> what about Marcel Duchamp's "found art"?
Not familiar with either. But if there's something to "found art" it's
recognising beauty outwith your own creation. Landscape photography,
for example.
> Some of those who've reached
> the highest levels of chess play say that at a certain point chess
> becomes entirely an art, not a craft or science.
That doesn't make them right. And it doesn't necessarily help them beat
Deep Blue, either, which seems to do okay with craft.
> Even without reaching chess mastery, one can regard chess as an art
> simply by taking checkmate, opposition, en passant, castling, and
> other features as metaphors of various elements of life. One can do
> that with any game, or most anything else. If one wants to see art in
> something, it's there for the seeing.
Beauty may be there for the seeing, but that doesn't make it art. Is
the Grand Canyon art? No. Is it beautiful, extraordinary and
life-affirming? Lots of people seem to think so, me included.
And why does art have to be about anything other than itself? It
doesn't have to map onto life to be art (see Kurt Vonnegut's "Bluebeard"
for interesting commentary, and a great book in any case, here).
> At the other extreme, if one
> refuses to see art in anything, I suppose all of life can be bland and
> ordinary.
I don't really see that appreciating beauty needs to be "seeing art".
But art, by my way of thinking, involves creation. Chess is just
following a set of rules in such a way to reach a certain outcome if
possible (Checkmate). The creativity with which that can be done is
limited and prescribed by the artificial and contrived rules of the game
which IMHO seriously reduces any facility for real "art". "The art of
war" is all about the *craft* of war, because you're told in advance how
to go about it with very little real freedom to create.
> As to the problem-solving aspect of chess, I don't find that's where
> the art lies. Yesterday I worked my way through a chess problem,
> going over and over it until I understood how it worked. At that
> point my feeling was, "Ah! That's interesting." But my next thought
> was, "Now, what does it *mean*?" By that, I meant what does the
> "smothered mate" signify--what message does it convey about how life
> works? A beginning of an answer is that the king needs room to
> breathe, just as groups in go need "liberties" to survive: i.e., the
> Inner Self needs freedom just as the physical body needs air.
Or it could be you're just reading rather more into a game than is
really there. If you solved a problem that had been contrived so that
the King should've been boxed in to save it from being forced into moves
by easy access to Check from long range pieces you'd have concluded
something else entirely. Life is rather more varied than Chess.
> I won't bore you with more. But that at least vaguely points to where
> I see art in chess. At the problem-solving level, chess is just OK,
> amusing, challenging (and sometimes trying and frustrating). But
> beyond the problem solving, I see much more. Or at least I think I do
> (some may say I'm just hallucinating). There's something--well,
> semiotic--about it.
That doesn't make it art though, it just makes it a mirror in which you
like to look at your life. Others choose different mirrors, but that
doesn't make them art either.
> No. But you're not the first to mention it to me. A couple months
> ago I picked up a copy in the bookstore and leafed through it, but it
> didn't really call out to me, so I put it back. In the introduction,
> I read that a friend of Hesse's, upon reading the manuscript,
> correctly observed that it was all a great joke--but that readers
> would fail to see that in it. When I read that remark, I decided I'd
> be one of those readers who fails to see the joke--and who'd be
> disappointed if ever convinced that it is just a joke.
Do yourself a favour and read it. It was suggested to me by a
Chess-loving friend who was also a philosophy post-doc and knew I played
games. A friend of Hesse's may have had a different idea of the term
"joke" to you. Hesse earned a reputation for deep and philosophical
literature with a humanist view, not for making jokes at the readers'
expense.
David Brain
Clinch) wrote:
> Patrick Carroll wrote:
>
> > Some of those who've reached
> > the highest levels of chess play say that at a certain point chess
> > becomes entirely an art, not a craft or science.
>
> That doesn't make them right. And it doesn't necessarily help them beat
> Deep Blue, either, which seems to do okay with craft.
>
But that's why programs like Deep Blue aren't really playing Chess. They're
following a rule system which happens to coincide with the game of Chess. I
consider Deep Blue has the potential to destroy any possibility of "art" within
Chess - the computer isn't yet able to determine that although move x and move y
ultimately lead to the same outcome, choosing move x has an aesthetic appeal
(maintaining symmetry perhaps) that move y doesn't. (Not that I'm suggesting
that a human player would choose move x for that reason, but it does exist as a
possibility.)
Of course, the programmers of Deep Blue aren't intending that - they are simply
exploring an aspect of rule-based systems and more power to them. But to deny
that Chess can have any aspects of Art simply because a Craft-based approach
produces equal (if different) results does not seem to follow to me.
Of course, the key difficulty here is that, as with the "perfection" debate,
we're all working with a different understanding of the term "art" (a word which
probably defies definition anyway!)
--
David Brain
London, UK
Peter Clinch
> But that's why programs like Deep Blue aren't really playing Chess. They're
> following a rule system which happens to coincide with the game of Chess. I
> consider Deep Blue has the potential to destroy any possibility of "art" within
> Chess - the computer isn't yet able to determine that although move x and move y
> ultimately lead to the same outcome, choosing move x has an aesthetic appeal
> (maintaining symmetry perhaps) that move y doesn't. (Not that I'm suggesting
> that a human player would choose move x for that reason, but it does exist as a
> possibility.)
If it genuinely leads to the same outcome there's no reason why it
couldn't be programmed as an option to, say, maximise symmetry, if
that's what appealed to the programmer.
But the fact is that aesthetics are very secondary in Chess. An
aesthetically pleasing move will *only* be used if it happens to be
effective, assuming you're actually trying to win. It just so happens
that a well executed Chess attack appeals on several aesthetic levels,
but I think mostly because people admire something done well, especially
if subtlety wins over brute force. But mounting such an attack, and
realising where you can be subtle, is more a craft than an art. You're
not really creating anything, you're just using tools in a maximally
effective fashion to do a given job.
> Of course, the programmers of Deep Blue aren't intending that - they are simply
> exploring an aspect of rule-based systems and more power to them. But to deny
> that Chess can have any aspects of Art simply because a Craft-based approach
> produces equal (if different) results does not seem to follow to me.
If the master players are saying at their level it transcends craft, and
thus they are truly creating in order to step beyond the craft level
(which Patrick's post appeared to me to imply) then there ought to be
some advantage to doing that (enabling their mastery). Otherwise it
just strikes me as delusions of grandeur or underestimating the very
great value of a truly master craftsman.
> Of course, the key difficulty here is that, as with the "perfection" debate,
> we're all working with a different understanding of the term "art" (a word which
> probably defies definition anyway!)
Quite so. But for my purposes, creation is involved. I don't really
see anything being created, as the rules are too closed to allow much
beyond extending the use of existing tools a little.
Patrick Carroll
> But the fact is that aesthetics are very secondary in Chess. An
> aesthetically pleasing move will *only* be used if it happens to be
What if there's a choice between two or three or five equally
effective moves? The player must still choose. He'll choose the one
that most appeals to him. On what basis? Perhaps an aesthetic
appreciation for one line of play over another.
> If the master players are saying at their level it transcends craft, and
> thus they are truly creating in order to step beyond the craft level
> (which Patrick's post appeared to me to imply) then there ought to be
> some advantage to doing that (enabling their mastery). Otherwise it
> just strikes me as delusions of grandeur or underestimating the very
> great value of a truly master craftsman.
I think that maybe what they're saying (I don't know for sure; I'm far
from being a chessmaster) is that they've reached a level of
efficiency where they'll almost always play an effective, well-crafted
game. Now, having attained that pinnacle, they have other concerns
beyond that: e.g., what happens when you pit a meticulous,
defensive-minded playing style against a bold, aggressive one?
> > Of course, the key difficulty here is that, as with the "perfection" debate,
> > we're all working with a different understanding of the term "art" (a word which
> > probably defies definition anyway!)
>
> Quite so. But for my purposes, creation is involved. I don't really
> see anything being created, as the rules are too closed to allow much
> beyond extending the use of existing tools a little.
If the Preacher in Ecclesiastes was right, there's nothing new under
the sun anyway. Creation is finished, and everything man does is mere
imitation. I once had a professor who believed that, and he drew upon
some great philosophical minds in support of his position.
Picasso snorted in derision at the notion of originality in art. He
frankly admitted to borrowing from other art and from life all around
him. And I believe it was the poet T. S. Eliot who said no writer
ever produces anything entirely new; a good writer just pulls
preexisting things together in unique ways. Quite evidently,
Shakespeare did that: nearly all his works are remakes of older
works.
Whatever art is, it's not produced in a vacuum. It draws upon a
select set of preexisting resources, and it's aimed at an audience
with preconceived notions. If a work of art was *completely*
different than anything you'd ever experienced before, would you be
able to recognize it as art or appreciate any beauty in it?
I think the game of chess establishes a context--a frame of reference,
or a set of parameters--within which various patterns of play can be
compared. True, there's also the job of winning to do--and a player
ought to first become efficient at that (just as a painter or musician
ought to first develop proficiency in his chosen medium). But after
that, there are still many *ways* to win--and many ways to lose, for
that matter--and that's where individual artistic self-expression
comes in.
In fact, artistic self-expression comes in long *before* one achieves
mastery. The unique playing style of a Kasparov or Short or Fischer
no doubt showed up even in their early games. But the world only
looks with favor upon winners and notices the spectacular. So, it's
not until one achieves great success that his style--or artistic
expression--is widely noticed.
--Patrick
David desJardins
> But that's why programs like Deep Blue aren't really playing Chess.
> They're following a rule system which happens to coincide with the
> game of Chess.
I thought they weren't even following the rules. Computer programs
store books of past games, while human players aren't allowed to consult
books. As the experts in rgb have told us, if you're playing a game in
which you aren't allowed to record information, then remembering that
information is cheating.
David desJardins
Peter Clinch
> What if there's a choice between two or three or five equally
> effective moves? The player must still choose. He'll choose the one
> that most appeals to him. On what basis? Perhaps an aesthetic
> appreciation for one line of play over another.
1) actually quite unlikely in the Big Picture if you're truly aware of
the implications of a move in the long term.
2) I chose to paint my skirting boards "Tibetan Gold" rather than their
former white when I was decorating last. That's a choice based on
aesthetics. I really don't see it as "art". Do you?
> If the Preacher in Ecclesiastes was right, there's nothing new under
> the sun anyway. Creation is finished, and everything man does is mere
> imitation. I once had a professor who believed that, and he drew upon
> some great philosophical minds in support of his position.
>
> Picasso snorted in derision at the notion of originality in art. He
> frankly admitted to borrowing from other art and from life all around
> him.
But Picasso's work was still highly original, even if it did draw on
numerous other sources. But you won't find a highly original thing to
do with a Bishop in a Chess game. The rules only ever allow you to move
one piece at a time (castling aside) and in very prescribed manners.
There just isn't much room for creativity in there. The Impressionists
brought a whole new way of looking at light to painting. You can't
bring a whole new way of moving bishops to Chess, as it breaks the rules.
> And I believe it was the poet T. S. Eliot who said no writer
> ever produces anything entirely new; a good writer just pulls
> preexisting things together in unique ways. Quite evidently,
> Shakespeare did that: nearly all his works are remakes of older
> works.
But there is far more scope to pull things together when you haven't got
artificial limits on what you can pull and how to fit it. It's the
imposition of limits that IMHO make Chess more a craft than an art.
Poetry doesn't have to do a particular thing to be successful. A Chess
game has to progress to a Checkmate though.
> Whatever art is, it's not produced in a vacuum. It draws upon a
> select set of preexisting resources, and it's aimed at an audience
> with preconceived notions. If a work of art was *completely*
> different than anything you'd ever experienced before, would you be
> able to recognize it as art or appreciate any beauty in it?
That should only matter if I'm the intended audience. If the artist is
purely working for themselves, what does it matter that I can't
recognise it?
> I think the game of chess establishes a context--a frame of reference,
> or a set of parameters--within which various patterns of play can be
> compared.
Well fine, but how does that make it art?
> True, there's also the job of winning to do--and a player
> ought to first become efficient at that (just as a painter or musician
> ought to first develop proficiency in his chosen medium). But after
> that, there are still many *ways* to win--and many ways to lose, for
> that matter--
No, there's only one. Put the opponent in check-mate. That's the end,
anything else is just a means to that very limited circumstance.
> and that's where individual artistic self-expression
> comes in.
Back to my decorating, I expressed myself through the choices of colours
I chose to paint the walls and the woodwork in my house. I find the
results aesthetically pleasing. It still isn't art to my mind, and
though you'd have a valid POV if you thought it *was*, you'd also debase
the notion that Chess is art on the grounds that you're saying anything
which involves self-expression through aesthetic choices is art.
If stylised self expression is all there is to art, then the contents of
this post is art. Arguably the case, but not something to make you get
excited about art as being something special.
Patrick Carroll
> Patrick Carroll wrote:
>
> > What if there's a choice between two or three or five equally
> > effective moves? The player must still choose. He'll choose the one
> > that most appeals to him. On what basis? Perhaps an aesthetic
> > appreciation for one line of play over another.
>
> 1) actually quite unlikely in the Big Picture if you're truly aware of
> the implications of a move in the long term.
Not sure what you mean by that. Surely there are at least several
openings, for example, that are about equally good--i.e., that can
eventually lead to a win. I don't think any knowledgeable chess
player chooses a king-pawn opening over a queen-pawn opening just
because he believes the former gives him an edge toward winning.
Rather, he chooses the one that usually leads to the kind of game he
prefers to play.
Besides that there's human interactivity: e.g., "I know my opponent
hates the Sicilian Defense, so I'm going to play toward that in hopes
of throwing him off stride."
> 2) I chose to paint my skirting boards "Tibetan Gold" rather than their
> former white when I was decorating last. That's a choice based on
> aesthetics. I really don't see it as "art". Do you?
Well, I wouldn't set your skirting boards up alongside the Mona Lisa
and try to compare them (objectively or otherwise). But I do think
any aesthetic choice--including your color choice--is a big factor in
whatever comprises art.
> But Picasso's work was still highly original, even if it did draw on
> numerous other sources. But you won't find a highly original thing to
> do with a Bishop in a Chess game. The rules only ever allow you to move
> one piece at a time (castling aside) and in very prescribed manners.
> There just isn't much room for creativity in there. The Impressionists
> brought a whole new way of looking at light to painting. You can't
> bring a whole new way of moving bishops to Chess, as it breaks the rules.
It's true that chess is more constrained than freestyle painting; I
can't argue with that. But haiku is more constrained than sonnetry,
too; and sonnetry is more constrained than free verse. I don't think
that means haiku is a lesser form of poetry than sonnetry or free
verse; it's just a different form.
> But there is far more scope to pull things together when you haven't got
> artificial limits on what you can pull and how to fit it. It's the
> imposition of limits that IMHO make Chess more a craft than an art.
> Poetry doesn't have to do a particular thing to be successful. A Chess
> game has to progress to a Checkmate though.
Seems to me you're comparing apples and oranges. Chess has to
progress to checkmate; a poem has to have a beginning, middle, and
end; a painting has to fill up its canvas. The progress to checkmate
is not necessarily what chess is all about, though, any more than
filling up a canvas is what painting is all about.
Remember the old cliche: It's not whether you win or lose that
counts, but how you play the game. I don't think that's merely an
admonition to practice good sportsmanship; I think there's a much
deeper truth in it. If people played games *just* to win, there'd be
no point in games at all (except in the case of gambling or playing
for a prize--but to me the prize is always separate from the game
itself).
> > I think the game of chess establishes a context--a frame of reference,
> > or a set of parameters--within which various patterns of play can be
> > compared.
>
> Well fine, but how does that make it art?
In the same way putting a frame around a painting and hanging it in a
gallery makes that painting "art." Marcel Duchamp took that to an
extreme in his "found art" phase: he'd discover the beauty of a
bicycle wheel or urinal while browsing through the junkyard, then
title it and hang it in a gallery--at which point it was transformed
from junk into art.
Similarly, famous chess games (e.g., the Evergreen Game) are titled
and studied as examples of the wonderful patterns that can emerge in
the game of chess.
The trouble with many art-forms is that it's difficult or impossible
to compare and judge them. Who knows if Picasso's "Guernica" is
better or worse than Renoir's "Girl on a Swing"? In the lofty world
of art criticism, they're both considered masterpieces--but they're of
such different styles, who'd ever think to ask if one is superior to
the other?
In music, there are sometimes contests--"battles of the bands" and so
forth--but musicians often complain that that reduces their art to
something base and competitive when it's meant to be inspirational and
uplifting.
But in chess, competition is inherent in the art-form. It's not
enough to create beautiful patterns of moves on the board; the
patterns also have to be effective. In fact, the beauty and
effectiveness is always intertwined; you can't separate them without
losing sight of what chess actually is. If there was no beauty, chess
wouldn't be worth playing; it'd be a waste of time. If there was no
effectiveness, the conflict would ramble on sloppily forever, with no
satisfying outcome.
> > True, there's also the job of winning to do--and a player
> > ought to first become efficient at that (just as a painter or musician
> > ought to first develop proficiency in his chosen medium). But after
> > that, there are still many *ways* to win--and many ways to lose, for
> > that matter--
>
> No, there's only one. Put the opponent in check-mate. That's the end,
> anything else is just a means to that very limited circumstance.
And what I'm saying is that the whole art of chess lies in those
*means,* and the end is no more relevant than the closing notes of a
symphony.
> > and that's where individual artistic self-expression
> > comes in.
>
> Back to my decorating, I expressed myself through the choices of colours
> I chose to paint the walls and the woodwork in my house. I find the
> results aesthetically pleasing. It still isn't art to my mind, and
> though you'd have a valid POV if you thought it *was*, you'd also debase
> the notion that Chess is art on the grounds that you're saying anything
> which involves self-expression through aesthetic choices is art.
>
> If stylised self expression is all there is to art, then the contents of
> this post is art. Arguably the case, but not something to make you get
> excited about art as being something special.
Well, we may well have gotten off track with this "art" thing.
There's art and there's art. When chessmasters say that at the
highest level chess is an art, I doubt they're saying chess can be
compared to painting, sculpture, music, and so forth. Rather, I
suppose they mean something like what I recently read in a
military-history article: "The ancient Romans saw war as an art, not
a science."
Perhaps we should focus on chess as an art which contrasts with
science, not as an art which compares with the "fine arts."
OTOH, I think your term "craft" is much too object-oriented. To me,
craft always involves producing something--usually a tangible object
(a carving, a birdhouse, a vase). Chess produces nothing; nothing is
crafted in the process of playing chess.
I suppose the term "engineer" might suit your meaning just about as
well. It's reasonable to speak of engineering a winning combination
in chess. But that makes it sound (to me, anyway) like more a science
than an art--and those who've mastered the game usually insist that
chess is more an art than a science. But then again, maybe
engineering is also an art, at its highest level. I wonder if the
ancient Romans would have called engineering an art.
--Patrick
Michael Abramowski
Patrick Carroll wrote:
> Well, we may well have gotten off track with this "art" thing.
> There's art and there's art. When chessmasters say that at the
> highest level chess is an art, I doubt they're saying chess can be
> compared to painting, sculpture, music, and so forth. Rather, I
> suppose they mean something like what I recently read in a
> military-history article: "The ancient Romans saw war as an art, not
> a science."
>
> Perhaps we should focus on chess as an art which contrasts with
> science, not as an art which compares with the "fine arts."
>
> OTOH, I think your term "craft" is much too object-oriented. To me,
> craft always involves producing something--usually a tangible object
> (a carving, a birdhouse, a vase). Chess produces nothing; nothing is
> crafted in the process of playing chess.
>
> I suppose the term "engineer" might suit your meaning just about as
> well. It's reasonable to speak of engineering a winning combination
> in chess. But that makes it sound (to me, anyway) like more a science
> than an art--and those who've mastered the game usually insist that
> chess is more an art than a science. But then again, maybe
> engineering is also an art, at its highest level. I wonder if the
> ancient Romans would have called engineering an art.
>
> --Patrick
I think in most areas that you can study in any way, mastery is seen as an art
in itself. Einstein may have viewed Physics and natural science in general as
an art, and once you realize that beautifully simple formulas can have a simple
beauty (to paraphrase my old Physics teacher), it's easy to see the aesthetic
angle.
As an editor, compared to an engineer or scientist, you may be more likely to
appreciate the beauty of finely woven language in haikus or ballads. As a
medic, you may be more likely to appreciate the beauty of the way the human
body works. As a programmer, you may be more likely to appreciate the beauty of
an efficiently written piece of code.
It's all in the Eye of the Beholder. Painting and Sculpture are more
accessible because we all are used to *looking* at things.
And back to the gaming thread: is "Barbarossa" the only fairly popular board
game where the players are encouraged to create little works of art? Let's
disregard those party games where everyone has to guess what you are drawing.
It seems that drawing and miming is a much more common game theme than
sculpting.
Cheers,
Michael
Peter Clinch
> Not sure what you mean by that. Surely there are at least several
> openings, for example, that are about equally good--i.e., that can
> eventually lead to a win.
"About equally" isn't quite the same as "equally".
> I don't think any knowledgeable chess
> player chooses a king-pawn opening over a queen-pawn opening just
> because he believes the former gives him an edge toward winning.
> Rather, he chooses the one that usually leads to the kind of game he
> prefers to play.
But if (s)he's playing how (s)he prefers to play it's very likely that
will give an advantage as they'll be playing the sort of game they're
comfortable with.
> Besides that there's human interactivity: e.g., "I know my opponent
> hates the Sicilian Defense, so I'm going to play toward that in hopes
> of throwing him off stride."
i.e., give yourself a better chance of winning thereby.
> Well, I wouldn't set your skirting boards up alongside the Mona Lisa
> and try to compare them (objectively or otherwise). But I do think
> any aesthetic choice--including your color choice--is a big factor in
> whatever comprises art.
Being a factor is one thing, but as I went on to suggest it's so common
as to be practically omnipresent. In which case no reason to marvel at
its presence in Chess.
> It's true that chess is more constrained than freestyle painting; I
> can't argue with that. But haiku is more constrained than sonnetry,
> too; and sonnetry is more constrained than free verse. I don't think
> that means haiku is a lesser form of poetry than sonnetry or free
> verse; it's just a different form.
But its one that the poet can choose to be constrained by or not. If
the Haiku writer decides to bend the rules slightly from 5-7-5 he won't
be "disqualified". If he chooses to write free verse instead that's not
a problem. If a Chess player moves a pawn three spaces and declares
they're just being creative, the rules will be brought to bear PDQ.
> Seems to me you're comparing apples and oranges. Chess has to
> progress to checkmate; a poem has to have a beginning, middle, and
> end; a painting has to fill up its canvas.
No it doesn't! Why should it? Where's that rule?
> Remember the old cliche: It's not whether you win or lose that
> counts, but how you play the game. I don't think that's merely an
> admonition to practice good sportsmanship; I think there's a much
> deeper truth in it. If people played games *just* to win, there'd be
> no point in games at all (except in the case of gambling or playing
> for a prize--but to me the prize is always separate from the game
> itself).
That's mainly about playing as well as you can. Most of us don't mind
losing to a better opponent as long as we put up a good account of
ourselves. And many find a win a little shallow if it was all about
luck and we were actually outplayed. That doesn't really bring art into it.
> Similarly, famous chess games (e.g., the Evergreen Game) are titled
> and studied as examples of the wonderful patterns that can emerge in
> the game of chess.
I don't see that as any more indicative of art than a woodwork book
studying excellent furniture though.
> The trouble with many art-forms is that it's difficult or impossible
> to compare and judge them. Who knows if Picasso's "Guernica" is
> better or worse than Renoir's "Girl on a Swing"? In the lofty world
> of art criticism, they're both considered masterpieces--but they're of
> such different styles, who'd ever think to ask if one is superior to
> the other?
You would, apparently, with your "objectively better" thesis you
continually try and recirculate! But that's relevant here how?
> In music, there are sometimes contests--"battles of the bands" and so
> forth--but musicians often complain that that reduces their art to
> something base and competitive when it's meant to be inspirational and
> uplifting.
Then they shouldn't enter! That's relevant here how?
> But in chess, competition is inherent in the art-form. It's not
> enough to create beautiful patterns of moves on the board; the
> patterns also have to be effective. In fact, the beauty and
> effectiveness is always intertwined; you can't separate them without
> losing sight of what chess actually is. If there was no beauty, chess
> wouldn't be worth playing; it'd be a waste of time. If there was no
> effectiveness, the conflict would ramble on sloppily forever, with no
> satisfying outcome.
But that can be applied to just about any decent game. In which case
any game with a degree of depth is "more than just a game", so why
marvel at such things in Chess?
> And what I'm saying is that the whole art of chess lies in those
> *means,* and the end is no more relevant than the closing notes of a
> symphony.
Not the case at all. Without a Checkmate the whole thing is pointless.
And you have a degree of such art in any game with depth.
> OTOH, I think your term "craft" is much too object-oriented. To me,
> craft always involves producing something--usually a tangible object
> (a carving, a birdhouse, a vase). Chess produces nothing; nothing is
> crafted in the process of playing chess.
Chess produces a tangible result in a competition between two players to
see who is better. Why do you feel that's "nothing"? Clearly FIDE
think it's something, or they wouldn't have rankings built from such
results.
> I suppose the term "engineer" might suit your meaning just about as
> well. It's reasonable to speak of engineering a winning combination
> in chess. But that makes it sound (to me, anyway) like more a science
> than an art--and those who've mastered the game usually insist that
> chess is more an art than a science.
I think they're wrong. Chess is very straightforward with entirely
predictable consequences and effects. You can only do certain things,
you know in advance what effect they'll have. You are proceeding to a
certain desired outcome. Games of chess are finished. Works of art are
abandoned.
> But then again, maybe
> engineering is also an art, at its highest level. I wonder if the
> ancient Romans would have called engineering an art.
There's a degree of art (creativity) involved in finding an elegant
solution, but only a degree. Ultimately if you have to build an
aqueduct from A to B it must start at A, end at B, and carry a
designated quantity of water reliably between the two. The
specification is completely outwith the engineers' control and how they
go about it is generally secondary to the end result. As with Chess, or
indeed most games.
Patrick Carroll
<a number of things I'll have to snip here for lack of time--and headway>
<and then I said:>
> > And what I'm saying is that the whole art of chess lies in those
> > *means,* and the end is no more relevant than the closing notes of a
> > symphony.
<and Pete replied:>
> Not the case at all. Without a Checkmate the whole thing is pointless.
> And you have a degree of such art in any game with depth.
Guess we're at a point where we have to agree to disagree on most of this.
But on the above, I'll just say two things:
1. I agree that without checkmate the whole thing would be pointless (and
said so in my last post). But IMO, if checkmate were the *only* thing,
chess would be equally pointless. Ultimately a waste of time.
2. I believe there *is* a degree of art in any game with depth. Chess is an
accidental example here, just because I started this thread with a quote
from an article about chess.
I'm reminded of a TV documentary I caught several years ago, about the
physicist Oppenheimer. A friend of his, an artist, once brought him a
flower and said something to the effect that it's too bad
Oppenheimer--because of his preoccupation with science--would never truly be
able to appreciate the beauty of a rose. The artist, of course, had devoted
his life to such things as deeply appreciating the beauty of roses--and he
was obviously glad of that, even though he admitted he knew next to nothing
about what he presumed Oppenheimer would see in the rose: stem, petals,
pigmentation, photosynthesis, etc. But Oppenheimer shook his head and said
he had no idea what the artist was talking about. He believed his
appreciation for the rose's beauty was greatly *enhanced* by his scientific
knowledge, including the specific botanical knowledge that applies to roses.
He, in turn, wondered if the artist could see all the full beauty without
knowing something about the rose's molecular structure and such.
So, maybe there's art in science and science in art--and both art and
science in games.
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> 1. I agree that without checkmate the whole thing would be pointless (and
> said so in my last post). But IMO, if checkmate were the *only* thing,
> chess would be equally pointless. Ultimately a waste of time.
But if it weren't for the rest, it wouldn't actually be Chess, would it?
And Schubert's Unfinished symphony, despite being two movements short,
is still loved as a very beautiful and viable piece of music, so
comparing Checkmate to the end of a symphony is well inside the Usenet
Bad Analogy Zone.
> 2. I believe there *is* a degree of art in any game with depth.
But there are so many games with some depth that makes it pretty much a
moot point in any case. The first post in the thread was going on about
Chess's "universal appeal", and I pointed out the observable fact that
it has no such universal appeal; and also, "Any other board games that
could be described the same way?" as regards being an art to some
degree. "Anything with some depth" is the answer given your particular
take on art, and above you confirm you think that's the case anyway.
Not really a very interesting answer, but I'm afraid it reflects on the
question.
> I'm reminded of a TV documentary I caught several years ago, about the
> physicist Oppenheimer. A friend of his, an artist, once brought him a
> flower and said something to the effect that it's too bad
> Oppenheimer--because of his preoccupation with science--would never truly be
> able to appreciate the beauty of a rose. The artist, of course, had devoted
> his life to such things as deeply appreciating the beauty of roses--and he
> was obviously glad of that, even though he admitted he knew next to nothing
> about what he presumed Oppenheimer would see in the rose: stem, petals,
> pigmentation, photosynthesis, etc. But Oppenheimer shook his head and said
> he had no idea what the artist was talking about. He believed his
> appreciation for the rose's beauty was greatly *enhanced* by his scientific
> knowledge, including the specific botanical knowledge that applies to roses.
> He, in turn, wondered if the artist could see all the full beauty without
> knowing something about the rose's molecular structure and such.
But that's nothing to do with art. It's about appreciating beauty. A
rose is beautiful, the Grand Canyon is beautiful, the Mandlebrot set is
beautiful. They can all be appreciated at different levels and in
different ways as being beautiful, but none of them is art. What the
above illustrates is that beauty, and how it is determined, is very much
in the eye of the beholder. But we're left with beauty, however real,
not being the same as art.
Richard Vickery
> Patrick Carroll wrote:
>> 2. I believe there *is* a degree of art in any game with depth.
Peter Clinch wrote:
> It's about appreciating beauty. A
> rose is beautiful, the Grand Canyon is beautiful, the Mandlebrot set is
> beautiful. They can all be appreciated at different levels and in
> different ways as being beautiful, but none of them is art.
Peter is on the money here. I like to watch world cup football, or
some Olympic events. I have no interest in who wins, but there is a
beauty in a cleverly executed play. It could not be called art,
because there is no intention there, just as with the rose or the
grand canyon. Playing a game of chess is surely the same. Go is a
game where the aesthetic quality can be important - the sound the
stones make on a Korean board, the irregular overlap of japanese
stones; these are things of beauty, maybe the conception of them was
art, but the implementation is not.
I believe that designing a game can be art - but that is rather
different than the play of it. It is probably also possible for a
game to specifically include an art element - if the game involved
writing a poem.
Cheers
Richard Vickery
Patrick Carroll
> The first post in the thread was going on about
> Chess's "universal appeal", and I pointed out the observable fact that
> it has no such universal appeal; and also, "Any other board games that
> could be described the same way?" as regards being an art to some
Yes, well . . . frankly, I'd forgotten all about the first post in this
thread. (It's a bad habit I've developed from so many years of
proofreading. I regularly get so absorbed in the trees that I forget
there's a forest.)
Reflecting back, I posted a quote from an article which exalted chess in
glowing terms--damning a few other games with faint praise in the process.
I posted it because I felt it was provocative.
I had hoped that some folks would take up the author's cue and make a
glowing "sales pitch" for their own favorite game. Something like: "Sure,
chess has "universal appeal" to those who like to bend their brains over
geometrically stylized battles; but Through the Desert is a masterpiece
which transcends even chess. Its 3D pieces have the same tactile
satisfaction as chess, while its neutral desert theme gives the game
widespread appeal that crosses age and gender barriers. Furthermore,
Through the Desert incorporates the right-brain thinking of go in addition
to the left-brain analysis of chess--and presents it all in a highly
playable, accessible, easy-to-learn fashion, suitable for various numbers of
players."
I liked the original article about chess, because when such "sales pitches"
are made sincerely about one's favorite game, I usually discover some
qualities of the game I'd been unaware of. Through the writer's language,
I'm able to appreciate the game in a new way.
I guess I didn't *agree* with all of Salisar's remarks about chess. But
then again, I didn't take them literally. As far as I was concerned, he was
just painting a word-picture of his own view of chess. It was a pretty
picture, and I liked it. It inspired me to think a little more highly of
chess.
Again, my hope was that others would jump in and paint similar word-pictures
of other games. Or at least argue that Puerto Rico and Tigris & Euphrates
deserve to be exalted just as highly as chess. But when that didn't happen,
I soon forgot all about it and just responded to each individual post as it
appeared.
> > I'm reminded of a TV documentary I caught several years ago, about the
> > physicist Oppenheimer. A friend of his, an artist, once brought him a
> > flower. . . . He, in turn, wondered if the artist could see all the
full beauty without
> > knowing something about the rose's molecular structure and such.
>
> But that's nothing to do with art. ...
An artist's POV (contrasted with that of a scientist) has nothing to do with
art?
Well, I'll let that go. Somehow we got off on this art tangent. And it's
been interesting, but I suspect it was off target from the start. IIRC it
began when I mentioned that chessmasters consider the game an art. Much
later--after straying in and out of music, painting, poetry, etc.--I said
that I think the chessmasters mean it's an art as opposed to a science.
That's the point we need to get back to if we're going to continue using the
word "art." It's the notion that playing chess is not merely a matter of
analysis and logical actions; it involves envisioning a plan and devising
ways to execute that plan, flexibly adjusting the plan to suit ever-changing
circumstances.
As to what Salisar may have said about chess and art in the quote that
started this thread--well, I haven't gone back and reread it. But as I
recall, his article was meant to stir the emotions and whip up enthusiasm;
and comparisons to art may have fit in with that purpose. If so, I'd still
like to see some "artistic" reviews of other games besides chess, showing
how on some level they're also more than just games.
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> I had hoped that some folks would take up the author's cue and make a
> glowing "sales pitch" for their own favorite game.
Oh. Call me old-fashioned, but I expect when people want that, that's
what they'd ask for. Silly me! ;-)
> An artist's POV (contrasted with that of a scientist) has nothing to do with
> art?
No. Why should it? It was a case of different ways of appreciating
beauty in a flower. Where does the art come in? Or: where does the
science come in? Someone who is a scientist/artist having a POV doesn't
make the subject science/art.
> It's the notion that playing chess is not merely a matter of
> analysis and logical actions; it involves envisioning a plan and devising
> ways to execute that plan, flexibly adjusting the plan to suit ever-changing
> circumstances.
I don't see how envisioning a plan to do a set thing with tools that
operate in known ways is separate from analysis and logical actions: "if
I do such and such, this should happen, my opponent can do that in
return, in which case..." etc. etc.
> As to what Salisar may have said about chess and art in the quote that
> started this thread--well, I haven't gone back and reread it. But as I
> recall, his article was meant to stir the emotions and whip up enthusiasm;
> and comparisons to art may have fit in with that purpose. If so, I'd still
> like to see some "artistic" reviews of other games besides chess, showing
> how on some level they're also more than just games.
Ah. You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that "just
a game" is in some way a negative sobriquet.
I like E&T because it usually succeeds at producing more pleasure
stimulating chemicals in my brain than anything else I've played to
date. I don't know exactly *why*, but it does. Probably not an arty
review, but I'm more interested in playing games for fun than knowing
why they *ought* to be fun.
Patrick Carroll
> Patrick Carroll wrote:
>
> > I had hoped that some folks would take up the author's cue and make a
> > glowing "sales pitch" for their own favorite game.
>
> Oh. Call me old-fashioned, but I expect when people want that, that's
> what they'd ask for.
I'm afraid with me, being direct is always a last desperate resort. I'm the
most indirect person I know as well as the most indecisve. What I want is
for each person to be completely free to be him-/herself and do as he/she
pleases--and for that to just happen to always coincide exactly with what
I'd prefer of them. (No, it's not what I really expect; just what I want.)
> > It's the notion that playing chess is not merely a matter of
> > analysis and logical actions; it involves envisioning a plan and
devising
> > ways to execute that plan, flexibly adjusting the plan to suit
ever-changing
> > circumstances.
>
> I don't see how envisioning a plan to do a set thing with tools that
> operate in known ways is separate from analysis and logical actions: "if
> I do such and such, this should happen, my opponent can do that in
> return, in which case..." etc. etc.
I didn't say one was separate from the other; just that chess is not limited
to one or the other. For clarity, insert "also" in front of "involves" in
what you quoted above. What follows the word "involves," then, is the art
part of chess. Or at least what I think chessmasters mean when they say
chess is an art.
> Ah. You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that "just
> a game" is in some way a negative sobriquet.
Isn't it? I hear the phrase most often in a sour-grapes contest: e.g.,
"Don't let losing get you down; it's just a game." Anytime I hear that, I
immediately want to know what's *not* just a game--what's important enough
to be genuinely concerned about. Because why should I waste my time on
something so unimportant that no part of it matters--not success, failure,
or even the process itself?
Of course, there are cutesy sayings like, "Don't sweat the small stuff--and
btw it's *all* small stuff." But to me, that disparages life as much as it
frees one from worry.
An old Rolling Stones song hits the mark more closely by taking a sarcastic
angle: "Take it or leave it--it's just my life."
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> I'm afraid with me, being direct is always a last desperate resort. I'm the
> most indirect person I know as well as the most indecisve. What I want is
> for each person to be completely free to be him-/herself and do as he/she
> pleases--and for that to just happen to always coincide exactly with what
> I'd prefer of them.
Some people, and certainly quite a few on Usenet, like to help. It's
making their life easier if you say what you want. Then they can, quite
freely and of their own accord, choose to help or not. It makes life
easier for everyone that way. Trust me there.
Do you really think people feel under some obligation to answer
questions on rec groups and aren't doing it of their own free will
because you asked them directly?
> I didn't say one was separate from the other; just that chess is not limited
> to one or the other. For clarity, insert "also" in front of "involves" in
> what you quoted above. What follows the word "involves," then, is the art
> part of chess. Or at least what I think chessmasters mean when they say
> chess is an art.
And what I see as a misuse of the term art. That they're practising a
craft at a higher level than anyone else I won't dispute, and also don't
see that "master craftsman" is in any way an insult. But they're not
really creating anything new, "just" using tools to do a set job
incredibly effectively.
["just games" is bad?]
> Isn't it?
No, it isn't, because a lover of games knows that you can put an awful
lot into and get a lot out of a game, even though it is just a game.
The Sun is "just a big ball of burning gas": that's a reasonably fair
description, but despite that being all it is there's an incredible
amount that comes from that.
> I hear the phrase most often in a sour-grapes contest: e.g.,
> "Don't let losing get you down; it's just a game." Anytime I hear that, I
> immediately want to know what's *not* just a game--what's important enough
> to be genuinely concerned about.
Losing a game is unlikely to affect most peoples' lives. I'll be
playing games this evening with my usual group. Should be 6 along
tonight, so it's likely that 5 of us won't win whatever we play. Is
that really a big problem? If it was, I don't think we'd be playing.
We meet up for games because it provides a stimulating environment for
us to spend our time, which is a very worthwhile thing AFAICT. We'd be
concerned if we didn't have an outlet to do that though.
> Because why should I waste my time on
> something so unimportant that no part of it matters--not success, failure,
> or even the process itself?
How do you define "matters"? If we don't play tonight, are our lives
really going to go down the pan? Doubtful. If we never play or do
anything "just for fun" ever again? Quite possibly, as all work and no
play makes Pete a pretty bloody miserable boy. Should one only do
things if every single instance has a vital effect on our lives? Some
people may, but I really doubt it'd work, or even be possible, for most
people.
> Of course, there are cutesy sayings like, "Don't sweat the small stuff--and
> btw it's *all* small stuff." But to me, that disparages life as much as it
> frees one from worry.
It's not *all* small stuff, but a good cushion of worthwhile small stuff
is what keeps most people going. There are only a handful of people in
the world for whom a single game is truly life altering, a sufficiently
small number that such a position should be seen as most unusual. For
the rest of us, games (that are "just" games) keep us well oiled and
firing nicely. Which may not sound like much, but means we can cope
with the genuinely "big stuff" on much better terms. If you *really*
see life-lubricant as "just" a minor thing of no consequence I'd imagine
you're asking the wrong sorts of people for perspectives on games.
Patrick Carroll
> ["just games" is bad?]
>
> > Isn't it?
>
> No, it isn't, because a lover of games knows that you can put an awful
Well, then it isn't *just* a game, is it? Not if you're putting a lot into
it and getting a lot out of it.
> > I hear the phrase most often in a sour-grapes context: e.g.,
> > "Don't let losing get you down; it's just a game." Anytime I hear that,
I
> > immediately want to know what's *not* just a game--what's important
enough
> > to be genuinely concerned about.
>
> Losing a game is unlikely to affect most peoples' lives. ... If it was, I
don't think we'd be playing.
> We meet up for games because it provides a stimulating environment for
> us to spend our time, which is a very worthwhile thing AFAICT. We'd be
> concerned if we didn't have an outlet to do that though.
Then, once again, it's a concern, isn't it? Losing may not be important to
you, and winning may not be everything--but the gaming outlet (or something
equivalent) is important. It's not *just* gaming; it's a gaming concern
that means something to you.
> > Because why should I waste my time on
> > something so unimportant that no part of it matters--not success,
failure,
> > or even the process itself?
>
> How do you define "matters"?
I don't; individuals can define it for themselves any way they like. But
when someone says, "It's just a game," I take that to mean games don't
matter much, if at all. So, whatever "matters" means to the person who says
that, he's saying games *don't* matter. Leaving me wondering why that
person spends so much time playing them and discussing them.
> If we don't play tonight, are our lives
> really going to go down the pan? Doubtful. If we never play or do
> anything "just for fun" ever again? Quite possibly, as all work and no
> play makes Pete a pretty bloody miserable boy. Should one only do
> things if every single instance has a vital effect on our lives? Some
> people may, but I really doubt it'd work, or even be possible, for most
> people.
So an individual game-playing session has no vital effect on your life, but
a lot of them strung together (along with perhaps other just-for-fun
activities as well) do have a vital effect? If that's what you're saying,
I'd argue that even a single game-playing session contributes toward that
vital effect and therefore matters and is important--and thus it's not
*just* a game.
> > Of course, there are cutesy sayings like, "Don't sweat the small
stuff--and
> > btw it's *all* small stuff." But to me, that disparages life as much as
it
> > frees one from worry.
>
> It's not *all* small stuff, but a good cushion of worthwhile small stuff
> is what keeps most people going. ...
"Worthwhile small stuff"? Isn't that an oxymoron?
> There are only a handful of people in
> the world for whom a single game is truly life altering, a sufficiently
> small number that such a position should be seen as most unusual. For
> the rest of us, games (that are "just" games) keep us well oiled and
> firing nicely. Which may not sound like much, but means we can cope
> with the genuinely "big stuff" on much better terms. If you *really*
> see life-lubricant as "just" a minor thing of no consequence I'd imagine
> you're asking the wrong sorts of people for perspectives on games.
Ah, but I *don't* see it that way. I think such "life-lubrication" is
vitally important. I think it matters. To me it's not "small stuff" at
all. Even though a single game will not likely be life-altering for an
individual, nevertheless it probably serves as at least a much-needed drop
of oil on the turbulent waters of life. And it's precisely because I see it
that way--because I completely agree with what you're saying--that I take
issue with the phrase "it's *just* a game."
But as you've said a lot lately, it all comes back to context. If a
just-for-fun game player is speaking to an intense, highly competitive
player who's fuming over a loss in a chess championship, "Don't worry--it's
just a game" will probably not be taken well. To this chess player, it's
*not* just a game. It's deadly serious.
Similarly, "Aw, it's just a game" will probably not be taken kindly by an
avid wargamer whose Longest Day setup--lovingly played and saved over the
course of several weeks--was just knocked hoplessly askew by a leaping cat.
To this wargamer, it's *not* just a game. It was an immersive experience.
Only when one just-for-fun, casual game player is speaking to other such
players does the phrase "just a game" come across well. In that context,
it's a reminder that everybody's playing just for the "life-lubrication,"
and it'd defeat the purpose to get serious about it--so let go of any
lingering emotions, and let's play again!
In that sense, "just a game" could also be a suitable refrain for a drinking
song. Yet to those who spend much time drinking and singing such songs,
that's also important. The louder and longer people try to sing away their
blues, the more evident it is that both their singing and their blues are
important to them.
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> Well, then it isn't *just* a game, is it? Not if you're putting a lot into
> it and getting a lot out of it.
Yes, it is *just* a game. The above is what games *do* (or at least
half decent ones). Michael Shumacher's F1 car is *just* a car. It's an
extraordinary piece of engineering but it's *just* a car and you can't
expect it to reverse history, feed the starving etc.
> Then, once again, it's a concern, isn't it? Losing may not be important to
> you, and winning may not be everything--but the gaming outlet (or something
> equivalent) is important. It's not *just* gaming; it's a gaming concern
> that means something to you.
Ah, but we're talking about games plural, not *a* game. You can
exorcise most of my game collection and it would still be a viable games
collection. It would work quite well without most of it there, even if
you took away the best games and my personal favourites. Any individual
title is "just a game", any instance of any particular title is "just a
game".
> I don't; individuals can define it for themselves any way they like. But
> when someone says, "It's just a game," I take that to mean games don't
> matter much, if at all. So, whatever "matters" means to the person who says
> that, he's saying games *don't* matter. Leaving me wondering why that
> person spends so much time playing them and discussing them.
Because if you ran history again without that particular game then
history wouldn't be that different, in all probability. If we'd never
had Chess or Go I don't think the face of the world would be that
different. Without scientific method or agriculture it would.
> So an individual game-playing session has no vital effect on your life, but
> a lot of them strung together (along with perhaps other just-for-fun
> activities as well) do have a vital effect? If that's what you're saying,
> I'd argue that even a single game-playing session contributes toward that
> vital effect and therefore matters and is important--and thus it's not
> *just* a game.
I think you're taking reductionism further than it matters. If you
spill a couple of drops of oil when filling a crankcase then it really
doesn't matter. If you never put any in, it does. The spilled drops
would've contributed to a full load, but the engine will work well
within tolerances without it. As for a single game, be it a title or a
playing instance.
> "Worthwhile small stuff"? Isn't that an oxymoron?
No, because lots of things that aren't of great importance in themselves
can help add up to a useful whole. We won't miss them individually
(exactly like games), but if they all go we're in trouble. A game is
"worthwhile small stuff" to all but a completely unrepresentative
minority who play them for a living.
> Ah, but I *don't* see it that way. I think such "life-lubrication" is
> vitally important. I think it matters. To me it's not "small stuff" at
> all. Even though a single game will not likely be life-altering for an
> individual, nevertheless it probably serves as at least a much-needed drop
> of oil on the turbulent waters of life. And it's precisely because I see it
> that way--because I completely agree with what you're saying--that I take
> issue with the phrase "it's *just* a game."
So if you spill a drop of oil when you top up an engine you're
completely paranoid about the car blowing up until you can restore that
single drop? I wouldn't put it past you, but it is *just* a drop of
oil. Oil is vital. But you can leave out individual drops and still
carry on quite happily. Individual games (both titles and instances)
are drops, not the whole deal.
> But as you've said a lot lately, it all comes back to context. If a
> just-for-fun game player is speaking to an intense, highly competitive
> player who's fuming over a loss in a chess championship, "Don't worry--it's
> just a game" will probably not be taken well. To this chess player, it's
> *not* just a game. It's deadly serious.
Then it isn't actually a game any more. The "just" is irrelevant to
them because "game" is irrelevant to them.
> Only when one just-for-fun, casual game player is speaking to other such
> players does the phrase "just a game" come across well.
The only people who should take games really seriously are people who
are professionals as their livelihoods depend upon them. They're very
few and far between and unrepresentative. If the chess player above
*can't* get over their loss then ultimately they're a pretty broken
individual. They might react badly at the time because they're angry
but if they can't say "well, it didn't really matter" a couple of years
on then I'd say that's pretty sad.
Patrick Carroll
> Yes, it is *just* a game. The above is what games *do* (or at least
> half decent ones). Michael Shumacher's F1 car is *just* a car. It's an
> extraordinary piece of engineering but it's *just* a car and you can't
> expect it to reverse history, feed the starving etc.
In that sense, of course. But that's not the kind of "just" we're talking
about. Clearly cars only do what cars do, and games only do what games do.
We're talking "just" in the sense of "merely"--i.e., in the sense of games
being relatively unimportant things.
> Ah, but we're talking about games plural, not *a* game. You can
> exorcise most of my game collection and it would still be a viable games
> collection. It would work quite well without most of it there, even if
> you took away the best games and my personal favourites. Any individual
> title is "just a game", any instance of any particular title is "just a
> game".
If we took away all but one of your games, the remaining game would fulfill
whatever purpose games serve in your life. The question is whether or not
it's serving an important function. Whether you play a different game every
day or the same game all the time is irrelevant.
> Because if you ran history again without that particular game then
> history wouldn't be that different, in all probability. If we'd never
> had Chess or Go I don't think the face of the world would be that
> different. Without scientific method or agriculture it would.
Granted, games probably are not as important to the advance of civilization
as are many other things. But I, for one, was never thinking about games as
civilization advances. I've been thinking of them in regard to the
individual game player: as stress relievers, mental exercisers, social
lubricants, immersive escapes, and so forth.
> > So an individual game-playing session has no vital effect on your life,
but
> > a lot of them strung together (along with perhaps other just-for-fun
> > activities as well) do have a vital effect? If that's what you're
saying,
> > I'd argue that even a single game-playing session contributes toward
that
> > vital effect and therefore matters and is important--and thus it's not
> > *just* a game.
>
> I think you're taking reductionism further than it matters. If you
> spill a couple of drops of oil when filling a crankcase then it really
> doesn't matter. If you never put any in, it does. The spilled drops
> would've contributed to a full load, but the engine will work well
> within tolerances without it. As for a single game, be it a title or a
> playing instance.
I'm not so sure. If game playing in general serves an important function in
your life (as I believe you've said it does), then it seems to me there must
be times when after playing a game, you say to yourself something like,
"Ahhh! That was great. I really needed that." Somehow you're happier for
having played the game. Thus that one game-playing session fulfilled an
important "something" for you. If that never happens, then how can game
playing in general possibly serve an important function?
> > "Worthwhile small stuff"? Isn't that an oxymoron?
>
> No, because lots of things that aren't of great importance in themselves
> can help add up to a useful whole. We won't miss them individually
> (exactly like games), but if they all go we're in trouble.
Then it's just a point of view. To me a brain cell is an important thing,
even if I've probably lost many of them over the years without noticing. If
something fulfills an important role, it's important to the degree it does
that.
> A game is
> "worthwhile small stuff" to all but a completely unrepresentative
> minority who play them for a living.
Hmm. Now you're saying work is absolutely more important than play, that
doing something for a living is absolutely more important than doing
something for leisure. What about retired people for whom a daily card game
may be the highlight of life? Or working people who just don't place much
importance on what they do for a living, and who care a lot more about the
things they do in their free time? IMHO, leisure is vastly underrated.
> > Ah, but I *don't* see it that way. I think such "life-lubrication" is
> > vitally important. I think it matters. To me it's not "small stuff" at
> > all. Even though a single game will not likely be life-altering for an
> > individual, nevertheless it probably serves as at least a much-needed
drop
> > of oil on the turbulent waters of life. And it's precisely because I
see it
> > that way--because I completely agree with what you're saying--that I
take
> > issue with the phrase "it's *just* a game."
>
> So if you spill a drop of oil when you top up an engine you're
> completely paranoid about the car blowing up until you can restore that
> single drop? I wouldn't put it past you, but it is *just* a drop of
> oil. Oil is vital. But you can leave out individual drops and still
> carry on quite happily. Individual games (both titles and instances)
> are drops, not the whole deal.
Bad analogy. You're talking about the drops of oil that get spilled; I'm
talking about the drops that make it into the engine and serve their
purpose. I'm saying that if all the oil in the engine is important, then
each drop of oil in the engine is important.
> > But as you've said a lot lately, it all comes back to context. If a
> > just-for-fun game player is speaking to an intense, highly competitive
> > player who's fuming over a loss in a chess championship, "Don't
worry--it's
> > just a game" will probably not be taken well. To this chess player,
it's
> > *not* just a game. It's deadly serious.
>
> Then it isn't actually a game any more. The "just" is irrelevant to
> them because "game" is irrelevant to them.
No--because "game" doesn't mean the same thing to them as it apparently does
to you. I wouldn't say having a definition that differs from yours or mine
makes the word irrelevant.
> > Only when one just-for-fun, casual game player is speaking to other such
> > players does the phrase "just a game" come across well.
>
> The only people who should take games really seriously are people who
> are professionals as their livelihoods depend upon them. ...
Why? If we zero in on an individual's life and evaluate what all
contributes to that person's quality of life, we might well find that the
bulk of his happiness and well-being comes from what he does in his leisure
time, and that what he does for a living plays a comparatively minor role.
In fact, what he does for a living might turn out to be
counterproductive--tending to make him miserable rather than happy or
fulfilled. Lots of people hate their jobs. But how many people hate their
hobbies?
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> In that sense, of course. But that's not the kind of "just" we're talking
> about. Clearly cars only do what cars do, and games only do what games do.
> We're talking "just" in the sense of "merely"--i.e., in the sense of games
> being relatively unimportant things.
Individually, they are. Either an individual title, or a specific
single instance of play.
> If we took away all but one of your games, the remaining game would fulfill
> whatever purpose games serve in your life.
Not necessarily. If you left me with Wooden Ships and Iron Men (a game
in my personal collection) I wouldn't be able to play it the way I most
often play games: with non-gamer friends who don't have a specific
interest in Napoleonic sea battles.
> The question is whether or not
> it's serving an important function. Whether you play a different game every
> day or the same game all the time is irrelevant.
As illustrated quite succinctly above, not true at all.
> Granted, games probably are not as important to the advance of civilization
> as are many other things. But I, for one, was never thinking about games as
> civilization advances. I've been thinking of them in regard to the
> individual game player: as stress relievers, mental exercisers, social
> lubricants, immersive escapes, and so forth.
Stress relief is very important, but in practically all cases you can't
point to a single game and say, "without this game, there would be no
stress relief for this person". Thus, any individual game becomes "just
a game". My blood is very important to me, but take a pint and it's
just a pint, I can do without fine (I frequently give blood, I know this
to be true).
> I'm not so sure. If game playing in general serves an important function in
> your life (as I believe you've said it does), then it seems to me there must
> be times when after playing a game, you say to yourself something like,
> "Ahhh! That was great. I really needed that." Somehow you're happier for
> having played the game. Thus that one game-playing session fulfilled an
> important "something" for you. If that never happens, then how can game
> playing in general possibly serve an important function?
Because I keep well oiled, and games are part of my way of doing that.
If you keep an engine topped up then the oil-warning will never come on.
You cannot safely conclude from that that adding oil to an engine
serves no useful purpose, yet that is the direct analogy you're drawing
above.
> Then it's just a point of view. To me a brain cell is an important thing,
> even if I've probably lost many of them over the years without noticing. If
> something fulfills an important role, it's important to the degree it does
> that.
But if you'll carry on well enough without it, "the degree it does that"
is, by definition, insignificant.
> Hmm. Now you're saying work is absolutely more important than play, that
> doing something for a living is absolutely more important than doing
> something for leisure.
I'm saying that if your basic ability to function in life is dependent
upon your job then your job is very important. Probably more so than
your leisure.
> What about retired people for whom a daily card game
> may be the highlight of life?
Then I'd say they're in a suitably warm and well fed state where earning
money to pay for it is a non-issue. If you're starving that takes
priority over a card game if you can find any way of using your time
that might get food in your mouth.
> Or working people who just don't place much
> importance on what they do for a living, and who care a lot more about the
> things they do in their free time?
In that case work is a means to an end of security. If they didn't
place any importance in that, they wouldn't be doing that job.
> IMHO, leisure is vastly underrated.
I agree, which is why I'm quite happy for things to be "just leisure".
To me that says something is actually rather great. It'll keep a smile
on my face, though what I do with it won't really have much
earth-shattering effect and won't give the action itself some
objectively greater value for all comers.
> Bad analogy. You're talking about the drops of oil that get spilled; I'm
> talking about the drops that make it into the engine and serve their
> purpose. I'm saying that if all the oil in the engine is important, then
> each drop of oil in the engine is important.
But they're not, and it's a fine analogy because every drop isn't
important. If every drop was important and you *did* spill a couple,
the engine would seize. It won't, so the drops you spilled weren't
important. The pints of blood I give away don't kill me, thus they're
not *in themselves* of huge importance to me. If they were I'd have
dies about 30+ times already. If you miss some games your life won't
stop. They're just games.
> Why? If we zero in on an individual's life and evaluate what all
> contributes to that person's quality of life, we might well find that the
> bulk of his happiness and well-being comes from what he does in his leisure
> time, and that what he does for a living plays a comparatively minor role.
> In fact, what he does for a living might turn out to be
> counterproductive--tending to make him miserable rather than happy or
> fulfilled. Lots of people hate their jobs. But how many people hate their
> hobbies?
That doesn't make their hobbies of enormous objective importance in the
grand scheme of things though. You're looking for games that are *more*
than "just games". But just because Bobby Fisher is pretty anal about
Chess and it defines *his* life doesn't mean it's more than just a game
in any other than a strictly personal and very limited sense. Fly
fishing is just trying to outsmart some fish with a pole and line and
fancy bait, even though some people are totally absorbed by it and seem
to live for it. My life is made richer by recreational free heel
skiing: ultimately it's just sliding around on frozen water. I bring up
professionals because they're actually surviving (putting roofs over
their families' heads, food on the table) by doing it. Survival is
actually a matter of life and death. Hobbies are only that way through
unfortunate accidents in most cases.
I haven't seen any game which transcends being "just a game". There are
numerous examples of individuals being absorbed by a particular game,
but I don't think there's any clear reason in the game itself having a
certain objective something in that happening. So beyond individual
personal cases I don't think I've seen a game which is more than just a
game.
Patrick Carroll
> I haven't seen any game which transcends being "just a game".
Keep looking. Someday you may happen upon such a special game. Meanwhile,
I suppose you'll have to be content with ordinary, everyday,
run-of-the-mill, mundane games.
> There are
> numerous examples of individuals being absorbed by a particular game,
> but I don't think there's any clear reason in the game itself having a
> certain objective something in that happening. So beyond individual
> personal cases I don't think I've seen a game which is more than just a
> game.
Let's not get back to that objectivity thing. Obviously, objectively
speaking, nothing can be more (or less, for that matter) than what it is.
In that sense, a game is a game is a game. And so is everything else.
The question is whether a game can provide the motivation for the kind of
"chess is the most wonderful thing in the world" article I quoted from at
the beginning of this thread. I.e., whether chess--or any other game--can
be cherished or exalted as more than just a game by an individual, and with
good (though necessarily subjective) reason.
And as you say, there are numerous examples of that (though you may not
share the reasons individuals give for praising a favorite game so highly).
Btw, your mention of Hesse's "Glass Bead Game" indirectly led me to a
curious Web site: http://www.ludism.org/. Now I suppose I'll have to
investigate Nomic--a game which someone mentioned to me a while back.
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> Keep looking. Someday you may happen upon such a special game. Meanwhile,
> I suppose you'll have to be content with ordinary, everyday,
> run-of-the-mill, mundane games.
But as I've pointed out, there's not actually anything *wrong* with a
game that's "just a game", which is why I'm not worrying myself
searching for the Next Thing Up. The standard of the "ordinary,
everyday, run-of-the-mill games" on the shelves now is very high if you
take even a little guidance with purchases. They won't mark a Damascene
change in my life, but I'll have lots of fun with them.
> Let's not get back to that objectivity thing. Obviously, objectively
> speaking, nothing can be more (or less, for that matter) than what it is.
> In that sense, a game is a game is a game. And so is everything else.
But the games we have available to us aren't particularly *meant* to be
anything more, AFAICT. Just read the introduction to Glass Bead Game
(actually part of the novel, with the "authors" of Knecht's biography
describing the origins of the Game) and you'll see a description of a
game which, though notional and fictional, is clearly meant to be more
than "just a game" in the state of development current to the "authors".
Another stop at fiction, but the game in Iain M Banks's "The Player of
Games" is also very much "more than just a game": a society rests upon
it. Though these are fictional examples they show not wholly
unreasonable thoughts of games that are more than "just games". But I
don't see anything much like it available to us, with only professional
sports and their following even approaching a fraction of that level of
importance, and that's more by journalistic hoopla than the sports
themselves.
> The question is whether a game can provide the motivation for the kind of
> "chess is the most wonderful thing in the world" article I quoted from at
> the beginning of this thread. I.e., whether chess--or any other game--can
> be cherished or exalted as more than just a game by an individual, and with
> good (though necessarily subjective) reason.
As above, I think it *could* be, but I think it will require to be
designed or evolved well past the existing designs (and indeed typical
contexts of use) to achieve that. All the games I've seen to date don't
show any sign of ever having been *meant* to be more than "just games",
and the really big ones (Chess and Go) have effectively been prevented
from much further development by the need to keep relatively static
rulesets for international play. So it's not unduly surprising.
> And as you say, there are numerous examples of that (though you may not
> share the reasons individuals give for praising a favorite game so highly).
It's people who absorb large parts of their lives in stuff like
collecting wee china dogs from Franklin Mint that persuade me that
hobbies don't have to have much real depth to captivate. The article
you started with praised Chess's "universal appeal", but since it's very
easy to find someone to whom Chess doesn't appeal much at all it soon
becomes clear that rose tinted spectacles are common in people praising
the virtues of their own hobbies (understandably, as they are important
to them on a personal level).
> Btw, your mention of Hesse's "Glass Bead Game" indirectly led me to a
> curious Web site: http://www.ludism.org/. Now I suppose I'll have to
> investigate Nomic--a game which someone mentioned to me a while back.
I'm not a Nomic player, but AIUI the main procedure of play is
developing the rules of that instance of play. ICBW but you don't
strike me as someone who would appreciate that lack of formal structure,
or indeed the voting and negotiation aspects involved in changing the
rules all the time for the game to progress.
Michael Abramowski
> Patrick Carroll wrote:
>
> > Let's not get back to that objectivity thing. Obviously, objectively
> > speaking, nothing can be more (or less, for that matter) than what it is.
> > In that sense, a game is a game is a game. And so is everything else.
>
> But the games we have available to us aren't particularly *meant* to be
> anything more, AFAICT. Just read the introduction to Glass Bead Game
> (actually part of the novel, with the "authors" of Knecht's biography
> describing the origins of the Game) and you'll see a description of a
> game which, though notional and fictional, is clearly meant to be more
> than "just a game" in the state of development current to the "authors".
> Another stop at fiction, but the game in Iain M Banks's "The Player of
> Games" is also very much "more than just a game": a society rests upon
> it. Though these are fictional examples they show not wholly
> unreasonable thoughts of games that are more than "just games". But I
> don't see anything much like it available to us, with only professional
> sports and their following even approaching a fraction of that level of
> importance, and that's more by journalistic hoopla than the sports
> themselves.
Adding to the topic of "Games in literature", I think the book "The squares of
the City" by John Brunner is another good example of a gme that, in a particular
society, means much more. In contrast to the "Player of Games", Brunner uses a
really existing game (Chess) to base his story on, and while you first think that
in that fictional country, chess has the same meaning as in the former Soviet
Union, you realize towards the end that there is much more to it.
However, like chess in "The Squares of the City", the game from "The Player of
Games" could be regarded also as "just a game" in a different context. It does
sound like a very interesting game, with various multiplayer capability, much
more strategy than luck and complex, but consistent, rules. It would be
interesting to see any real game similar to it, but I guess that won't be in my
lifetime. And if it will, I won't find anyone to play with...
Cheers,
Michael
Patrick Carroll
> But the games we have available to us aren't particularly *meant* to be
...But I
> don't see anything much like it available to us. ...
I don't know about the GBG (yet, because I still haven't read the book), but
my guess is that it's some sort of mega-game with great social significance.
I'm not talking about (and am really not much interested in) social
significance; I'm interested in great personal significance--which includes
usefulness on some level (not necessarily down-to-earth utilitarianism,
though). Take for example the following blurb that I just snitched from
somewhere on the Web (http://www.krusch.com/kubrick/Q57.html, to be exact).
It's from an interview with filmmaker/chessmaster Stanley Kubrick
How does the game of chess relate to Kubrick's world-view?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The symbolism of chess, a game that originated in India, bears a
resemblance to that of military strategy. It represents a conflict
between black and white pieces, between shadow and light, between the
Titans and the Gods . . . What is at stake in the conflict is the
supremacy of the world. . . . The conflict can be transposed onto the
existential plane where the player's skill coincides with universal
intelligence. There was nothing fortuitous about Kubrick's collaboration
with another great lover of chess, Nabokov (whose Laughter in the Dark
he also considered adapting), and Edmond Bernhard has analysed the
themes of the novel LOLITA in terms of the game.
(Ciment, p. 88)
[Interviewer Ciment put the question to Kubrick directly]
* * * * *
CIMENT: You are a chess player and I wonder if chess-playing and its
logic have parallels with what you are saying?
KUBRICK: First of all, even the greatest International Grandmasters,
however deeply they analyse a position, can seldom see to the end of the
game. So their decision about each move is partly based on intuition. I
was a pretty good chess-player but, of course, not in that class. Before
I had anything better to do (making movies), I played in chess
tournaments at the Marshall and Manhattan Chess Clubs in New York, and
for money in parks and elsewhere. Among a great many other things that
chess teaches you is to control the initial excitement you feel when you
see something that looks good. It trains you to think before grabbing,
and to think just as objectively when you're in trouble. When you're
making a film you have to make most of your decisions on the run, and
there is a tendency to always shoot from the hip. It takes more
discipline than you might imagine to think, even for thirty seconds, in
the noisy, confusing, high-pressure atmosphere of a film set, But a few
seconds' thought can often prevent a serious mistake being made about
something that looks good at first glance. With respect to films, chess
is more useful preventing you from making mistakes than giving you
ideas. Ideas come spontaneously and the discipline required to evaluate
and put them to use tends to be the real work.
(Ciment, p. 196)
End quote.
I see at least two striking things in the above passage: (1) the
introductory paragraph covers the powerful symbolism of chess, implying that
it's universal and timeless; and (2) Kubrick describes at least one way in
which chess conditions the mind and benefits the player.
The symbolism can--like any symbolism--be exalted or dismissed. Symbolism
requires acceptance and interpretation; so all a cynic has to do is shrug it
off as hype or claptrap. But I think the person who wrote the introductory
paragraph above really sees something of great value--something that it'd be
unwise to just shrug off.
As to Kubrick's remarks about the benefits of chess--I just think it's too
bad he named only one. I get the impression that the interviewer could have
named many more, and that Kubrick might have agreed if other benefits had
been presented. What I find with people of action is that they rarely do
much reflecting. They may benefit from lots of things, in many ways--but
they're so concerned with applying themselves to the project at hand that if
someone asks, "How did you develop that talent?" they'll often shrug and be
at a loss.
> > And as you say, there are numerous examples of that (though you may not
> > share the reasons individuals give for praising a favorite game so
highly).
>
> It's people who absorb large parts of their lives in stuff like
> collecting wee china dogs from Franklin Mint that persuade me that
> hobbies don't have to have much real depth to captivate. ...
I think that just shows how shallow many people are. I suppose there are
many china-dog collectors who wouldn't get the above paragraph about chess
symbolism at all. And in fact, I'll bet there's a whole world full of avid
chess players who wouldn't connect with that paragraph and who'd quickly
dismiss it as meaningless hype.
By the same token, lots of people over the past several centuries have seen
Shakespeare's plays and regarded them as mere entertainment--no different
than a TV sitcom. Yet there have also been scholars (starting with
Coleridge, who IIRC was the first to think that maybe there was some depth
to Shakespeare after all) who practically devote their lives to mining all
the wealth from the Bard's works.
It's always possible to just scratch the surface of something and never
delve to the depths. When it comes to games, I guess that's just what most
people do. There's not much point in arguing with them. It'd be like
preaching to a roomful of incorrigible sinners or something: you'd just be
laughed off the pulpit. But that doesn't mean the depth isn't there--for
anyone who does care to look into games that way.
> > Btw, your mention of Hesse's "Glass Bead Game" indirectly led me to a
> > curious Web site: http://www.ludism.org/. Now I suppose I'll have to
> > investigate Nomic--a game which someone mentioned to me a while back.
>
> I'm not a Nomic player, but AIUI the main procedure of play is
> developing the rules of that instance of play. ICBW but you don't
> strike me as someone who would appreciate that lack of formal structure,
> or indeed the voting and negotiation aspects involved in changing the
> rules all the time for the game to progress.
You're right. I probably wouldn't like that.
Gotta run. Time to shovel snow and get to work.
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> I don't know about the GBG (yet, because I still haven't read the book), but
> my guess is that it's some sort of mega-game with great social significance.
And not for the first time, your first guess is completely wrong! ;-)
> I'm not talking about (and am really not much interested in) social
> significance; I'm interested in great personal significance--which includes
> usefulness on some level (not necessarily down-to-earth utilitarianism,
> though).
GBG enables the suitably gifted player to inter-relate just about
*anything*, specifically including music, mathematics, sciences and
linguistics. It is taken to be the ultimate intellectual exercise with
scope for action and artistic play far beyond that of games available to
us with our existing games. Its significance in the book on a social
level is as a celebrated spectator sport at festivals, though this is
very much secondary to its importance as an intellectual pursuit of
elite scholars, at least from the perspective of the nominal authors
(not Hesse, the book is written as if a "biography" written in a future
some centuries on).
With a well defined structure and an ability to objectively inter-relate
the aesthetic with the logical and provable, it sounds like just the
sort of thing you're looking for! Shame it doesn't really exist, but
that's probably why the book's been recommended to you more than once.
> I see at least two striking things in the above passage: (1) the
> introductory paragraph covers the powerful symbolism of chess, implying that
> it's universal and timeless; and (2) Kubrick describes at least one way in
> which chess conditions the mind and benefits the player.
>
> The symbolism can--like any symbolism--be exalted or dismissed. Symbolism
> requires acceptance and interpretation; so all a cynic has to do is shrug it
> off as hype or claptrap.
Or alternatively point out that there's identical symbolism to be found
in Draughts, and of course myriad other possible places. The symbolism
there is not at all confined to Chess, so it strikes me as foolish to
parade that as a deep-seated reason for Chess to be "more than just a
game", regardless of how it's exalted or dismissed as symbolism.
> As to Kubrick's remarks about the benefits of chess--I just think it's too
> bad he named only one. I get the impression that the interviewer could have
> named many more, and that Kubrick might have agreed if other benefits had
> been presented.
Quite possibly, but a decent [insert discipline, physical or mental, of
choice]er can point out pretty much exactly the same benefits in many
cases. In finding parallels to reality Chess can be useful to its
players, but I really doubt more so than an awful lot of other things.
For example, you could probably apply the comments about discipline to
wait your moment to fly fishing, cycle racing and so on.
> What I find with people of action is that they rarely do
> much reflecting. They may benefit from lots of things, in many ways--but
> they're so concerned with applying themselves to the project at hand that if
> someone asks, "How did you develop that talent?" they'll often shrug and be
> at a loss.
The GBG is said to have been improved enormously in the eyes of its
players by adding a large element of contemplation to the game as one of
the final and most significant developments in taking the game to the
state where the book is set...
> I think that just shows how shallow many people are.
Most people operate at many different depths. Even deep contemplative
people might like tickling one another. If collecting china dogs floats
someone's particular boat, more power to them (especially if they keep
them away from me! ;-)). I think dismissing someone as shallow simply
because they happen to have a zero-intellect hobby is pretty shallow
itself, actually.
> By the same token, lots of people over the past several centuries have seen
> Shakespeare's plays and regarded them as mere entertainment--no different
> than a TV sitcom. Yet there have also been scholars (starting with
> Coleridge, who IIRC was the first to think that maybe there was some depth
> to Shakespeare after all) who practically devote their lives to mining all
> the wealth from the Bard's works.
And again, we're talking about things designed to operate at more than
one level. As can good games be, of course, but I'm still not persuaded
that the different levels at which, say, Chess and Go operate
significantly put them beyond the reach of being "just games".
> It's always possible to just scratch the surface of something and never
> delve to the depths. When it comes to games, I guess that's just what most
> people do. There's not much point in arguing with them. It'd be like
> preaching to a roomful of incorrigible sinners or something: you'd just be
> laughed off the pulpit. But that doesn't mean the depth isn't there--for
> anyone who does care to look into games that way.
I've never argued that there isn't a tremendous amount of depth in
Chess, Go and indeed many other games. That makes them very good
designs of games, because they can be taken in different ways and
contexts and still work well. But that still doesn't elevate them to
being more than games in my eyes, though it does mark them out for
special mention as (potentially) deep games. If I play Chess at a deep
(though still non-professional) level it's still going to be just a
diversion played to fill my spare time because it's my spare time and
that's how I want to spend it. I'm not really getting anything much
*done* except making myself more content thereby. It might be different
as a *means* to that than playing Twister or golf, but the reasoning for
why and the end point are pretty much the same.
Patrick Carroll
> Patrick Carroll wrote:
> > I don't know about the GBG (yet, because I still haven't read the book),
but
> > my guess is that it's some sort of mega-game with great social
significance.
>
> And not for the first time, your first guess is completely wrong! ;-)
Yup--guess I've gotta read that book next after all. (I'm not really a big
reader, considering my literary inclination, but I've always got a book
going for lunch hours and such. Right now I'm in the middle of Dickens's
"Tale of Two Cities," which my teachers neglected to force-feed me back in
school.)
> Or alternatively point out that there's identical symbolism to be found
> in Draughts, and of course myriad other possible places. The symbolism
> there is not at all confined to Chess, so it strikes me as foolish to
> parade that as a deep-seated reason for Chess to be "more than just a
> game", regardless of how it's exalted or dismissed as symbolism.
I'd go the other way with it, and say that draughts and myriad others might
also be "more than just games." In fact, I'd say *any* game can be more
than just a game. It's all in how much one looks for and finds in it.
Those who don't look much past the surface will never see anything more than
just a game.
> > As to Kubrick's remarks about the benefits of chess--I just think it's
too
> > bad he named only one. I get the impression that the interviewer could
have
> > named many more, and that Kubrick might have agreed if other benefits
had
> > been presented.
>
> Quite possibly, but a decent [insert discipline, physical or mental, of
> choice]er can point out pretty much exactly the same benefits in many
> cases. In finding parallels to reality Chess can be useful to its
> players, but I really doubt more so than an awful lot of other things.
> For example, you could probably apply the comments about discipline to
> wait your moment to fly fishing, cycle racing and so on.
Sure; I'll buy that. Chess probably isn't exclusive in benefiting partakers
in the ways it does. Other games and activities could do the same thing.
But I don't believe Kubrick ever would have gotten that benefit from chess
if he hadn't first committed himself to taking chess seriously, playing it
intensely, searching its depths. In other words, regarding it as more than
just a game.
A fly fisherman could do the same by regarding fly fishing as more than just
a hobby--more than just a pleasant means of whiling away a Saturday
afternoon. A cyclist could accomplish it by regarding cycle racing as more
than just a game--more than a just-for-fun competitive spin.
To me, it's the dismissive shrug inherent in saying, "It's just a game" that
precludes any chance of deriving much benefit from the game--or from any
other activity, for that matter. The moment one says, "Wait a minute--no,
it's *not* just a game. There's much more!"--that's when miracles can begin
to happen.
> Most people operate at many different depths. Even deep contemplative
> people might like tickling one another. If collecting china dogs floats
> someone's particular boat, more power to them (especially if they keep
> them away from me! ;-)). I think dismissing someone as shallow simply
> because they happen to have a zero-intellect hobby is pretty shallow
> itself, actually.
Well, sure, if you want to pluralize and complicate it that way. China-dog
fans can, of course, be as deep, contemplative, and successful as anyone.
And yes, gurus probably enjoy a light joke now & then. I wasn't talking
about real people with all their complexity, but just going with your
china-dog image to describe shallowness.
> > By the same token, lots of people over the past several centuries have
seen
> > Shakespeare's plays and regarded them as mere entertainment [and]
scholars ... who practically devote their lives to ... the Bard's works.
>
> And again, we're talking about things designed to operate at more than
> one level. As can good games be, of course, but I'm still not persuaded
> that the different levels at which, say, Chess and Go operate
> significantly put them beyond the reach of being "just games".
So be it, then. When I was studying English at the unversity in the
mid-90s, the department was hopelessly divided. One half idolized
Shakespeare and taught his works like holy scripture; the other half
vehemently argued that no literature ought to be revered so highly. After
all, Shakespeare himself was evidently just a gifted hack in his own day,
scribbling out plays to be performed, not to be remembered--much less
studied or even worshiped.
Sounds like you'd be in the latter camp. I tended more toward the former,
elitist camp. The more a literary work is exalted, the more worthwhile it
seems to me--and the deeper and more passionately I delve into it, and the
more I get out of it.
Shakespeare *is* entertaining. Once you get past the language problem, the
plays are usually a lot of fun to just kick back and watch like TV sitcoms.
And probably that was Shakespeare's own main focus or intent--though he also
wove in poetry and subtlety for the educated classes. The plays work on
many levels, as you say.
And it can be the same with games. I don't know enough about chess or go to
really appreciate a well-played game. Many people are in that boat--and
they often respond by shrugging off games like chess and go, and turning to
lighter games instead, perhaps coming back to chess and go now & then but
not lingering or striving to improve. My response, though, is to exalt
these games. Even if I can't fully appreciate them right now, I acknowledge
that here are two games that *can* be appreciated on a higher or deeper
level than most games--so I put them up on a pedestal. And that motivates
me to return time and again and take another look, hoping to discover
something new about them. In that sense, they're more than just games to
me--i.e., more than the just-for-fun entertaining games I usually while away
my time with.
> I've never argued that there isn't a tremendous amount of depth in
> Chess, Go and indeed many other games. That makes them very good
> designs of games, because they can be taken in different ways and
> contexts and still work well. But that still doesn't elevate them to
> being more than games in my eyes, though it does mark them out for
> special mention as (potentially) deep games. If I play Chess at a deep
> (though still non-professional) level it's still going to be just a
> diversion played to fill my spare time because it's my spare time and
> that's how I want to spend it. I'm not really getting anything much
> *done* except making myself more content thereby. It might be different
> as a *means* to that than playing Twister or golf, but the reasoning for
> why and the end point are pretty much the same.
Then that's where we differ. I see the same thing, but when I choose chess,
I usually *do* expect to accomplish something beyond just amusing myself.
Today, for instance, I spent some time reading about Petrosian's
"positional" style of play, and it fascinated me. Not because I felt that
what I was reading might help me play better, but because something told me
there's a universal truth--at minimum a fundamental key to human nature or
the working of the mind--in the way Petrosian's positional style is set
against Kasparov's "concretist" (or calculating) style. That pair of
opposites presents a continuum to my mind which at least vaguely reveals
something about how people think, and how their styles of thinking account
for the various modes of behavior I see in the world around me.
Now I wonder where my playing style fits on that spectrum. Wherever it
fits, to me it's not just an indicator of how I'll play chess; it's an
indicator of how I'll live my life--what kinds of patterns I'm apt to be
creating in my life due to my tendency toward one approach over another. In
this way--and probably in many ways I've yet to discover--chess can be a
sort of metaphor for life. A mirror of oneself, but also a symbolic
representation of how the world works.
There's a limit to it, of course. As with any analogy, you can't push it
too far or take it too literally. It's a delicate balance.
So, yes--when I get into chess or go, or any game or activity which I sense
has unusual profundity, I do look for something beyond mere amusement or
diversion. At the same time, I suppose that when I play chess or go, I'm
also amused and entertained. On one level, it's just a game; on another
level it's more than just a game to me, because I'm considering things that
go beyond mere diversion.
In contrast, when I sign off here, I'll probably play a game of Hoplites--a
light, freeware, card-based computer wargame. And I doubt that any profound
thoughts will occur to me as I play. I'll just be sending in chariots in
hopes of smashing up those dreaded Roman cohorts, or harrying a Greek
phalanx with my squadrons of horse archers. I'll cheer at each breakthrough
and groan at each setback, get lightly involved with the action--and then
forget all about it when it's done, because after all, it's just a game.
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> I'd go the other way with it, and say that draughts and myriad others might
> also be "more than just games." In fact, I'd say *any* game can be more
> than just a game.
We're at cross purposes, I'm pretty sure. It's the view that more or
less *any* game is "more than just a game" that IMHO makes the simple
term "game" fundamentally *mean* what you see as "more than just a game".
Thus, in that view, it is in no way insulting to something to describe
it simply as being a game. That it is a game automatically implies
everything it can do, on all levels. But it still won't matter much if
you lose one, play badly or whatever.
> To me, it's the dismissive shrug inherent in saying, "It's just a game" that
> precludes any chance of deriving much benefit from the game--or from any
> other activity, for that matter. The moment one says, "Wait a minute--no,
> it's *not* just a game. There's much more!"--that's when miracles can begin
> to happen.
Again, I think we're at cross purposes. "It's just a game, <shrug>"
delivered to someone despondent on losing really is fair enough in most
cases. It simply means that no lasting scars are left and we can go
away and get over it pretty easily unless we're really pretty sad cases
as there's nothing at stake beyond the very short term bit of personal
anger management. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's no point in
pursuing the game as a worthwhile thing to do in the first place. Which
do you think would have affected Stanley Kubrick more, losing a game of
Chess or having the studio pull the plug on Spartacus? Wouldn't mean
Chess wasn't important to him to suggest the latter.
If you mean in the sense of "why do you bother spending your time on
that at all, it's just a game", then I'd agree. If I didn't I wouldn't
play games!
> Sounds like you'd be in the latter camp. I tended more toward the former,
> elitist camp. The more a literary work is exalted, the more worthwhile it
> seems to me--and the deeper and more passionately I delve into it, and the
> more I get out of it.
>
> Shakespeare *is* entertaining. Once you get past the language problem, the
> plays are usually a lot of fun to just kick back and watch like TV sitcoms.
> And probably that was Shakespeare's own main focus or intent--though he also
> wove in poetry and subtlety for the educated classes. The plays work on
> many levels, as you say.
WS wrote quite a lot of plays. Some of the comedies are pretty generic
and certainly not in the same boat of outright quality as, say, Hamlet,
the Tempest, King Lear and Macbeth. Don't work on so many levels
either. I revere work I consider great work, I don't revere stuff
because it's revered.
> Then that's where we differ. I see the same thing, but when I choose chess,
> I usually *do* expect to accomplish something beyond just amusing myself.
> Today, for instance, I spent some time reading about Petrosian's
> "positional" style of play, and it fascinated me. Not because I felt that
> what I was reading might help me play better, but because something told me
> there's a universal truth--at minimum a fundamental key to human nature or
> the working of the mind--in the way Petrosian's positional style is set
> against Kasparov's "concretist" (or calculating) style. That pair of
> opposites presents a continuum to my mind which at least vaguely reveals
> something about how people think, and how their styles of thinking account
> for the various modes of behavior I see in the world around me.
Again, you're just using Chess as a mirror. I don't see anything in the
above example you couldn't mirror from numerous sports, hobbies, crafts
or other games, or indeed simply looking directly at the way people
approach their life rather than struggling with metaphors. Chess is a
good choice for you because it mirrors things well in your eyes and
because lots of people have chosen to document it, but that doesn't make
it intrinsically better as a game than other things, just makes it a
good game with associated baggage that happens to work well for some
people including you.
But there's no clear reason why any game with a bit of depth (and there
really isn't a shortage out there) can't be used as mirror if that's
what you want to do with it. And if that *is* what you want to do with
it, you should still be able to shrug off some terrible piece of play
resulting in a loss as "just a game, I made some poor moves, I got
caned, and rightly so" after your initial anger or despondency.
Patrick Carroll
> Patrick Carroll wrote:
>
> > I'd go the other way with it, and say that draughts and myriad others
might
> > also be "more than just games." In fact, I'd say *any* game can be more
> > than just a game.
>
> We're at cross purposes, I'm pretty sure. It's the view that more or
> less *any* game is "more than just a game" that IMHO makes the simple
> term "game" fundamentally *mean* what you see as "more than just a game".
But to the English-speaking world at large--the person on the street--it
doesn't mean that. The word "game" refers confusedly to (1) the silly
things children to do pass time and learn a few basic things, (2) gambling,
(3) sports, (4) the packaged game-sets that teens and some adults play on
rainy days, and (5) intrigue, jockeying, or deception, as in "the political
games going on in the UN." And if you make it clear that the game you're
talking about is Elfenlands or Starfarers of Catan, the average listener
pegs you as someone who hasn't quite finished growing up--because that sort
of game is basically kids' stuff. It's kids' stuff because it serves no
utilitarian purpose, and adults ought to be always engaged in productive
activities (or else resting up for the next day's productivity).
That's why, to me, the phrase "more than just a game" is useful. It
introduces the notion that there are benefits one gan get from games and
game playing beyond mere silliness and diversion.
The same would apply to fishing, cycling, or anything else that people might
normally think of as frivolous, trivial pastimes. When any such pastime is
taken seriously (at least sometimes) by the speaker, saying, "To me it's
more than just a game" clues the listener in that in this case the pastime
is *not* (just) frivolous or trivial; it means more than that to the
speaker.
> Thus, in that view, it is in no way insulting to something to describe
> it simply as being a game. That it is a game automatically implies
> everything it can do, on all levels. ...
In my experience, it is almost insulting--at least trivializing or
diminishing--to speak of just a game. Except in a few rare usages (e.g.,
the Olympic games), the word "game" has a diminutive or disparaging
connotation.
> > To me, it's the dismissive shrug inherent in saying, "It's just a game"
that
> > precludes any chance of deriving much benefit from the game--or from any
> > other activity, for that matter. The moment one says, "Wait a
minute--no,
> > it's *not* just a game. There's much more!"--that's when miracles can
begin
> > to happen.
>
> Again, I think we're at cross purposes. "It's just a game, <shrug>"
> delivered to someone despondent on losing really is fair enough in most
> cases. It simply means that no lasting scars are left and we can go
> away and get over it pretty easily unless we're really pretty sad cases
> as there's nothing at stake beyond the very short term bit of personal
> anger management. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's no point in
> pursuing the game as a worthwhile thing to do in the first place.
True. In that particular case, it's probably a good idea to remind
ourselves that games aren't worth getting put-out over. I can agree that in
such a situation, "It's just a game" is appropriate.
> Which
> do you think would have affected Stanley Kubrick more, losing a game of
> Chess or having the studio pull the plug on Spartacus? Wouldn't mean
> Chess wasn't important to him to suggest the latter.
> If you mean in the sense of "why do you bother spending your time on
> that at all, it's just a game", then I'd agree. If I didn't I wouldn't
> play games!
But I think that's what the average person hears in the phrase "it's just a
game" (except in the one instance when a loser is being consoled by the
phrase). It's just a trivial pursuit--a childish, frivolous, silly nothing
of a pastime that adults shouldn't really waste time on, and definitely
shouldn't waste *much* time on.
> WS wrote quite a lot of plays. Some of the comedies are pretty generic
> and certainly not in the same boat of outright quality as, say, Hamlet,
> the Tempest, King Lear and Macbeth. Don't work on so many levels
> either. I revere work I consider great work, I don't revere stuff
> because it's revered.
Do you feel the same about games? Are some games more on the King Lear
level, while others are on the Much Ado about Nothing level? If so, do
games like chess and go deserve to be on the pedestals society has put them
on, or are they just being undeservedly revered?
More to the point, if there is a game you revere (as being
head-and-shoulders above other games in that category), doesn't that make it
"more than just a game" to you in some sense? Such reverence is precisely
what I've meant by "more than just a game" all along.
> But there's no clear reason why any game with a bit of depth (and there
> really isn't a shortage out there) can't be used as mirror if that's
> what you want to do with it. And if that *is* what you want to do with
> it, you should still be able to shrug off some terrible piece of play
> resulting in a loss as "just a game, I made some poor moves, I got
> caned, and rightly so" after your initial anger or despondency.
I agree. In that particular instance, it's good to remember that games are
just games after all. Same for fishing, cycling, or even things like career
and marriage--or, in the end, even life itself. When you're on your
deathbed, you may as well shrug and say, "Well, I had a good run of
it--c'est la guerre." Or look forward to the afterlife or the next time
around. Not much point in wasting your remaining minutes whining over what
you're about to lose. Dylan Thomas may have admonished us to "rage against
the dying of the light," but I don't see the point of rage. In all such
cases, I'd rather just pull myself together as best I can and move on.
--Patrick
The Maverick
>
> But to the English-speaking world at large--the person on the street--it
> doesn't mean that. The word "game" refers confusedly to (1) the silly
> things children to do pass time and learn a few basic things, (2) gambling,
> (3) sports, (4) the packaged game-sets that teens and some adults play on
> rainy days, and (5) intrigue, jockeying, or deception, as in "the political
> games going on in the UN." And if you make it clear that the game you're
> talking about is Elfenlands or Starfarers of Catan, the average listener
> pegs you as someone who hasn't quite finished growing up--because that sort
> of game is basically kids' stuff. It's kids' stuff because it serves no
> utilitarian purpose, and adults ought to be always engaged in productive
> activities (or else resting up for the next day's productivity).
Have you checked out the popularity of "computer GAMES" and "video
GAMES" lately?
Your "straw man" definition of what the word "game" is crafted out of
thin air. It is inaccurate, empirically invalid, and only of use to
continuing your argument... another attempt at meaningless
categorization of things that don't need to be categorized.
the Mav
--
"Never give up -- never surrender!" Commander Peter Quincy Taggart
Peter Clinch
> But to the English-speaking world at large--the person on the street--it
> doesn't mean that. The word "game" refers confusedly to (1) the silly
> things children to do pass time and learn a few basic things, (2) gambling,
> (3) sports, (4) the packaged game-sets that teens and some adults play on
> rainy days, and (5) intrigue, jockeying, or deception, as in "the political
> games going on in the UN." And if you make it clear that the game you're
> talking about is Elfenlands or Starfarers of Catan, the average listener
> pegs you as someone who hasn't quite finished growing up--because that sort
> of game is basically kids' stuff. It's kids' stuff because it serves no
> utilitarian purpose, and adults ought to be always engaged in productive
> activities (or else resting up for the next day's productivity).
I think a case in part of double standards. Though the latter applies
to our unproductive hobbies, theirs will "obviously" be far grander
things. Like watching football on TV, which of course matters a Great
Deal! ;-/
There are relatively few people who don't have any hobbies or leisure
activities they personally see as important, and dismissal of other
folks' is just a narrow perspective rather than a real feeling that only
work matters, I think.
Of course, most people aren't aware of the amount of quality games for
adults out there. Chess is alone on a pedestal because it's the only
widely known "serious" board game in the West (Draughts/Checkers is well
known, but largely underestimated in terms of its depth). My idea of
good games generally aren't dismissed as the person issuing a dismissal
doesn't even know they exist. It's like dismissing mathematics as
trivial if you think maths == arithmetic: garbage, but understandable
enough from a certain narrow perspective.
> But I think that's what the average person hears in the phrase "it's just a
> game" (except in the one instance when a loser is being consoled by the
> phrase). It's just a trivial pursuit--a childish, frivolous, silly nothing
> of a pastime that adults shouldn't really waste time on, and definitely
> shouldn't waste *much* time on.
I think when applied to the general perception that board games ==
Monopoly or equivalent, quite possibly true. I doubt that Chess would
be included in that: it is widely known to be serious (The Seventh Seal
starting with Death playing the hero at Snakes and Ladders? I don't
think so! (though see Bill & Ted's Bogus Adventure for an hilarious
pastiche where the Reaper ends up playing Twister and Battleships!)).
That other games are not seen in this light is simply because they're
not seen at all. That says rather more about the public perception of
board games than it says about the *actual* board games known to gamers.
Also typically true of card games, where everyone knows Bridge is
serious (though many haven't got a clue how it's played), Poker and
Blackjack are about money, but for the large part mention of Piquet or
Bezique will result in a blank look. Using a widely held but incorrect
public perception to judge games is a shaky place to start.
> Do you feel the same about games? Are some games more on the King Lear
> level, while others are on the Much Ado about Nothing level? If so, do
> games like chess and go deserve to be on the pedestals society has put them
> on, or are they just being undeservedly revered?
As suggested above, it's probably overrated in relative terms because in
the public view in the West it's probably the only *serious* board game
there is, simply because knowledge of others amounts to nothing. It
doesn't (IMHO) deserve to be placed so far ahead of *everything* else,
though in an absolute term (yes, of course it's a woolly and subjective
guess at such a thing) it does deserve to be on a pedestal as a fine
game. Though a pedestal shared with hundreds of other games, possibly
more. It's because I see the pedestal as crowded that it strikes me as
pointless saying "A is really something else", when there's B-Z and far
beyond there as well: why get hung up on A? It isn't the case that I
don't think anything should be on a pedestal at all.
> More to the point, if there is a game you revere (as being
> head-and-shoulders above other games in that category), doesn't that make it
> "more than just a game" to you in some sense? Such reverence is precisely
> what I've meant by "more than just a game" all along.
But there isn't such a game! My general category of "good games" does
have games I prefer to others (E&T is probably my favourite of those
games I've played to date), but nothing which is clearly miles ahead of
the curve. Gamers as represented on r.g.b appear to play games plural,
not *a* game, and that's certainly the way I operate. There are games
we like, games that don't work for some of us but do for others, but
even where a clear consensus puts something ahead of the pack (Puerto
Rico is the darling of the genre ay present) it isn't as if all the
others cease to be worth playing.
Reverence beyond that will exist for certain titles by certain people,
but not in any more significant way than can easily be explained by
individual preference rather than that game being really a whole other
sort of beast.
> In all such
> cases, I'd rather just pull myself together as best I can and move on.
Yes, but though it's good to move forward I really don't see losing a
child should be shrugged off in the same way as losing a game, no matter
how deep the game, just because we're all irrelevant in the Grand Scheme
if you look at it from the right distance. Some things do matter more
than others at the human level. Games are *not* at the top of the list.
Gerben Dirksen
> At http://www.concentric.net/~salisar/chess.html there's an article that
> begins:
>
> <<Chess is art ... art in one of its purest forms. . . . Chess has drawn to
> its breast king and pauper, young and old, high and low. Bridge draws to its
> fold people of a distinct genteel nature, poker draws those of nerve and
> vigor, blackjack those of a clear and logical mind. But chess has a
> universal appeal that transcends its rules ... a crystal clarity that
> penetrates the spirit.>>
>
> What do you think? Any truth to it?
Well, chess is a popular game and it is fun to play. But so are many
other games. That doesn't make it art. The author must be unaware of
the fact that chess is one member of a large group of games, called
"abstract games". Mathematically speaking, chess is a complicated
variant of Tic Tac Toe.
Other well known examples of abstract games are Connect Four, Go,
Checkers, Awari and Pente. Bridge, Poker and Blackjack have an
intrinsic element of chance, which make them less pure in a
mathematical sense, but not less fun to play.
One could argue that chess is a "beautiful" game, whatever that is. I
think it is because it has "something" that makes the game a huge
success.
However, the other games he mentions have the same "something". It
appeals to the human mind, and therefore the author has right nor
reason to insult players of these games.
For me there is no "more than just a game" category. Chess is exactly
what a game is supposed to be. Flexibility is another great asset. You
can play a 5-minute game, or a 3-hour match.
Is he right or wrong about bridge,
> poker, and blackjack in comparison to chess? Any other board games that
> could be described the same way?
Any "abstract" game, of which there are many. The simplest example
would be Tic Tac Toe (although this game is too easy to pose a serious
mental challenge and therefore it's not much fun to play).
Another which is equally simple but defies many people is Nimm: There
are N (for example 21) matches on the table and you can take 1,2 or 3.
The goal is to force your opponent to take the last one. Once you
figure out the trick the game is trivial.
Gerben
Josh Adelson
"The Maverick" wrote
> Have you checked out the popularity of "computer GAMES" and "video
> GAMES" lately?
>
> Your "straw man" definition of what the word "game" is crafted out of
> thin air. It is inaccurate, empirically invalid, and only of use to
> continuing your argument... another attempt at meaningless
> categorization of things that don't need to be categorized.
>
> the Mav
Why don't you just rename yourself "The Straw Man"? You barely know what
the term means; you abuse it (and probably yourself) every chance you get;
and you epitomize actual straw men (with your lack of substance; lightweight
intellect; and annoyingly itchy personality). In short: Get stuffed,
Strawboy.
Patrick Carroll
> That says rather more about the public perception of
> board games than it says about the *actual* board games known to gamers.
> Using a widely held but incorrect
> public perception to judge games is a shaky place to start.
Maybe so. But we're talking about a phrase ("just a game") that's commonly
used by the same public that has this "widely held but incorrect ...
perception." Thus it's important to consider what it means to them.
I'll grant you that the phrase probably has a different connotation here in
r.g.b. than it does in the world at large. When speaking to John Q. Public,
I might say, "Tigris & Euphrates is more than just a game," meaning it's
more than what he probably thinks of when he hears the word "game." I
mention this because I think it's probably the sort of thing Salisar was
doing in the quote that started this thread--speaking mainly to correct the
widely held public perception that games are just frivolous time wasters.
Meanwhile, somewhere along the way, I got off on a different
tangent--speaking not to John Q. Public but to you and other r.g.b.ers. If
I say to you, "T&E is more than just a game," it'd have to mean it's more
than what I presume *you* think of when you hear the word "game." And since
you presumably know at least as much about games as I do--well, I guess
that'd be presumptuous. Unless I wanted to just call your attention to
largely unexplored facets of games--e.g., games as art, games for mental
exercise or self-improvement, the Glass Bead Game, etc. Which, when I got
off on this tangent, is what I wanted to do.
> As suggested above, [chess i]s probably overrated in relative terms
because in
> the public view in the West it's probably the only *serious* board game
> there is, simply because knowledge of others amounts to nothing. It
> doesn't (IMHO) deserve to be placed so far ahead of *everything* else,
> though in an absolute term (yes, of course it's a woolly and subjective
> guess at such a thing) it does deserve to be on a pedestal as a fine
> game. Though a pedestal shared with hundreds of other games, possibly
> more. It's because I see the pedestal as crowded that it strikes me as
> pointless saying "A is really something else", when there's B-Z and far
> beyond there as well: why get hung up on A? It isn't the case that I
> don't think anything should be on a pedestal at all.
Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. If some game--or some hundred-odd
games--do deserve to be on a pedestal, then in some sense those games are
"more than just [ordinary, not-on-a-pedestal] games."
You may find the pedestal crowded and thus be able to easily shrug all this
off, but at least you seem to see my point. (Now if only I could remember
what it was myself.)
> > More to the point, if there is a game you revere (as being
> > head-and-shoulders above other games in that category), doesn't that
make it
> > "more than just a game" to you in some sense? Such reverence is
precisely
> > what I've meant by "more than just a game" all along.
>
> But there isn't such a game! My general category of "good games" does
> have games I prefer to others (E&T is probably my favourite of those
> games I've played to date), but nothing which is clearly miles ahead of
> the curve. ...
Doesn't have to be miles ahead of the curve. Going back to the Shakespeare
analogy, suppose we agree that Hamlet deserves to be up on the proverbial
pedestal, while Cymbeline doesn't. In my old U of M English department,
there are still two schools of thought about it: (1) Let's teach Hamlet in
a way that builds great reverence for it, so it'll be an inspiration to
students; and (2) No, let's avoid teaching mere literature as if it's holy
scripture or something--it's just a play, after all.
Similarly, there could be two such schools of thought about E&T: (1) E&T is
such a great game, let's play and study it with great reverence, building a
history and body of literature around it to rival that of chess, go, and
bridge; and (2) No, that's silly--E&T is just a game, and let's just keep it
on an amateur, casual, just-for-fun level where we can enjoy it without
adding a lot of "baggage."
The first of these "schools of thought" does not seem to exist (or maybe I'm
just overlooking it) for most of the games discussed in r.g.b. But it
clearly does exist for chess, bridge, go, and a handful of other games. You
don't have to search far to find some rather esoteric literature about chess
or go. Maybe not to the extent of the Glass Bead Game--but tending in that
direction.
I suppose the point I've been stumbling around is that I've long been a
proponent of that first school of thought. At the peak of my wargaming
career, some thirty years ago, I had fond hopes that AH/SPI wargames
would--by the turn of the century at the latest--be as popular and highly
revered as chess, bridge, or go. I started a wargame club, wrote articles
for magazines and newsletters, and generally did my part to realize that
dream. It seemed vastly important to me at the time (so much so that I'm
now surprised to find I can look back and see it as rather silly). I was
also dismayed at the time by the other school of thought--all the wargamers
who seemed intent on keeping wargaming at an amateurish, anarchistic level
where these wonderful games were regarded no more highly than Monopoly
(maybe even less highly by John Q. Public).
I guess it's just me. I always prefer to look for the meaningful--even the
sacred--in everything I'm into. It holds my interest and makes it all seem
worthwhile. If I *don't* do that--if I just lighten up and have fun with
the thing--the enjoyment is all too fleeting for my taste. Plenty of
light-and-fleeting, just-for-fun stuff seems to come my way unbidden--so I
don't have to go looking for it. Delving down and mining for those nuggets
of "more than just ___," however--that's a meta-game that I find very
satisfying.
> > In all such
> > cases, I'd rather just pull myself together as best I can and move on.
>
> Yes, but though it's good to move forward I really don't see losing a
> child should be shrugged off in the same way as losing a game, no matter
> how deep the game, just because we're all irrelevant in the Grand Scheme
> if you look at it from the right distance. Some things do matter more
> than others at the human level. Games are *not* at the top of the list.
That's a good point, I must admit. In case I haven't said it yet, I
appreciate this discussion. You've given me a lot of food for thought and
reminded me of the importance of keeping things in perspective. Though it
may be all well and good for me to seek out esoteric nuggets of wisdom even
in seemingly ordinary pastimes, it's still necessary to put priorities in
order. They call it a hobby for a reason. So, thanks.
--Patrick
The Maverick
>
> Why don't you just rename yourself "The Straw Man"?
Or more appropriately, Josh Addlehead - TROLLMASTER?!?!?! :-)
Peter Clinch
> Maybe so. But we're talking about a phrase ("just a game") that's commonly
> used by the same public that has this "widely held but incorrect ...
> perception." Thus it's important to consider what it means to them.
Only if I've misunderstood what you're after, which is a game which does
fundamentally more than those which are in general circulation. I don't
see much point in limiting that general circulation to the subset known
about by Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public.
> mention this because I think it's probably the sort of thing Salisar was
> doing in the quote that started this thread--speaking mainly to correct the
> widely held public perception that games are just frivolous time wasters.
No, I think he was saying that Chess is more than just a game in the
sense it has universal appeal where other good games don't and is art
where other good games aren't. I *know* it doesn't have universal
appeal (as not everyone actually likes Chess) and as we've already
covered, I don't think it's art.
> Meanwhile, somewhere along the way, I got off on a different
> tangent--speaking not to John Q. Public but to you and other r.g.b.ers. If
> I say to you, "T&E is more than just a game," it'd have to mean it's more
> than what I presume *you* think of when you hear the word "game." And since
> you presumably know at least as much about games as I do--well, I guess
> that'd be presumptuous. Unless I wanted to just call your attention to
> largely unexplored facets of games--e.g., games as art, games for mental
> exercise or self-improvement, the Glass Bead Game, etc. Which, when I got
> off on this tangent, is what I wanted to do.
To me good games, or at least a goodly sized subset of them (certainly
exceptions, Snakes and Ladders is good in the right context, as is Jenga
and Carabande, and so on), exactly *are* mental exercises. Games as art
I've already said I think is a misuse of the term art, games for self
improvement are just a facet you can apply to plenty of things besides
from games (that started off with how to wield a katana, after all,
which is hardly a game!).
> Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. If some game--or some hundred-odd
> games--do deserve to be on a pedestal, then in some sense those games are
> "more than just [ordinary, not-on-a-pedestal] games."
Yes, but OTOH I just see it as a division between good games, which do
what games can and should do, and poor games, which don't. The good
games aren't something I really see as "more than games", the rest are
less than what they might be. But the good games are still "just
games": they won't end poverty and famine or find a cure for cancer, or
be particularly more worthwhile taking up someone's leisure time than
any number of other things if that's what happens to float somebody's boat.
> You may find the pedestal crowded and thus be able to easily shrug all this
> off, but at least you seem to see my point.
Yes, though your original questions seemed to me to imply that such
games were rare beasts indeed where I think they're actually rather
common, at least once you know where to look (Aaron's "Top 100" actually
lists almost 4000 games, and though that includes piles of stinkers near
the bottom there are well regarded games with 4 figure rankings: how
many people on the street would be able to name double, never mind
triple or quadruple, figures of serious board and card games?)
> Similarly, there could be two such schools of thought about E&T: (1) E&T is
> such a great game, let's play and study it with great reverence, building a
> history and body of literature around it to rival that of chess, go, and
> bridge; and (2) No, that's silly--E&T is just a game, and let's just keep it
> on an amateur, casual, just-for-fun level where we can enjoy it without
> adding a lot of "baggage."
But what about (3): E&T is a great game, but should we really build a
cult about it when we might reasonably do the same for El Grande, Puerto
Rico, etc. etc.? In the area E&T works in (a commercial copyright
product existing in direct competition in a niche market with many
peers) this is effectively what happens anyway through simple market
dynamics. It isn't a comment on the unworthiness of E&T for deeper
involvement, and I think if Chess were invented next week and marketed
by a commercial company it would be *very* unlikely to be singled out as
worthy of the amount of thought and effort that has gone into it over
the centuries.
I think a better analogy to Shakespeare's plays wouldn't be games in
general, but perhaps games of Reiner Knizia. Though Africa apparently
works okay as a family game, from what I've seen it certainly doesn't
have the depth (or indeed breadth) of E&T. A serious study of serious
games for adults, if there were to be such a thing, would very probably
spend more time on E&T than Africa. But it would only have much reason
to gloss over Puerto Rico if you were looking specifically at RK designs
rather than games in general.
> The first of these "schools of thought" does not seem to exist (or maybe I'm
> just overlooking it) for most of the games discussed in r.g.b. But it
> clearly does exist for chess, bridge, go, and a handful of other games. You
> don't have to search far to find some rather esoteric literature about chess
> or go.
Chess, Go and Bridge are very literally "more than just games" in this
respect as they do have millions of words of third party publications
supporting them, but I don't think that is intrinsic to the games
themselves, just their particular place in culture and history. E&T
won't produce much literature devoted to its play because it doesn't
have a historical and cultural niche where it's the only serious board
game in town (or at least the only one anybody realises is in town).
E&T has many, many peers, Chess and Go have only really had one another
for a long time and likewise there aren't many card games that generate
much literature (Poker and Bridge, basically), though there's no
shortage of quality card games.
I figured you were asking about games that are more than just games *in
themselves*, not in the amount of supporting material. A search through
the library catalogue should answer your question if that wasn't the case.
> Maybe not to the extent of the Glass Bead Game--but tending in that
> direction.
Of course, Hesse had to invent a fictional game to do the job as nothing
like it actually existed...
> I suppose the point I've been stumbling around is that I've long been a
> proponent of that first school of thought. At the peak of my wargaming
> career, some thirty years ago, I had fond hopes that AH/SPI wargames
> would--by the turn of the century at the latest--be as popular and highly
> revered as chess, bridge, or go.
If there had been only one wargame available, and it was very good, it
might have at least seeped into the public consciousness, but even the
more popular titles are just one of thousands and thus rather lost in
the flood. Chess has created an aura for Chess, not for good abstract
strategy games. It's a cultural icon now because it has been for so
long. It's very unlikely that in today's crowded market any game will
really have a chance to become a touchstone. Monopoly is as near as
we've got, and that still has quite a history by current boardgame
standards, and even so is kept selling by a combination of *lots* of
marketing effort and familiarity rather than inherent quality. Though I
see Monopoly as a relatively poor game in my personal collection the
fact that I can pull it out and have everyone in a disparate group play
at once without any rules explanations means it merits its place
alongside E&T. In terms of play it certainly isn't "more than just a
game", but in terms of availability and familiarity it really is, in
that narrow sense of "more". Again, I doubt this is what you're looking
for.
> I guess it's just me. I always prefer to look for the meaningful--even the
> sacred--in everything I'm into. It holds my interest and makes it all seem
> worthwhile. If I *don't* do that--if I just lighten up and have fun with
> the thing--the enjoyment is all too fleeting for my taste. Plenty of
> light-and-fleeting, just-for-fun stuff seems to come my way unbidden--so I
> don't have to go looking for it. Delving down and mining for those nuggets
> of "more than just ___," however--that's a meta-game that I find very
> satisfying.
It's very easy: there are dozens of titles that have depth available.
The problem isn't finding one, but concentrating on it when there are so
many other good games about. And even when you've found you really
rate, say, Zertz, how can you be sure Dvonn, Tamsk and Gipf (and that's
just titles from one designer in one series) aren't even more to your
taste without personally trying them? This still leaves you a problem,
but I'd say it's preferable as problems go to be spoilt for choice than
scratching around for anything at all!
Though the baggage that comes with Chess and Go isn't intrinsic to the
games themselves, it does give you more options to get into the games,
so in that sense they are "more". In a modern game you'll need to do
the mining yourself, but that doesn't mean there isn't any depth there.
> So, thanks.
Nae bother. I'll probably sign off now, not because it hasn't been
interesting but I'm off to just slide around on frozen water for a
couple of weeks in the back of beyond in Norway. Something I find
rather life affirming, despite it being "just a long walk through
nowhere on skis"...
Josh Adelson
"The Maverick" <thema...@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:3E71868C...@volcano.net...
> Josh Adelson wrote:
>
> >
> > Why don't you just rename yourself "The Straw Man"?
>
>
> Or more appropriately, Josh Addlehead - TROLLMASTER?!?!?! :-)
>
> the Mav
Why do you want to rename yourself that?? If it makes you happy, go for it.
The Maverick
> "The Maverick" <thema...@volcano.net> wrote in message
> news:3E71868C...@volcano.net...
>
>>Josh Adelson wrote:
>>
>>>Why don't you just rename yourself "The Straw Man"?
>>
>>Or more appropriately, Josh Addlehead - TROLLMASTER?!?!?! :-)
>>
>>the Mav
>
> Why do you want to rename yourself that??
You're right - it's just like that Highlander thing: THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE.
Jon Waddington
> >
> >>Josh Adelson wrote:
> >>
> >>>Why don't you just rename yourself "The Straw Man"?
> >>
> >>Or more appropriately, Josh Addlehead - TROLLMASTER?!?!?! :-)
> >>
> >>the Mav
> >
> > Why do you want to rename yourself that??
>
> You're right - it's just like that Highlander thing: THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE.
Josh vs. Mav....
Mav vs. Josh....
I have say, fellas, I'm wiping away a tear of nostalgia with each successive post.
Jon
Paul Sauberer
"Jon Waddington" <jon_wad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cae3b04.03031...@posting.google.com...
Yeah, ain't love grand?
Paul Sauberer
Josh Adelson
"Paul Sauberer" <spamgr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4Puca.29671$b8.58...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Hey Paul, that's precisely what I think when I read posts from you involving
John Bohrer!
Paul Sauberer
"Josh Adelson" <jade...@NOSPAMcolumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Gaxca.25105$s75.10...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
One big difference is that I only blast John Bohrer when he goes ballistic
at a customer or on the subject of putting rules on the Internet. He only
flames me in response to my calling him on the carpet. The majority of both
of our posts goes uncommented on by the other.
You and Mav go after each other no matter what the original subject. It
seems almost impossible to find a post from one of you without a followup
from the other, particularly on r.g.b.m..
Paul Sauberer
Josh Adelson
I am pretty sure that The Maverick is in the lead as far as that particular
practice goes, but I'm certainly guilty of trying to show him what it feels
like. And, however you wish to justify it, your "blasts" are no more
pleasant to the casual observer (however more infrequent they may be) than
any other flames. It's extremely easy to get on a high horse here about
almost anything--it's just better to be somewhat blameless if you want more
credibility.
The Maverick
>
> It
> seems almost impossible to find a post from one of you without a followup
> from the other, particularly on r.g.b.m.
Then you didn't even try... he posts to plenty of threads that aren't
of the slightest interest to me.