Chess: art or sport?

[Todekaal]

What do you think: is chess an art form or a sport? We've been debating for
years...

[jerome carlin]

Michael P. Smith wrote:

>
> In article <19971215185...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, tode...@aol.com (Todekaal) wrote:
> >What do you think: is chess an art form or a sport? We've been debating for
> >years...
>

> According to George Carlin, it can't be a sport unless it involves teams and a
> ball. Chess fails on both counts.
>
> Personally, I think of chess as a cross between mathematics and philosophy.
>
> Michael P. Smith
> mpstheseus on FICS

George (no relation)also said that it can't be a sport unless there's a
chance for serious bodily injury. Chess fails on that count also.

[disgruntled]

jerome carlin wrote in message <3495FE...@concentric.net>...

There's a good chance of injury if you kibbitz a game I'm playing!!!

Fencing judo and horse racing have niether teams nor balls and are sports.

[You Wascally Wabbit]

Personally, I subscribe to the rather unconventional view that chess is a
game, however addictive or fascinating it may be.

I could buy that it is the mental equivalent of a sport, but in common
usage it seems that the word sport requires some sort of physical
exertion. The closest that I can come to something that does not require
this exertion and would still be called a sport is fishing. However,
anyone that says fisching requires no exertion has never tried to pull in
a good sized Alaska salmon.

Art is an expressive method that seeks (usually) to create beauty. I won't
debate whther chess qualifies as "beautiful" or not but I will definitely
suggest that chess is not expressive. In particular, it is not expressive
to a large segment of the population but only to those with a specialized
set of knowledge. However, if anyone would like to debat that point about
chess, I look forward to seeing their first social commentary in the form
of chess moves.

I think the whole "art or sport" debate comes mostly from a desire to make
chess into an activity that will be generally regarded as having social
importance and of productive value. The fact is that chess is a game
played on a board and, while it may be deemed more valuable than playing
Monopoly (another point that I'm not interested in arguing) it must be
realized that it is a game. Kasparov is not an athlete on a par with
Muhhammed Ali. Reti was not a Mozart because he played chess well, and
none of us will become Picassoes by playing chess.

With that said, I think chess is a really cool game that is quite
fascinating and makes a very agreeable hobby.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the great Tao is lost,
Humanism and justice appear.
When intelligence and cleverness arise,
So does gross hypocrisy.
-- Lao Tzu
M. David Maloney Email: asd...@uaa.alaska.edu
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8425

[Michael P. Smith]

[E4c6]

Someone has a signature line that includes an alleged quote from a Soviet
encyclopia to the following effect:

Chess - Art in the form of a game.

[fn...@uaf.edu]

>You Wascally Wabbit <asd...@UAA.ALASKA.EDU> wrote:
>
> Personally, I subscribe to the rather unconventional view that chess is a
> game, however addictive or fascinating it may be.

But this doesn't exclude it from the set of sport... basketball is a
game-- and a sport.

And, of course, Reti is not a Mozart because he plays chess-- but this
doesn't exclude him from the set of artists either.

There are a few different questions implicit here: does something need to
be overtly physical to be a sport? Without going into arguments about the
physical exertion necessary for chess, popular parlance would dictate
that it does-- but the whole point here is whether or not chess is
something that fits in DESPITE common conceptions. I personally view
most, if not all, organized game activity as "sport" -- after all, if we
can call things as disparate as fishing, fencing, wrestling and
gymnastics sports, then there is some room for movement.

The art question is even more problematic. No, chess is not painting, but
then neither are poetry or sculpture or dance, just to name three other
arts. Art is a very broad concept and the best in aesthetic theory have
yet to come to agreement on what it is :) If art involves creation (my
personal view), then those who achieve a level in chess great enough that
they can understand the aesthetic components and create and think about
it in a manner outside pure calculation are certainly artists. There is
to my mind a great beauty in chess that bespeaks of it having an artistic
side.

Art doesn't have to speak to the masses or the majority to be art. Poetry
is art, language poetry a fine subdivision of art-- but one that speaks
to few people. I just can't buy that the beauty has to be immediately
apparent-- in fact, I don't buy the "creating beauty" definition at all.
Art IS about creation and expression, but not necessarily about beauty or
expression directed to a specific ends. "Art is that which is open to
interpretation" as a wise old man once said.

This doesn't mean that chess is art for most people-- or at least not
good art, as my games will show. But Kasparov, for example, and players
like Anderssen, Fischer and Larsen exhibit what I feel is an artistic
side to chess.

c
--
Chris Lott
fn...@uaf.edu

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[raven1]

Michael P. Smith wrote:
>
> In article <19971215185...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, tode...@aol.com (Todekaal) wrote:
> >What do you think: is chess an art form or a sport? We've been debating for
> >years...
>
> According to George Carlin, it can't be a sport unless it involves teams and a
> ball. Chess fails on both counts.

A curious definition of "sport". I guess that the following don't
qualify either : Singles tennis (no team), golf (ditto), horse racing
(neither team nor ball), boxing (ditto), most olympic events (one or
both missing), etc...

I think, however, that Carlin was rather less than serious in his
definition.

>
> Personally, I think of chess as a cross between mathematics and philosophy.
>
> Michael P. Smith
> mpstheseus on FICS

--

If responding to a Usenet posting, please E-mail a copy, as my server
often misses posts.

"Sing, all you children - sing the song to turn the world around.
Love, all you children - sing for all the love that you have found."
--"Behind the Sky", The Kind

"Oh my God! They killed Kenny! YOU BASTARDS!!!"

[dott...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca]

A cynic (myself for example) would say when I win, its an art; when I draw a tough
one, its a sport; when I lose, its "just a game".
--
*********************************************************************

David Ottosen
dott...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dottosen

*********************************************************************

[jbri...@efn.org]

Maybe you should post this to alt.sport.chess, oops, there doesn't seem
to be any such newsgroup... :)

Chesspride wrote:
>
> >It's also interesting to note that the International Olympic Committee has
> >not been terribly interested in seeing chess as a sport.
>
> Well this is a rather negative view...and not a correct one either.
>
> Nearly all chessplayers have an interest in chess being considered by the IOC
> as a sport. USCF has an Olympic Committee that is dedicated to this goal.
>
> FIDE's efforts in this regard are to be commended, and by having the World
> Championship Finals in Lausanne under the sponsorship of IOC they have made
> great progress.
>
> On the matter of the protected nature of the scores of chess matches...the
> centuries-old tradition that they are public domain should be sufficient to
> keep them so in the future. The USCF position is that raw chess scores, with
> or without player names and venue information, are public domain.
>
> Eric C. Johnson
> USCF Assistant Director

[Michael P. Smith]

In article <3496E20E...@planet.earthcom.net>, rav...@planet.earthcom.net wrote:
>Michael P. Smith wrote:
>>
>> In article <19971215185...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, tode...@aol.com
> (Todekaal) wrote:
>> >What do you think: is chess an art form or a sport? We've been debating for
>> >years...
>>
>> According to George Carlin, it can't be a sport unless it involves teams and
> a
>> ball. Chess fails on both counts.
>
>A curious definition of "sport". I guess that the following don't
>qualify either : Singles tennis (no team), golf (ditto), horse racing
>(neither team nor ball), boxing (ditto), most olympic events (one or
>both missing), etc...

I forgot to mention that he also insists that their must be a chance of
physical harm. I think he mentioned the exceptions you mentioned. I think
his response was as follows:

Tennis - Not a sport becuase it is nothing more than ping/pong with the
players on the table.
Olympic Events - Their part of the "Olympic Games" not the "Olympic Sports"
Golf - To poorly quote Mark Twain "A good walk spoiled"
Boxing - It's a fight, not a sport.
Horse Racing - Didn't mention, but probably would have shrugged it off
with a size crack.

He also said that Hockey wasn't a sport since it uses a puck and a puck is
what you find the bottom of a urinal and slapping that around the ice doesn't
make it a sport.

>
>I think, however, that Carlin was rather less than serious in his
>definition.
>

And hopefully that I was just as serious with my message :) If we want to be
serious, look it up in websters, mine reads as follows:

Chess, n. [ME. ches, chesse; OFr. esches, eschas; from Per. shah, a king, the
most important pice in the game.] A game of skill played by two persons, each
having 16 pieces to move in different ways, on a board divided into 64
squares, alternately light and dark. Each player has eight principal
(hmmm...wrong principle/principal isn't it???) pieces (a king, a queen, two
bishops, two knights, and two rooks, or castles) and eight pawns. The game
progresses by alternate moves until one player wins by checkmating his
oppontent's king or until neither can do so and a stalemate results.

Now, obviously this is a rather simplified definition of chess (and it doesn't
explain stalemate correctly), but it does say that chess is a GAME, not a
SPORT, not an ART, and not MATHEMATICS/PHILOSOPHY. It's a game. So to the
person who asked "Chess: art or sport?" I ask the following question "Bear: A
bird or a fish" In both cases, the question is invalid because it offers two
choices and neither is correct.

>>
>> Personally, I think of chess as a cross between mathematics and philosophy.
>>

Ok, so I also answered the question wrong:)

[J...@suffolk.lib]

Chess is "spart".

Jon

[You Wascally Wabbit]

On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 fn...@uaf.edu wrote:

:

: >You Wascally Wabbit <asd...@UAA.ALASKA.EDU> wrote:
: >
: > Personally, I subscribe to the rather unconventional view that chess is a
: > game, however addictive or fascinating it may be.
:
: But this doesn't exclude it from the set of sport... basketball is a
: game-- and a sport.

Nor did I say otherwise.

: And, of course, Reti is not a Mozart because he plays chess-- but this

: doesn't exclude him from the set of artists either.

I suppose my point wasn't as clear as I thought. Obviously playing chess
does not cause Richard Reti or <insert player of choice here> to wake up
one morning and find himself magically transofmred into Wolfgang Amedeus
Mozart. The point was that being a chess play,er no matter how skilled,
does not make one an artist on a par with Mozart or <insert artist of
choice here>.

: There are a few different questions implicit here: does something need to

: be overtly physical to be a sport? Without going into arguments about the
: physical exertion necessary for chess, popular parlance would dictate
: that it does-- but the whole point here is whether or not chess is
: something that fits in DESPITE common conceptions. I personally view
: most, if not all, organized game activity as "sport" -- after all, if we
: can call things as disparate as fishing, fencing, wrestling and
: gymnastics sports, then there is some room for movement.

Of course the way the word "sport" is commonly used does not include using
it to describe chess. Likewise, of course you can choose to redefine the
word "sport" (or any other word) as you please. However, it seems ot me
that a question such as "Is chess a sport?" requires one to use the
commonly acepted meaning of the term. Words, such as "sport" exist in
order to communicate. I can redefine the word "sport" by deciding that it
is a term that refers to the color purple if I want to. Of course, if I do
the only thing that I'll accomplish is to set up a barrier to
communication.

I don't deny that some people would define chess as a "sport." However,
within the accepting meaning of the term, chess is definitely not a sport.
Hence those who would consider the term to include chess as a sport, are
using the term in a way that differs from the accepted use of the term.
They should be unsurprised when the general public regards them as rather
strange because of it.

Incidentally, all of the sporting examples that you gave above do involve
physical exertion as I stated that sports seem to require in all
instances. Chess still requires no more exertion than the ability to sit
in a chair for a long time. Perhaps for the force of gravity that holds us
in our chairs, chess is a sport. :)

: The art question is even more problematic. No, chess is not painting, but

: then neither are poetry or sculpture or dance, just to name three other
: arts. Art is a very broad concept and the best in aesthetic theory have
: yet to come to agreement on what it is :) If art involves creation (my
: personal view), then those who achieve a level in chess great enough that
: they can understand the aesthetic components and create and think about
: it in a manner outside pure calculation are certainly artists. There is
: to my mind a great beauty in chess that bespeaks of it having an artistic
: side.

.The same problem as with sport applies. In most people's mind, board
games are by definition not artistic. The general usage of "art" does not
include describing chess. If you wish to define it otherwise, that's your
choice.

Incidentally, in my previous posting I had commented that art doesn't
require a great deal of specilizted training to see and recognize (if not
appreciate). I don't have to go to a special school to go to the
performing arts center and see a play or pick up a book and read a poem
nor play a cd. With chess, on the other hand, one has to learn the
otherwise useless skill of moving the chess pieces to appreciate the "art"
in it. Even then, I suspect that if you were to ask people who know the
moves and nothing more, I'd be willing to bet that 99% would think you
were simply weird or at least wrong for thinking that chess is art.

It seems to me that if chessmoves are "Art" then the wonderful deal that I
made to get both boardwalk and park place in a monopoly game is equally
worthy of being called art.

: Art doesn't have to speak to the masses or the majority to be art. Poetry

: is art, language poetry a fine subdivision of art-- but one that speaks
: to few people. I just can't buy that the beauty has to be immediately
: apparent-- in fact, I don't buy the "creating beauty" definition at all.
: Art IS about creation and expression, but not necessarily about beauty or
: expression directed to a specific ends. "Art is that which is open to
: interpretation" as a wise old man once said.

If you go back to my original post you'll note that I never said art shold
be defined as "creating beauty." I did say that art often, perhaps usually
does try to create beauty. The definition that I gave stated that art
tries to convey a message. Your quotation which states that "Art is that
which is open to interpretation" is also along the same lines. The
question that I posed in my first posting still stands then: Who will be
the first to convey a social commentary with chess moves? For that matter,
who will find any message or meaning in a series of chess moves?

: This doesn't mean that chess is art for most people-- or at least not

: good art, as my games will show. But Kasparov, for example, and players
: like Anderssen, Fischer and Larsen exhibit what I feel is an artistic
: side to chess.

They may come up with really spiffy plans and ideas that you or I would
never have thought of. That, imho, is very different from creating a work
of art. The question still remains, as posed by your own explanation of
what art is: What is the meaning or interpretation of their games? One
might equally well ask whether when one sits down and says "I need to win
this game to win th tournament (or match or whatever)" are they creating a
work of art or are they simply competting?

Likeiwse your statement that chess might not "be art for most people"
needs to be addressed. I believe that while art may not be appreciated by
most people--I don't think much of T.S. Eliot for example--the majority of
people are capable of recognizing that something is indeed art. Indeed,
although I happen to think that Eliot is vastly overrated to say the
least, I still recognoze hwriting as art--although I don't think it's
particularly good art. Similarly, a controversy in US politics arose about
art some time ago when people were able to qualify for grants from the
National Endowment for the Arts by presenting the ability to defecate in a
pattern as art. Is someone's poop, laid out in a pattern, art? Most people
would think not. However, few if any would say that the Mona Lisa is not
art. Likewise, those who would label chess as "art" in the same sense that
othe accepted art forms are art, are a distinct minority. Of course,
perhaps grandmasters could simply apply to the NEA for a grant. . . :)

posted & mailed

[Ron Moskovitz]

A few thoughts directed to the thread in general:

First, I don't think a 'game' is neccesarily worse than a 'sport'.
I consider chess a game (more on the art question in a minute),
but it's certainly something I find more fascinating than many
things would I would consider a sport.

In general I reject any sort of hierarchy, were art is higher than
sport which is higher than games. Replace abstract concepts like
'art' 'sport' and 'game' with specifics, and I might be willing to,
but the concepts are too amorphus.

To me what defines sport is the element of chance; in sport, there is a
difference between knowing how to do something and doing it successfully.
Put Michael Jordan in a gym--even by himself--and he'll miss occsaionally.
This element of luck, the act of turning know-how into doing, is
part of the definition of sport. Chess doesn't have it.

Nor do I think the labels 'art' and 'sport' or 'art' and 'game'
are mutually exclusive. Baseball is a sport--would anybody deny that?--
but there's an artistic element, be it in Will Clark's swing or in
how Greg Maddux sets up his curveball with the fast stuff just so.

I'm not comfortable labelling this or that aspect of chess 'artistic'.
What seems paradoxical and beautiful to me may well be trivially
obvious to a grandmaster. There's no reason to think it couldn't be
art, but I'm not sure how to define it.

[Rolf Tueschen]

rm...@netcom.com (Ron Moskovitz) wrote:

> Nor do I think the labels 'art' and 'sport' or 'art' and 'game'
>are mutually exclusive. Baseball is a sport--would anybody deny that?--

Hehehehe. No, seriously, _not at all_.

>but there's an artistic element, be it in Will Clark's swing or in
>how Greg Maddux sets up his curveball with the fast stuff just so.

> I'm not comfortable labelling this or that aspect of chess 'artistic'.
>What seems paradoxical and beautiful to me may well be trivially
>obvious to a grandmaster. There's no reason to think it couldn't be
>art, but I'm not sure how to define it.

Ok, let me put my 2 cts.

If _we two_ and the NBC would _decide_ that the search of the boy/girl
scouts for the white handkerchief in the woods of Montana -- should be
nation-wide a "sport" with later olympic tendencies, then it's a sport
by definition. The same for new "arts" or whatever. Important is that we
define, not how ...

Hope this helps.

[Rolf Tueschen]

fn...@uaf.edu wrote:

>This doesn't mean that chess is art for most people-- or at least not
>good art, as my games will show. But Kasparov, for example, and players
>like Anderssen, Fischer and Larsen exhibit what I feel is an artistic
>side to chess.

Let me say this. I give 100 million $$ in a "RT chess fond". So that
there will be auctions in the next 50 years for the "best", most
"beautiful" chess games, represented and sold in form of their
game-score-papers handwritten in its original by the two players and
pasted together.

Would you doubt that we had a very exciting new "art" to celebrate? And
look how people will buy it for their living room...

You doubt it? Well, it was only an idea. I got it when I remembered
these motorized objects "mobile" by the Swiss Tinguely (spelling?).
And I mean his beginnings in the sixties!

Why is it so difficult to understand that we humans create our own
definitions? Religion, art, sport, money. This should lead us by force
to more tolerance, no? :-)

"Sorry, but I have an urgent phone call. E.T."

[Chesspride]

>Chess still requires no more exertion than the ability to sit
>in a chair for a long time

Perhaps you are still caught up in the old physical/mental debate...and believe
that our thoughts originate in a place not-of-this-world?

Chess is a "mental" sport because the part of the body that is most exercised
is the brain...but in principle a brain sport is no different than a leg/lung
sport (running) or an arm/eye sport (archery).

Plus, overall conditioning is essential to good performance at all
levels...even more so at the top levels.

Eric C. Johnson
(the above is a personal post...when I am posting in an official capacity, my
USCF title will appear here)

[JKas...@aol.com]

Neither. It's a game.

[Mihnea]

There are some good articles on the FIDE web site about chess as a
sport.

http://www.fide.com/info/Chesport.htm

P.S. Chess = sport & art

[You Wascally Wabbit]

On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Chris Lott wrote:

[much cut out]
: >Of course the way the word "sport" is commonly used does not include using

: >it to describe chess. Likewise, of course you can choose to redefine the
: >word "sport" (or any other word) as you please. However, it seems ot me
: >that a question such as "Is chess a sport?" requires one to use the
: >commonly acepted meaning of the term. Words, such as "sport" exist in
: >order to communicate. I can redefine the word "sport" by deciding that it
: >is a term that refers to the color purple if I want to. Of course, if I do
: >the only thing that I'll accomplish is to set up a barrier to
: >communication.

:
: But definitions evolve over time... many things that were not considered
: "sports" are now. Many things went unrecognized. Sports car racing is a
: sport-- it requires little physical exertion. There was a time when it was

Ah, obviously I misread. I didn't know that this question pertained to
future definitions, I thought it was asking whether in the present chess
fits the common usage of the term art and/or sport.

: not recognized as such. Not to mention the fact that studies of competitive
: chess players utilizing, among other things, blood pressure, heart rate and
: galvanic skin response have repeatedly shown that there is actually a large
: amount of physical stress involved.

Physical stress? It sounds to me like what we have hear would be better
described as mental stress with physical symptoms or perhaps even physical
cause. I would reiterate that there is no physical exertion--that is to
say an act of skill requiring some sort of extra or extraordinary physical
prowess--involved in chess.

: >I don't deny that some people would define chess as a "sport." However,

: >within the accepting meaning of the term, chess is definitely not a sport.

:
: I don't agree. You say this as if it is definitional and it is not. How is
: chess less of a sport than fishing or car racing? Isn't the Chess Olympiad a
: sporting activitiy? It definitely IS a sport.

The chess olympiad is an activity and a competition. It does not make
chess a sport.

As was pointed out in my original post, fishing does involve a physical
exertion. So does car racing (see definition above).

: >Hence those who would consider the term to include chess as a sport, are

: >using the term in a way that differs from the accepted use of the term.
: >They should be unsurprised when the general public regards them as rather
: >strange because of it.

:
: You may be surprised how few people ARE surprised at chess being called a
: sport. You seem to have the ultimate faith in a foundational definition of
: language that just doesn't exist. The same problem exists in your def of
: "art". Language changes-- my point is that many people consider chess a
: sport and time will tell if it becomes a standard usage or not. You, my
: friend, thankfully don't hold the prescriptive keys to all language.

Of course not, but having lived and used the language for my entire life I
do have *some* idea what it generally means. Again I would point out that
the question at issue here is not whether chess will be considered a sport
in 100 years or even tomorrow. The question is whether chess is considered
a sport *now*. For that reason, your point that language changes, while
very true, is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

: >Incidentally, all of the sporting examples that you gave above do involve

: >physical exertion as I stated that sports seem to require in all

: >instances. Chess still requires no more exertion than the ability to sit
: >in a chair for a long time. Perhaps for the force of gravity that holds us

: >in our chairs, chess is a sport. :)
:

: As I said, see studied documented at various times that I have seen in Chess
: Life and I believe rec.games.chess --- if physical exertion HAS to be part
: of the equation, chess still fits. No one is arguing that chess is
: wrestling.

Even if I accepted that you proved there was physical exertion involved
then sports would still have a different kind of physical exertion.
Moreover, your definition of physical exertion as something that involves
signs of physical stress such as those described above would still be
overly broad. My final anthropology exam of a week ago would be considered
a physical exertion and hence a sport under this scheme of argument.

: The general definition of "art" by necessity includes anything that is
: presented AS art. How many people off the street would view Serrano, Warhol,
: Klee, Survival Research Laboratories robots and Lydia Lunch's monologues as
: art if they weren't TOLD that they are? Much art is recognizable as such
: right away-- much art is also only recognizable as such because people see
: it in a gallery or have it presented that way to them or just don't know
: where to classify it.

I wasn't aware that survival research laboratories robots were art either.
I guess this proves my point.

Moreover aside from some GMs waxing rhapsodic in their chess writing and
saying "Chess is art" I would have to say that chess very decidedly is
*not* presented as art. It's presented as a game that requires skill to
play well and which the skill of playing well can be learned.

: If general usage were all that determined things then you would be right...
: but that just isn't the way it works. Again, thankfully, considering how
: many great artists were not even considered to be DOING art at early parts
: of their career.

Very well. Since the general usage does not determine the meaning of
words, I hereby declare that the word "sport" refers to the color formerly
known as purple. While that's clearly ludicrious, I hope you'll take the
point that words have no intrinsic meaning of their own. Sport has no
meaning that arises because it is the word sport. Sport has meaning
because of how it is used.

: >Incidentally, in my previous posting I had commented that art doesn't

: >require a great deal of specilizted training to see and recognize (if not
: >appreciate). I don't have to go to a special school to go to the
: >performing arts center and see a play or pick up a book and read a poem
: >nor play a cd. With chess, on the other hand, one has to learn the
: >otherwise useless skill of moving the chess pieces to appreciate the "art"
: >in it. Even then, I suspect that if you were to ask people who know the
: >moves and nothing more, I'd be willing to bet that 99% would think you
: >were simply weird or at least wrong for thinking that chess is art.

:
: Right-o. What does that have to do with the price of eggs, though? Many
: people don't recognize many things as being artistic in ways that the
: practitioners of said art can. There are a lot of people out there who have
: broader definitions of art than your most traditional one-- or at least
: recognize the artistic value of less traditional activities. I am simply
: suggesting that art can be one of them.

What most people see as art is relevant for the same reason as what most
people see sport as. Namely, that words have no meaning outside of how
they are used and what they are beleived to mean by a given community. You
could, of course, take this and say that within the chess community chess
would be considered art and/or sport or even science. You would veyr
likely be correct within the very serious chess community. The community
that I'm talking about is, of course, the general public.

: >It seems to me that if chessmoves are "Art" then the wonderful deal that I

: >made to get both boardwalk and park place in a monopoly game is equally
: >worthy of being called art.
:

: So you are implying that something which happens almost purely through
: chance and that any kindergartner can do is somehow to be equated with the
: value of a long, beautiful combination seen by a chess master through his
: own skill and talent? This is called a strawman argument.

When I was a kindergartner I had a very hard time talking people into
giving me both boardwalk and park place. Perhaps your monopoly skills at
that age were much superior to my own.

As for it being a strawman argument, I prefer to think of it as an example
of how ludicrous the argument that board games are/can be art is and that
is decidedly not a strawman. If you think my example doesn't prove it,
then feel free to prove me wrong.

: >If you go back to my original post you'll note that I never said art shold

: >be defined as "creating beauty." I did say that art often, perhaps usually
: >does try to create beauty. The definition that I gave stated that art
: >tries to convey a message. Your quotation which states that "Art is that
: >which is open to interpretation" is also along the same lines. The
: >question that I posed in my first posting still stands then: Who will be
: >the first to convey a social commentary with chess moves? For that matter,
: >who will find any message or meaning in a series of chess moves?
:

: Wow, you are really missing out on a lot of great art if you are interested
: only in commentary. As *I* said, and will say again, art is about
: expression-- what is being expressed does not have to be something as linear
: and boring as social commentary. There is art that is for art itself, as
: examining, say, a DeKooning painting will show you. Try it some time-- there
: is whole world of art that isn't "conveying messages"-- a definition,
: incidentally, which I am glad largely died out when the moderns came around.

Expression, conveying messages, etc are different ways of saying the same
thing in my mind. Social commentary is one particular form of expression
or message.

Since we seem to agree that art involves expression I am *still* waiting
to hear what chess expresses. Obviously, I wouldn't expect a line by line
translation of a combination but I'd expect some impression or description
should be possible, should it not?

:
: >They may come up with really spiffy plans and ideas that you or I would

: >never have thought of. That, imho, is very different from creating a work
: >of art. The question still remains, as posed by your own explanation of
: >what art is: What is the meaning or interpretation of their games?

:
: What is the meaning of a De Kooning painting? What is the meaning of a
: Rembrandt portrait for that matter? Are you really going to try to derive
: social commentary out of a portrait of a president's head? The meaning and

Not social commentary. Expression, yes. Specifics depend on the specific
portrait of course.

Since I mentioned specifics let me explain the message/expression of a
specific painting that I happen to own. Since I can actually look at it,
it will be much easier to do that than to explain the
meaning/point/expression/whatever other term you choose to use of a
painting that I can actually look at. It hath been dubbed by its creator
"The End of a Perfect Day II" and it shows a scene at dusk with light
coming out of a cabin by a river with a canoe among other things. It's
whole "meaning" in my interpretation is about how wonderful it is to come
home and relax after having put in a good day's work. Your impression of
what it is about may differ of course, but it can be interpreted as you
yourself said art can in your previous post. Are you ready yet to
interpret the Immortal Game or some other chess "art" yet, since you seem
to believe that art can be interpreted? I'm still waiting for that.

Incidentally, one might also point out that the painting is not about
painting. The painting is about something else. I'm not sure that I'd
consider art to be something that is about itself. For example, a poem
that was about itself. I'll have to ponder that.

: artistic value of games comes, as does much more traditional art, from their
: work within the tradition and accepted nature of the game, the style of the
: times, etc. A beautiful sacrificial combination is something that has been,
: at certain times, not in the style of chess and thus has artistic value when
: utilized at such times. A player like Tal or Fischer presents artistically
: when they color outside the lines, so to speak. The stunning and unexpected
: can also be artistic-- I don't find it surprising that when you read books
: by top-level chessplayers, the artistry of the game is so often just taken
: for granted-- artistry is spoken of as if there is no other alternative. It
: seems only at the lower levels that it is so problematic. Again, I think, it
: stems generally from lack of appreciation of the game and the context: in
: the same way that the uninitiated may look at a DeKooning painting and say
: "that's not art, those are splatters" and yet even the most traditional
: artist of repute sees how much art is really there.

Jeremy Silman in his How to Reasses Your Chess tells the story of a
chess player called Everyman. I big part of Mr. Everyman's chess woes is
the simple fact that he views every part of chess as seperate unto itself.
There is the "opening", there is the "middlegame", etc. What he doesn't
see is that those terms are used to describe parts of something that is a
homogenous whole. They are not really seperate at all. Ever since reading
that, I've been far less impressed with "combinations" and "tactics"
because they two are a part of the whole of chess. Instead I'm coming to
realize more and more that a combination arises as a logical consequence
of the position on the board. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that
the player takes advantage of their combination opprotunity. But since the
possibility of playing it arises from the position on the board and as a
logical consequence of it, it's not coloring outside of the lines at all
or so it seems to me. It's just chess.

Incidentally, for those who would like to see a really spiffy game, I
highly recommend taking a look at some of Reti's games, particularly
Reti-Rubinstein from Carlsbad 1923. That, to me, is as close as chess gets
to art. Very fascinating way to play the game.

: There are all manners and levels of art and artistic achievement, just as
: there are sports and sporting achievement. I am not pretending that Kasparov
: is a Picasso or a Michael Jordan-- but this doesn't mean he is not a
: sportsman (and a poor sport :) or an artist at all.
:
: Your statements about the NEA artists reveals 1) your lack of knowledge
: about what that whole battle was about and 2) the fact that you are
: convinced that you recognize all art upon sight and that anything you don't
: recognize as art must be de facto non-art. 1) is a political debate that
: doesn't belong here and 2) is simply arrogance or foolishness. Do you really
: think you are blessed with the perfect eye for all things art? If you are,
: then why am I not?

Speaking of strawmen and other falacies, this is an ad hominem. Since I'm
so obviously ignorant in your eyes, one might wonder why you've simply
stated that and then moved on without explaining to me what an idiot I am.
You might also note that I have never claimed to be blessed with the
perfect eye for all things art. However, thank you for the compliment. I
was not aware that I was such an important figure in the art world.
Indeed, while I would say that I'm capable of recognizing art as art, I
would not have put myself on the same level as a two-bit hack until you
made these statements.

: Or let me say that this way: if you are, so am I-- I see chess and sometimes
: I see art... why don't I have as much right as you to decide a definition?
: After all, I hasten to guess that I have far more overall artistic exposure
: in the first place? (which really doesn't matter since all of this leads
: directly to the main point: what is art and what is not is a purely
: relativistic and personal definition... thus the fun of the endless debates
: that ultimately can solve nothing :)

As I said, you can define any word however you please. So can I, so can
Joe Schmoe down the street. However, communication only works when we have
similar definitions. I still contend that common understandings of art and
sport are the only particular meaningful ones and that they do not extend
to include chess.

I might also wonder in passing why it is that chess would want to be
considered a sport or an art form (or a science since some say it's that).
What's wrong with just being a really spiffy board game?

[Gavin D Johnson]

In a rather long winded essay on the subject... You Wascally Wabbit wrote
that chess could be a sport if we redefine the word sport. Well, for
anyone who has ever done any philosophy--proper terminology is critical.
The first thing that must be done is to define the terms. I generally use
the dictionary. Apparently Wabbit uses "common useage" of which I am
quite convinced varies in different cultures, cliques etc. and is
therefore highly unreliable. In its dictionary definition, sport is
defined as 1. An amusing or interesting pastime: diversion. Of course
there are many other uses of the word. In fact, my dictionary lists six
more uses, one of which is physical activity. However, the first listing
is clearly not limited to physical activity. One might even go so far as
to say that chess fits this definition. :)

-Gavin

[George Szaszvari]

In article <rmoskEL...@netcom.com>, rm...@netcom.com€ says...
<snip>..

> To me what defines sport is the element of chance; in sport, there is a
>difference between knowing how to do something and doing it successfully.
>Put Michael Jordan in a gym--even by himself--and he'll miss occsaionally.
>This element of luck, the act of turning know-how into doing, is
>part of the definition of sport. Chess doesn't have it.

Hmmm, I'm not sure that I'd agree with this point about no luck at
all in chess as compared to physical sport. You seem to be suggesting
that the "master chessplayer" has it all worked out beforehand in
understanding, if not preparation. How, then, does one explain the
fact players on a rough par, Botvinnik, for instance, beat Smyslov,
say, on one occasion, but not on another? Granted, this isn't
necessarily luck, but one of 'em still "missed the basket", no?
There is a creative aspect to inventing and discovering things in
chess as well as a problem about defining what constitutes luck in
chess. Taking the maxim that "good players are always lucky", I've
had my share of proverbial winning positions against famous titled
players [haven't most of us], and won the odd one, but the numerous
times I managed to botch it up or simply freeze, was not always so
much to do with "lack of know-how" as much as psychology. After the
event, converting the win in post mortem or home analysis was easy...
but doing it in the heat of battle or under time pressure was another
matter! Fact is, I know a few amateur players who know an incredible
amount about chess but can't produce the results in o-t-b play. Sport
has a lot to do with confidence and nerves in critical moments, and
chess is certainly in there with tennis, wrestling, basketball, or
whatever, in this respect.

> Nor do I think the labels 'art' and 'sport' or 'art' and 'game'
>are mutually exclusive. Baseball is a sport--would anybody deny that?--

>but there's an artistic element, be it in Will Clark's swing or in
>how Greg Maddux sets up his curveball with the fast stuff just so.

Right, they are inclusive...sports, games, or whatever you wanna
call it, have their artististic elements...Lasker, in his Manual,
discussed "achievement" in chess as being artistic. Botvinnik described
chess as intellectual sport, a mathematical game of logic...board,
men & rules. Others call it "denksport", but then there are different
types of puzzles.... would you call solving a crossword puzzle "art"?
I'm not sure I would, but maybe the construction of a crossword puzzle
could be "artistic"...Botvinnik made a comparison between chess as a
scientific game of logic [apologies for inaccurate quotes...this is
from memory] and sound as the the science of acoustics: the art of
sound can be music and the art of a logic can be a game like chess.

> I'm not comfortable labelling this or that aspect of chess 'artistic'.
>What seems paradoxical and beautiful to me may well be trivially
>obvious to a grandmaster. There's no reason to think it couldn't be
>art, but I'm not sure how to define it.

Okay, this is difficult. It's a philosophical question about what
constitutes "art". I've read stuff by Tolstoy and others on this, but
the definition I like is Picasso's: "If it moves you, then it's art".
In other words, art is purely subjective, as perceived by the pysche
of each individual.

--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK

[Anders Thulin]

In article <34999E...@cheerful.com>, Mihnea <mih...@cheerful.com> wrote:
>There are some good articles on the FIDE web site about chess as a
>sport.

Note, though, that FIDE has a vested interested that chess should be
viewed as a sport. If it does, it is eligible for becoming one of the
Olympic Games, thus give it more media exposure, thus hopefully
increasing the amount of money that can be poured into the coffers of
FIDE.

Note as well that FIDE has an interest in regarding it as an art,
assuming the recent reports about chess copyrights are correct. As
works of art are protected by copyright, FIDE thus also wants chess or
chess games to be regarded as artistic works.

That does not necessarily make it either a sport or an art in the
abstract sense, just that there are pecuniary advantages attached to
doing so.

--
Anders Thulin Anders...@lejonet.se 013 - 23 55 32
Telia Engineering AB, Teknikringen 6, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden

[You Wascally Wabbit]

On 18 Dec 1997, Chesspride wrote:

: >Chess still requires no more exertion than the ability to sit
: >in a chair for a long time

:
: Perhaps you are still caught up in the old physical/mental debate...and believe
: that our thoughts originate in a place not-of-this-world?

Not at all. I simply believe that thinking is not the same as doing a
physical act.

: Chess is a "mental" sport because the part of the body that is most exercised

: is the brain...but in principle a brain sport is no different than a leg/lung
: sport (running) or an arm/eye sport (archery).

I already stated, in the post to which you have replied, that I can accept
chess as the mental equivalent of a sport.

: Plus, overall conditioning is essential to good performance at all

: levels...even more so at the top levels.

Of course none of this refutes my statement that the only act of physical
exertion is the ability to sit in a chair for long periods of time--or,
when I play, to keep walking between moves without keeling over from
exhaustion :)

Incidentally, here is the definition of sport from Websters Unabridged
Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language:

sport n. 1. An athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and
often of a competitive nature, as racing baseball, tennis gold, bowling,
wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc 2. a particular form of this,
esp. in the out of doors 3. diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime 4.
playful trifling, jesting, or mirth: What he said in sport was taken
seriously 5. fun; mockery; ridicule: They made sport of him 6. An object
of derision; laughingstock. 7. something or someone treated lightly or
tossed about like a playingthing: to be the sport of cirumstances. 8. a
sportsman 9. Infomral. a person who behaves in a sportsmanlike, fair, or
admirable manner: He was a sport and took his defeat well. 10. Informal. a
flashy person; one who wears showy clothes, affects smart manners, pursues
pleasurable pastimes, or the like; a bon vivant 12. Biol. an animal, plant
or part of a plant that shows an unusual or singular deviation from the
normal or parent type; mutation 13. Obs amorous dalliance--adj. 14.
suitable for outdoor or informal wear: sport clothes 15. sports (def. 1).
--v.i. 16. to amuse oneself with some pleasant pastime or recreation 17.
To play frolic or gambol, as a child or an animal 18. to engage in some
open-air or athletic pastime or sport 19. to trifle or treat lightly: to
sport with another's emotions 20. to mock, scoff, or tease: to sport at
suburban life 21. Bot. to mutate--v.t.22. To pass (time) in amusement or
sport 23. to spend or squander lightly or recklessly (often fol. by away)
24. Informal. to wear, display, carry, etc, esp. with ostentation; show
off: to sport a new mink coat. 25 Obs. to amuse (esp. oneself). 26. Sport
one's oak See oak (def. 5).

If we are talking of sport as #3, a diversion or pleasant pasttime then
obviously chess qualifies for those of us who like chess. If we are
speaking of #1, that is an athletic or physical sport, as I was under the
impression that we were, then chess is clearly not a sport.

[You Wascally Wabbit]

On 19 Dec 1997, Anders Thulin wrote:

: Note, though, that FIDE has a vested interested that chess should be

: viewed as a sport. If it does, it is eligible for becoming one of the
: Olympic Games, thus give it more media exposure, thus hopefully
: increasing the amount of money that can be poured into the coffers of
: FIDE.

It's also interesting to note that the International Olympic Committee has
not been terribly interested in seeing chess as a sport. Indeed their
response after some negotiation, at the end of Campomanes reign, was to
invite FIDE officials to submit essays on why chess should be considered a
sport. Not a terribly inviting sign.

: Note as well that FIDE has an interest in regarding it as an art,

: assuming the recent reports about chess copyrights are correct. As
: works of art are protected by copyright, FIDE thus also wants chess or
: chess games to be regarded as artistic works.

Although the courts have consistently regarded chess scores as merely
reports on an event and not works of art.

[snip the rest]

[Chesspride]

>It's also interesting to note that the International Olympic Committee has
>not been terribly interested in seeing chess as a sport.

Well this is a rather negative view...and not a correct one either.

[Paul Steadman]

How about this?

"Chess is in its essence a game, in its form an art, and in its
execution a science."
-Baron Tassilo von Heydebrand und der Lasa (a former German diplomat of
some chessic ability)

Regards,

Paul Steadman

[Tim Mirabile]

jbri...@efn.org wrote:

>Maybe you should post this to alt.sport.chess, oops, there doesn't seem
>to be any such newsgroup... :)

Careful, anyone can create an alt.* group if they know how. :)

--
Long Island chess -> http://www.webcom.com/timm/ TimM on ICC and A-FICS
Webmaster, tech support - Your Move Chess & Games: http://www.icdchess.com/
The opinions of my employers are not necessarily mine and vice versa.

[You Wascally Wabbit]

On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Gavin D Johnson wrote:

: In a rather long winded essay on the subject... You Wascally Wabbit wrote

Once in a while even I use the dictionary. In a previous posting I
consulted with Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
Language. Of the 26 definitions listed, two seemed to be particularly
relevant. One of them, #3, seemed very like the definition you gave above.
I quote it: "diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime." Of course chess
fits this definition. So does watching a good tv program or reading good
book. It was and is my understanding that we were discussiong definition
#1 (or whatever it is in your dictionary) which is: "an athletic activity
requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a compettive nature, as
racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting,
fishing, etc." Since athletes and athletics (definitions from the same
source at the end of this message) both revolve around a physical
activity, which chess playing is not, chess cannot be considered a sport
in that sense. If we are discussing whether chess is sport in the sense of
diversion, recreation, or pleasant pastime, then I humbly apologize for
wasting people's time. Obviously chess is this for those of us who enjoy
it, and I have simply misunderstood the question all this time. If we are
discussing chess in the athletic sense, then however much you and I
enjoy the game, chess doesn't qualify.

Here, from Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
Language is the definition of "Athletic."

athletic adj. 1. physically active and strong: an athletic child. 2. of,
life, or befitting an athlete. 3. of or pertaining to athletes; involving
the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or
stamina: athletic sports; athletic training 4. (of a physical type) having
a sturdy build or well-proportioned body structure.

To preempt arguments about whether chess qualifies because chess players
are athletes, here is the definition of athlete.

athlete n. 1. one trained to compete in contests involving physical
agility, stamina, or strength: a trained competitor in a sport, exercise,
or game requiring physical skill 2. Brit. traditionally, one trained for
and competing in track-and-field events.

And, to briefly reiterate another previous posting which dealt with
whether chess requires physical skills as well as to deal with some other
arguments before they arise: chess does create some physical
signs of stress. However, since the chess players are not moving much if
at all and they are not physically exerting themselves, it's obvious that
these signs of stress arise from mental stresses and are the physical
symptoms thereof. Also, the question of stamina arises only in the sense
that one must be able to sit and concentrate for long periods of time. A
clear case of a healthy mind in a healthy body if I ever saw one. Finally,
I would also point out that the purpose of physical training in chess is
to accomplish this goal of being able to sit and concentrate longer and
better. I'd speculate that the benefits of exercise pertain
at least as much and probably more, to increased brain flow to the brain
and not the condition of ones musclar system (save of course the
heart which pumps the afore mentioned blood).

posted & mailed

[Chris Lott]

It seems rather obvious that no one is arguing that chess is a
physically demanding sport in the sense of wrestling or basketball. I
doubt there are even that many people on USENET that are that dense :)
If that is your entire definition then yes, you were misunderstanding
the question.

[Chris Lott]

On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 14:52:53 -0900, You Wascally Wabbit
<asd...@UAA.ALASKA.EDU> wrote:
> The question is whether chess is considered
>a sport *now*.

No, the question is whether chess *is* a sport or not REGARDLESS of
whether it is generally considered so. Art that was, at one point, not
considered art does not suddenly BECOME so at a later date, does it?

>I wasn't aware that survival research laboratories robots were art either.
>I guess this proves my point.

It certainly proves that chess can also be art :)

>Moreover aside from some GMs waxing rhapsodic in their chess writing and
>saying "Chess is art" I would have to say that chess very decidedly is
>*not* presented as art. It's presented as a game that requires skill to
>play well and which the skill of playing well can be learned.

You are missing a lot if you don't see the creativity in chess-- even
at low rating levels (I am even lower than you)

>Very well. Since the general usage does not determine the meaning of
>words, I hereby declare that the word "sport" refers to the color formerly
>known as purple. While that's clearly ludicrious, I hope you'll take the
>point that words have no intrinsic meaning of their own. Sport has no
>meaning that arises because it is the word sport. Sport has meaning
>because of how it is used.

Strawman again. No one is speaking about radical redefinitions. This
is a rhetorical ploy used by those in a weak position, however.

>What most people see as art is relevant for the same reason as what most
>people see sport as. Namely, that words have no meaning outside of how
>they are used and what they are beleived to mean by a given community. You
>could, of course, take this and say that within the chess community chess
>would be considered art and/or sport or even science. You would veyr
>likely be correct within the very serious chess community. The community
>that I'm talking about is, of course, the general public.

So which group are we to believe? As I pointed out at the beginning of
this message, the question is not how chess is REGARDED, but what we
think it IS. Who knows what chess is better than chess players? Are we
to take the public's definition of deconstruction gleaned from Time
magazine over the serious student of philosophy too?

>When I was a kindergartner I had a very hard time talking people into
>giving me both boardwalk and park place. Perhaps your monopoly skills at
>that age were much superior to my own.

My daughter, who is six and plays chess and monopoly has indeed
managed to get park place and boardwalk. No one had to "give" them to
her. She bought them after luckily landing on them and knowing that
having all of the same color was good. But she is in first grade, so I
guess I overstated the case.

>As for it being a strawman argument, I prefer to think of it as an example
>of how ludicrous the argument that board games are/can be art is and that
>is decidedly not a strawman. If you think my example doesn't prove it,
>then feel free to prove me wrong.

I just did. Your reach for a parallel would have worked better if you
had not chosen a game that is clearly much more of a game of chance
than chess.

>Expression, conveying messages, etc are different ways of saying the same
>thing in my mind. Social commentary is one particular form of expression
>or message.

Right, and many are wordless and without anything but their aesthetic
impact.

>Since we seem to agree that art involves expression I am *still* waiting
>to hear what chess expresses. Obviously, I wouldn't expect a line by line
>translation of a combination but I'd expect some impression or description
>should be possible, should it not?

It is not expression, it is beauty. That is what the chess can
express. Look to a fantastic Tal bishop sacrifice or many of Fischer's
most overly-commentated moves. There is beauty there that is more than
luck or gamesmanship. It is that simple.

>Not social commentary. Expression, yes. Specifics depend on the specific
>portrait of course.

And when I look at a DeKooning and just go WOW, that is SOMETHING and
I sense a beauty to it that is (thank god) above simple commentary, am
I not to take that as art? I have gotten the same feeling from a few
chess games (not my own, unfortunately).

> Are you ready yet to
>interpret the Immortal Game or some other chess "art" yet, since you seem
>to believe that art can be interpreted? I'm still waiting for that.

No, YOU are the one who believes art has to be able be interpreted
into linear expression. I am not of that mind.

>Incidentally, one might also point out that the painting is not about
>painting. The painting is about something else. I'm not sure that I'd
>consider art to be something that is about itself. For example, a poem
>that was about itself. I'll have to ponder that.

There are many poems about poetry and certainly poems about themselves
(this was a popular game during the early pomo period).

>Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that
>the player takes advantage of their combination opprotunity. But since the
>possibility of playing it arises from the position on the board and as a
>logical consequence of it, it's not coloring outside of the lines at all
>or so it seems to me. It's just chess.

Right. But what makes the artistic side possible is that we don't have
the minds to comprehend the entire tree of the game of chess. Of
course, if we did, there would be no room for such brilliancies and no
room for such art-- I personally believe it is because a good
combination comes out of this edge between what we know and don't know
about the game. If you have solved the entire game of chess, let me
know :)

>Speaking of strawmen and other falacies, this is an ad hominem. Since I'm
>so obviously ignorant in your eyes, one might wonder why you've simply
>stated that and then moved on without explaining to me what an idiot I am.
>You might also note that I have never claimed to be blessed with the
>perfect eye for all things art. However, thank you for the compliment. I
>was not aware that I was such an important figure in the art world.
>Indeed, while I would say that I'm capable of recognizing art as art, I
>would not have put myself on the same level as a two-bit hack until you
>made these statements.

The fact is, the NEA debate was not about art but about politics.
Further, YOU are the one who implies that you know what art is when
you see it but I am not afforded that same privilege... why is that?
This is what I am pointing to, not hack-itude on either side of the
board.

>As I said, you can define any word however you please. So can I, so can
>Joe Schmoe down the street. However, communication only works when we have
>similar definitions. I still contend that common understandings of art and
>sport are the only particular meaningful ones and that they do not extend
>to include chess.

So why is what I see as art so outlandish? I see a chess game as art,
I have experience with art so, to use your argument, my point is
proven QED

>I might also wonder in passing why it is that chess would want to be
>considered a sport or an art form (or a science since some say it's that).
>What's wrong with just being a really spiffy board game?

Nothing! I find it an interesting debate and not one that will be
solved by either of us-- I don't have any stake in it, ultimately,
since I will continue to have fun playing the game, participating in
the sport, relishing the art and computing the science, as the case
may be :)

Incidentally, chess as science would seem to be the most clear since
it is, after all, a very large but ultimately finite tree.

[Matt Beckwith]

Chess is a game. All sports are games (e.g. The Olympic Games), but
not all games are sports. A game is a competition. What games have
in common is competition, and that's what makes them both attractive
to those who play them, and unattractive to some others. People who
don't like competition sometimes put competition down, saying that it
always involves a winner and a loser. But losing isn't a bad thing
unless you make it a bad thing.

I think of chess as a sport, since the only thing it does not share
with sports is the physical aspect. (I consider the fact that you
have to be in physically good shape to play chess matches a weak
argument.) Most games are not quite so multidimensional as chess.
The word "game" connotes a certain triviality which chess does not
possess. So you might say that chess is a sufficiently complex game
to qualify it as a sport.

On the other hand, some other games are comparable to chess in
complexity, yet do not seem like sports to me. Backgammon involves
the element of chance. (For those who have not played it much, this
game is much more complicated than it at first seems.) Go is reputed
to be even more complicated than chess. I haven't played it much, so
can't speak to whether it's a sport. Do go players consider their
game a sport?

In a way, chess is art also. Each game of chess is a thing of beauty
created by two people making alternate brush strokes, as it were. At
times in my chess career I've found this aspect of the game the most
important aspect--far overshadowing considerations of winning and
losing.

[nos...@sickofspam.com]

On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 01:49:50 GMT, mattbe...@hotmail.com (Matt
Beckwith) wrote:
>Do go players consider their
>game a sport?

I believe the context of the question is wrong. It's not what games we
consider sports or not, but in what countries are chess and go
considered sports?

In some countries, chess is well within the definition of sport. In
America, it's certainly not.

DB

[Mig]

Two things in both sport and art are appreciated: technique and
beauty. Technique can be said to represent the objective attributes
present, beauty the subjective impression. Technique is quantifiable
and measurable, beauty is not. Excellent technique can help in
enhancing beauty, but not in all cases. Beauty can be present without
technique, such as a sunset. Two people will never agree on beauty,
but technique, by definition, can be agreed on. If you hate a certain
style of painting and find no beauty in it, you (if possessing of the
necessary knowledge) can still admire the handicraft of the artist. Or
if you hate jazz and would rather have your blood sucked out by
leeches than listen to it you can still appreciate the technique of a
top jazz musician. Conversely, an artist, or an actor, or a musician
may possess poor technique, but still create what for some is
beautiful.

Sport has greater emphasis on technique, but still has many moments of
beauty. It is perhaps a beauty more directly dependent on technique,
even blurring the line between the two. Is a 30 meter strike into the
top corner of the goal beautiful or just excellent technique? Well,
both, if you find it a thing of beauty. You can't argue with someone's
interpretation of beauty, you can only argue if it could have been
done better, which is a question of technique. But in most sports the
questions of technique are also subjective. You never know for sure if
some move, or feint, or play could have been performed better, there
is no way to reproduce exactly that scenario. It was a beautiful move,
a beautiful play and will always remain so to some.

Chess differs from physical sports not only because is does not (in
most cases) involve the possibility of getting a concussion, but
because circumstances (the position on the board) can be reproduced
perfectly. Thus the technique, and in turn the beauty, can be called
into question. Chess has a clear, finite goal, and though it can be
very difficult, the objective truth can be found. Unsurprisingly,
beauty rarely withstands such cruel light and even when it does a
certain something is lost in the examination. The fact that this
intense examination is even possible means that chess is 100%
technique and that any beauty found is completely dependent upon that
technique. There can be no subjective impression like you have when
you argue about musical genres or different artists. In chess beauty
can only exist if the technique is there. The fact that you can't
appreciate it without technical skills is obvious and redundant. Of
course you can't, because there is no subjectivity, only analysis. I
can show you a beautiful Bronstein sacrifice that will amaze you and
cause you to exclaim with admiration, but if subsequent analysis finds
it unsound and losing, then there is no beauty, or at best there is
only a doomed beauty that is present at the death of something
beautiful. "It was a great idea." or "It was so close." are only
regret, similar to a great poet tossing some unworkable verse into the
fire or a great painter scrapping a work in progress that just wasn't
progressing.

There is an argument for the claim that the circumstances *cannot* be
reproduced perfectly in chess. Obviously the players were under the
constraints of the clock, of their levels of stress, tiredness, etc.
There are many subjective factors in chess. But even the combined
force of these subjective factors do not outweigh the immutable nature
of a game transcript. However these factors do affect the degree of
our appreciation or denigration of a given game or move.

Another argument made is that of the inspiration of the player. If he
made his move on "intuition" instead of calculation, is that a
stronger case for beauty? No, because no matter how the decision is
reached (and we can never know, nor ever be sure if there truly is a
difference between intuition and calculation in the first place) it is
always expressed with a chess move, which can be analyzed as
technique.

If you believe you can have art without subjective impression, or with
the minimal amount that exists in a chess game, you can call chess an
art. Similar feelings, those of the appreciation of beauty, or present
in both, the sources are just different. Chess is the appreciation of
technique and art is subjective impression. If you believe you can
have a sport without risking a concussion, you can call it a sport.
(The "physical exertion" argument is ridiculous. Just look at baseball
pitchers or snooker or golf, etc. As for physical skill, I've won and
lost many a game due to my physical skill (or lack thereof) at moving
chess pieces and hitting a clock very quickly. Even this minimal
physical element makes the argument one of degree, which invalidates
it.)

I call it a sport that involves a great deal of calculation and
intuition and that offers a very high degree of beauty by way of the
appreciation of technique. This is not at all unique to chess, it
exists in many things, even in other board games, but it is still
technical appreciation. I'm sure you can think of other things that
elicit a strong feeling of admiration and beauty but are purely
technical. Programmers will ooh and aah in sincere appreciation of
computer code, and even call it art. But that's for a different
newsgroup I suspect.

-------
What makes us so bitter against people who outwit us
is that they think themselves cleverer than we are.

-- François, Duc de La Rochefoucauld
-------
REMOVE SBLOCK TO MAIL ME

[Chesspride]

>3. of or pertaining to athletes; invol

definition three would appear to be circular...as in if we consider
chessplayers to be athletes...then chess obviously pertains to athletes and is
considered to be athletic, etc....the examples given in the definition are
indicative, not definitive.

thus it allows for mental athletes.

I find this entire debate to be somewhat like counting angels on the head of a
pin...word use and definition are quite relative..

question: does anyone know why ice cream cartons...you know, the ones you buy
in the store TODAY...are clearly considered to be cartons, yet they don't fit
the definition of carton? Could it be...that words and word references evolve
over time?

Nah....

Eric C. Johnson
(this is a personal post...if I were responding in an official capacity, my
USCF title would appear here)

[Chesspride]

>In some countries, chess is well within the definition of sport. In
>America, it's certainly no

this seems like a better approach...

and as a final comment on the amount of physical activity required to qualify
an activity as a sport...

um...much as I enjoy bowling..i wouldn't overstate the amount of physical
activity involved in it...it would seem to be on a par with chess...a certain
amount of cardiovascular fitness is required...much more so to compete at the
top levels (I'm sure that chess actually exceeds bowling in the amount of
overall fitness required to perform at the top levels, actually)...

in the U.S., bowling is clearly considered to be a sport...and so by a direct
comparison it would appear that chess would qualify.

Eric C. Johnson
(this is a personal post...if I were responding in an official capacity, my

USCF title would appear in this space.)

[Jerry Watson]

Chesspride wrote:

[snip]

> in the U.S., bowling is clearly considered to be a sport...and so by a direct
> comparison it would appear that chess would qualify.

That must mean that sleeping is a sport, too. One can lose more weight
while
dead asleep than while bowling because...you can't drink beer while
sleeping.

From the home of the National Bowling Stadium and the 100th US (chess)
Open (1999):
Reno, Nevada.

jdw

--
--Spam Chaff
admin@loopback
$LOGIN@localhost
$LOGNAME@localhost
$USER@localhost
$USER@$HOST
-h1024@localhost
ro...@mailloop.com
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner James Quello: jqu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
US Postal Service/postal inspection: cust...@email.usps.gov
Rush Limbaugh: 70277...@compuserve.com
Newt Gingrich: GEOR...@HR.HOUSE.GOV
G. Gorden Liddy: pote...@aol.com
federal trade commission: consum...@ftc.gov
National fraud information Center: nf...@internetmci.com
consumer information centre: catalog...@gsa.gov
FBI's computer crime section: firs...@first.org
"FIRST": Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams
postm...@fbi.gov
postm...@irs.gov
U.S. Dept. of Justice: w...@usdoj.gov
feed...@www.whitehouse.gov
Webmaster at U.S. Federal Courts: webm...@teo.uscourts.gov
spammer site: webm...@sendad.com
spammer site: sup...@sendad.com
any others you think should be added to this sig?

[J.Levitt]

m...@impsat1.comSBLOCK.ar (Mig) wrote:

>Two things in both sport and art are appreciated: technique and
>beauty.

An intersting post thank you.

Thought the following excerpt from Secrets of Spectacular Chess
(Batsford) might be of interst to you:

6 THE POETRY OF WAR: the aesthetics of practical play

`War is the father of all.’ Heraclitus
`Competitions are for horses, not artists.’ Béla Bartók
`Unfortunately - and this is part of the tragedy of the genuine chess
artist - it takes two players to create one chess masterpiece.’
Alexander Alekhine

It is well known that many players do not have much time for studies
and problems. It is less well known that there are some problemists
who do not have much time for the practical game! They argue that the
game is over- competitive and lacks the purity and beauty found in
composition. Why bother playing chess when the prettiest ideas are
found in studies?
For competitive players it is impractical to approach the game
positively trying, or expecting, to play beautiful chess. The
objective is to win, and beauty - if there is any - is merely a side
product. Judging only by artistic criteria, it is difficult to argue
with our 'game hostile' problemist friends. However, to fully
appreciate chess (the game) one has to see it in a sporting context.
It is just plain unrealistic to expect the same artistic standards
from both the competitive game and composition. Anything achieved
under the strain of over-the-board conditions, in the midst of the
'fog of war' is that much more impressive. Naturally, in purely chess
terms, greater things can be done in the privacy of one's study (no
pun intended). Just think of the advantages: all the time in the
world, moving pieces around while analysing, putting them wherever you
like to begin with, removing any piece you want to... To criticize the
game 'because the pawn on h2 played no relevant part' is absurd. It is
almost like expecting a great painter to produce a masterpiece while
simultaneously warding off an angry Mike Tyson!
Once you make allowance for such limitations, there is a great deal to
appreciate, aesthetically, in competitive chess. Our four elements
(paradox, geometry, depth and flow) apply mainly to 'episodes' -
pieces of chess action. But a whole game can consist of several
phases, each comprising one or more such episodes. Complete games can
be symphonic in nature, and this can lead to much disagreement over
the beauty involved. While there might be agreement over the aesthetic
quality of a single episode, once you put several of these together
players start to disagree about the value of the whole.
For example, should 'brilliancy' (usually a relatively crisp, short
game involving spectacular sacrificial play) be emphasized or should
prizes go to 'best games' (usually longer, quality games not
necessarily involving any brilliancy)? Returning to the flow chapter,
do you prefer Lasker-Thomas (a brilliancy) or Ivanchuk-Karpov (a best
game)? To some extent it is a question of temperament and whether you
prefer paradox to depth and flow.
In recent years 'Informator' has regularly had a panel of leading
players trying to decide which game was the best of the preceding
volume. Disagreement is typical and rife. Usually several players give
zero to the winning game and several give '10'. This is not so
surprising since the criteria for judging games are not well
developed. In chess, unlike in art, correctness - and the ability to
perceive it - comes before any further commentary. This means any
serious critic must be a strong player, but strong players rarely make
good critics! Usually they are competitive, somewhat secretive about
their taste, with strong egos to protect and a tendency to look mainly
at their own games rather than those of others. For all of these
reasons the art of chess criticism has not really come a long way.
So different players like different aspects of beautiful games. It is
limiting to give absolute criteria, and players often cannot say in
advance what appeals to them most about a game of chess. Maybe a
single tactical move, or a new strategic plan, or a psychological
aspect or simply the good timing of moves. What is clear though, is
that players do find certain games very attractive. Julian Hodgson
once related that games he liked had a certain 'something' about them,
a quality he could not really specify. Typically, players have an
holistic approach: looking at the whole game as an entity before
making any judgement.
Our four elements are designed to help us discuss the beauty of the
moves themselves; but competitive chess involves several other factors
which can affect aesthetic judgement. Among these more 'subjective'
factors are:
(1) Originality
(2) Intentionality. For example, how aesthetic is it if a player
blunders a rook, but it subsequently turns out to be a brilliant move,
winning despite the oversight. Such unintentional brilliancies occur
more frequently than one might imagine. The reaction of players to
such instances is more typically 'Bloody hell! That was lucky' rather
than 'How beautiful.'
(3) Strength of opponent, competitive significance. According to
Kasparov, 'The value of any brilliantly won game increases in
accordance with the strength of the opponent.'
(4) How much of it was opening preparation? Brilliant play at the
board, (in the midst of the fog of war) is generally considered more
impressive than clever preparation, however brilliant.
(5) Blunders. Is a fabulous game, full of originality, profound
conceptions and stunning ideas, but which is slightly ruined by a
blunder near the end (which might reverse the result), to be
considered less aesthetic than an unspoilt game of lesser brilliance?
It is difficult to be definitive on any of these issues. Even in the
world of composition, the moves alone are not the sole determinants of
aesthetic quality (originality is an important consideration there,
too); but in the game as played, as indicated above, 'other factors'
are very important. Still, the objective chess content (the moves
alone) should remain the primary consideration!

[fn...@uaf.edu]

I don't think that a subsequent refutation necessarily takes the "beauty"
out of a sparkling sacrifice. The beauty also lies, as I noted in a
different post, in other oppositions, such as player to player and player
to tradition. Was the sparkle of Tal diminished because some of his lines
could be refuted with analysis? No, it was clear because he 1) found them
over the board and, more importantly, 2)played some of them against
players who were averse to taking any risks at all.

Chess is somewhat unique because of the aspect of analysis (imagine
reading a Frost poem and saying "oh, he really missed the word there,
should have been birches, not perches..."), but like these forms of art,
all the analysis in the world doesn't really take the soul out of it
anymore than all the linguistic analysis in the world takes the life out
of a poem. After all, all art has its quantifiable aspects.

Chess is a game with artistic elements, conducted in a sporting format
utilizing scientific rules. It is all three of them, really, which is what
makes it so interesting.

c
--
Chris Lott
fn...@uaf.edu

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[Mig]

On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 16:11:14 -0600, fn...@uaf.edu wrote:

>I don't think that a subsequent refutation necessarily takes the "beauty"
>out of a sparkling sacrifice. The beauty also lies, as I noted in a
>different post, in other oppositions, such as player to player and player
>to tradition. Was the sparkle of Tal diminished because some of his lines
>could be refuted with analysis? No, it was clear because he 1) found them
>over the board and, more importantly, 2)played some of them against
>players who were averse to taking any risks at all.

I gave consideration to the minimal sporting element involved, such as
the fact that it was played OTB. Tal's sparkle will never be
diminished, but if one of his sacrifices is unsound it is exactly what
I said, tragic beauty, failed. Perhaps what then becomes beautiful is
the *refutation* itself! An amazing, beautiful saving resource to
defend against what appears to an overwhelming Tal attack is just as
inspiring, even in endings. He won, so it is beautiful? If his
opponent had found the right defense the game would never have made
into the collections, it would just be a Tal blunder! As I said, you
can admire the conception and inspiration, but once you have that
refutation in your mind it's hard to show that game to people.

The famous Reti drawing composition only has two kings and two pawns,
but it is beautiful. But if someone cooked it (refutes it) it would
just be attractively arranged roadkill. We can admire the inspiration
and creativity of an unsound sacrifice, but if it doesn't work, what's
the point? I've sat around a chessboard for hours with groups of
Masters and Grandmasters and we would all ooh and ahh over some
amazing line. But then someone would cook it and we would all deflate
(with attendant ohhhhhh sounds, natch). I don't want to sound like a
conservative in this regard, because I am not. My favorite players of
all time are Nezhmetdinov and Bronstein, creative geniuses both. They
preferred artistic chess to the clinical game of Botvinnik. But they
both knew that the point of a chess game is to win, and if you can
imbue an element of beauty along the way, more the better.

>Chess is somewhat unique because of the aspect of analysis (imagine
>reading a Frost poem and saying "oh, he really missed the word there,
>should have been birches, not perches..."), but like these forms of art,
>all the analysis in the world doesn't really take the soul out of it
>anymore than all the linguistic analysis in the world takes the life out
>of a poem. After all, all art has its quantifiable aspects.

Poetry and other art forms do not have a defined goal, chess does. If
your move does not help you attain the goal of winning the game (or
drawing) it is not beautiful. If you have a spectacular queen sac that
loses, or a prosaic pawn move that wins, the queen sac stops at
spectacular, and can be appreciated as such, but if there was a
superior alternative would have produced a better sporting result, it
was just a bad move. There can be beauty in bad moves, but only the
wistful kind we are all familiar with, the kind that arises when you
see a fantastic, crushing combination and then see that it doesn't
work. Maybe we can call it "But if-beauty." We all know the sad
reality of an "almost mate in 5", no? If you win with your amazing
queen sac and later discover that if your opponent had made just one
different move you would have lost, is it a beautiful sac? Not in my
opinion. What if you're showing your game to some other players and
one of them points out the refutation to your play? Aren't you
depressed? I certainly am. I'm happy with my point, but sad that I
once again failed to find the Giaconda. (My most spectacular game,
involving a sac of a queen and a rook for a very unclear attack, did
get me a full point and was published in several magazines. But when
Alexei Shirov pointed out a drawing defense for Black I was crushed.
If he, or anyone, had found a way for Black to defend and win I would
have felt terrible and I wouldn't even mention the game in my top 10
except as an interesting sac.)

Technique, the quantifiable side, is inextricably connected to the
beauty in chess, unlike art forms such as music, painting, and
writing. (You can find beauty in a hummed melody, modern art, and some
people even like po-mo poetry.) This is because chess can, even if it
is often almost impossible on a practical plane, be boiled down to a
solitary objective and an undeniably best way of achieving that
objective. There is still scope for artistic elements such as style,
inspiration, and beauty, but they must be seen through the lens of the
sporting element and the technique that advances it.

>Chess is a game with artistic elements, conducted in a sporting format
>utilizing scientific rules. It is all three of them, really, which is what
>makes it so interesting.

Agreed.

saludos, Mig

___________________
Check out my attempts at educational chess humor (?!)
at The Week In Chess by Mark Crowther. Also, all the
hot tournament news and games to download every week!

http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic.html
-- Sponsored by the London Chess Centre
------------------
Remove SBLOCK to email me

[James W. Revak]

On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 19:55:10 GMT, jle...@dircon.co.uk (J.Levitt)
wrote:

>m...@impsat1.comSBLOCK.ar (Mig) wrote:
>
>>Two things in both sport and art are appreciated: technique and
>>beauty.
>
>An intersting post thank you.
>
>Thought the following excerpt from Secrets of Spectacular Chess
>(Batsford) might be of interst to you:
>
>6 THE POETRY OF WAR: the aesthetics of practical play
>

<snip>

>Once you make allowance for such limitations, there is a great deal to
>appreciate, aesthetically, in competitive chess. Our four elements
>(paradox, geometry, depth and flow) apply mainly to 'episodes' -
>pieces of chess action. But a whole game can consist of several
>phases, each comprising one or more such episodes.

<snip>

I don't understand this section except in a very vague way. What does
the author mean by the "four elements" (i.e. paradox, geometry, depth
and flow) and how do they relate to the aesthetics of chess. Anyone
else understand this better?

===================================================
JAMES W. REVAK - San Diego, CA - jre...@cts.com
===================================================

[perspective]

Mig wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 16:11:14 -0600, fn...@uaf.edu wrote:
>
> >I don't think that a subsequent refutation necessarily takes the "beauty"
> >out of a sparkling sacrifice. The beauty also lies, as I noted in a
> >different post, in other oppositions, such as player to player and player
> >to tradition. Was the sparkle of Tal diminished because some of his lines
> >could be refuted with analysis? No, it was clear because he 1) found them
> >over the board and, more importantly, 2)played some of them against
> >players who were averse to taking any risks at all.
>
> I gave consideration to the minimal sporting element involved, such as
> the fact that it was played OTB. Tal's sparkle will never be
> diminished, but if one of his sacrifices is unsound it is exactly what
> I said, tragic beauty, failed. Perhaps what then becomes beautiful is
> the *refutation* itself! An amazing, beautiful saving resource to
> defend against what appears to an overwhelming Tal attack is just as
> inspiring, even in endings. He won, so it is beautiful? If his
> opponent had found the right defense the game would never have made
> into the collections, it would just be a Tal blunder! As I said, you
> can admire the conception and inspiration, but once you have that
> refutation in your mind it's hard to show that game to people.
>

As usual, Mig misses the point. The clue to his total lack of understanding is
his referring to "the minimal sporting element involved, such as the fact that
it was played OTB."

Well no, Mig, that's not minimal, that's the crux. Have you ever heard of a
bluff, for god's sake? OTB play is not a game between 2 computers with
near-infinite calculating time. Tal knew well how to play the psychological
aspects of human combat and loved to steer the game into unclear areas where
his superb mind and love for a good fight gave him an advantage. Frequently
these lines were less than the "best" but they were superb tools for Tal to use
in this human sporting combat. That fact that a souless airhead like Mig can
dissect and refute at his leisure in no way detracts from the beauty of Tal's
sporting triumphs.

"Minimal sporting element involved" ???? If you truly believe that phrase, Mig,
then you are incompetent to be a chess columnist. Shame on you.

[Chris Lott]

On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:01:39 GMT, m...@impsat1.comSBLOCK.ar (Mig)
wrote:

>Tal's sparkle will never be
>diminished, but if one of his sacrifices is unsound it is exactly what
>I said, tragic beauty, failed.

I should have addressed this point as well. I don't believe in the
"failed" beauty, though I do believe in the element of tragedy in a
refutation. On this point we will just have to agree to disagree, I
think. It's a philosophy of aesthetics thing.

But let me ground myself in another area where I think art and
quantifiable functionality come together: architecture. Architecture
has followed all of the currents of painting and other visual arts
(and then a few) but, except in rare cases, there are two aspects that
define the process: the art and the utility. So, let's say that
Architect X creates a most beautiful building that wins numerous
awards from around the world. This is a beautiful work of art, no? Now
let's say that it is discovered that X's building is uninhabitable
(far-fetched? Travel only to Seattle...) due to structural stresses
brought about by his design for the edifice. The building has been
"refuted" but the beauty of the creation remains.

I don't think this is far fetched because it gives me much the same
feeling that my crowning sacrifice does now that it has been refuted
by Fritz during postmortem.

So, is it art? No. Is it artistic? Of course. For me, the real "art"
in chess lies in even more hazy realms related to the "zen" of play
and position.

>Perhaps what then becomes beautiful is
>the *refutation* itself! An amazing, beautiful saving resource to
>defend against what appears to an overwhelming Tal attack is just as
>inspiring, even in endings. He won, so it is beautiful?

I don't know, how about a beautiful sacrifice leading to a drawn out
position that ultimately the person making the sacrifice loses? Not
like it doesn't happen. Is the sacrifice not beautiful because it led
to the eventual loss? How about the sac that brings a person from
losing badly to NEARLY winning? Again, this is a personal matter, I am
sure.

>Poetry and other art forms do not have a defined goal, chess does. If
>your move does not help you attain the goal of winning the game (or
>drawing) it is not beautiful.

See directly above. Not all positions directly dictate the game-- I
think you place too much emphasis on the win coloring everything that
comes after (which may explain why you win more...)

c

>This is because chess can, even if it
>is often almost impossible on a practical plane, be boiled down to a
>solitary objective and an undeniably best way of achieving that
>objective.

This is questionable when you consider that a weaky like myself can
see beauty in a sacrifice that leads to a position marked winning--
even when we can't tell WHY the position is necessarily a win. I'm
sure you remember that time :) It wouldn't change my appreciation if
there was a note saying (eventually X LOST the game).

>>Chess is a game with artistic elements, conducted in a sporting format
>>utilizing scientific rules. It is all three of them, really, which is what
>>makes it so interesting.
>
>Agreed.

Whew.

[Alex Anderson]

Can someone describe the 'Three Move Repetition Rule' and how it is
specifically applied to the claiming of a draw in chess.

Towards the end of a rather intense game with my father-in-law the other
evening, a game which had gone horribly wrong (at least as far as I was
concerned), I really would have liked to claim a draw by repeting the same
move 3 times with my king.

My question is: Could I intentionally draw a game through this ploy?

[Andrew Thall]

The rule more properly should be refered to as a three-fold repitition
of a position. These repititions do not have to be one after another.
The rules require that all things must be identical -- that the same
person is on the move and that all options for moves remain the same.

Andrew Thall, NTD

[Mig]

On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 08:32:23 -0500, anonymous coward wrote:

>>
>> I gave consideration to the minimal sporting element involved, such as
>> the fact that it was played OTB. Tal's sparkle will never be
>> diminished, but if one of his sacrifices is unsound it is exactly what
>> I said, tragic beauty, failed. Perhaps what then becomes beautiful is
>> the *refutation* itself! An amazing, beautiful saving resource to
>> defend against what appears to an overwhelming Tal attack is just as
>> inspiring, even in endings. He won, so it is beautiful? If his
>> opponent had found the right defense the game would never have made
>> into the collections, it would just be a Tal blunder! As I said, you
>> can admire the conception and inspiration, but once you have that
>> refutation in your mind it's hard to show that game to people.
>>
>

>As usual, Mig misses the point. The clue to his total lack of understanding is

>his referring to "the minimal sporting element involved, such as the fact that
>it was played OTB."

As usual, the anonymous coward forgets to read my post. There is
obviously a great deal of sporting element involved in a chess game,
my argument, which you might have noticed if you possessed the brain
of a dust mite, is that it is only a minimal factor in the creation of
beauty. Tal won many attractive games, but having to say, "Here Tal's
opponent misses the winning move." takes most of the beauty out of it
for me. If you sacrifice, or play any move for that matter, and your
opponent fails to find a winning move and you win, does that mean your
play was de facto correct because you won? Do you happily sit there
with your blunder-filled games because in a few of them your opponent
failed to punish you for those blunders? There is more to it than the
sporting element, there is the search for perfection, or at the very
least the search for a sound combination.

I take nothing away from Tal when I say the above. Do you think he
included games in which he blundered but won in his best games
collections? Or if he did do you think he considered them on par with
the games in which he played perfectly sound attacks? I'm not talking
about unclear lines here, I'm talking about "beautiful" moves that are
objectively bad. Em. Lasker played for maximum confusion instead of
clear lines with a minimum advantage because he knew he was better at
seeing through the complications and many players do the same. As I
said in my post, again I wonder if you read it before you started
insulting me, there is plenty of room for style and artistic play. I
just do not find *beauty* in bad moves. A clue is that brilliancy
prizes are not awarded to games in which one player missed a defensive
possibility that would have changed the result of the game.

>Frequently
>these lines were less than the "best" but they were superb tools for Tal to use
>in this human sporting combat. That fact that a souless airhead like Mig can
>dissect and refute at his leisure in no way detracts from the beauty of Tal's
>sporting triumphs.

I'm sure this has something to do with my post, but I can't see the
relation. I'm not talking about if he wins or not, I'm talking about
the feeling of beauty created by a given game. Yes, he won, great. But
for eliciting the feeling of beauty in a chess game I prefer winning
without making losing moves. This has nothing to do with unclear lines
or style. Or do you see beauty in any won chess game?

>"Minimal sporting element involved" ???? If you truly believe that phrase, Mig,
>then you are incompetent to be a chess columnist. Shame on you.

Oh no, censure from an anonymous windbag who didn't even read my post.
I'm so hurt. "Minimal sporting element involved in the creation of
beauty." A little context goes a long way. Go back and read that
paragraph above, or at least the sentence following the one you are so
fond of quoting out of context.

I'm not sure you actually play chess, but I'll try to give you an
example:

You see a forced win in one of your games that involves a queen
sacrifice. You calculate the lines for a while and then sac the queen.
The next few moves are forced, then your opponent goes into a deep
think. While he's thinking you realize with horror that he has a great
move that refutes your sacrifice, trades off material, and basically
wins the game. Your opponent fails to see this move, plays a different
move and goes on to lose the game. Analysis confirms that the move you
saw would indeed have won the game for your opponent and that there
was no place for you to improve after the original queen sac.

So you have your sporting triumph, but do you have beauty? (Try to
stay with me here. Remember, the point of this thread wasn't that you
can't win by playing unsound chess, but that beauty is dimished by
subsequent analylitical refutation.) Was it a beautiful sacrifice?
What if two 1600-rated players swap blunders for the entire game
before one wins, is it beautiful just because somebody won? If Tal's
opponent blunders that's different from a 1600 blundering? Why?
Anybody can play bad moves and win (I've done it many times.) So why
reserve a special place for Tal's bad moves when he played so many
beautiful ones? Tal doesn't need your help.

saludos, Mig "that's *MR.* airhead to you"

[Mig]

On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 16:49:04 GMT, ecle...@polarnet.com (Chris Lott)
wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:01:39 GMT, m...@impsat1.comSBLOCK.ar (Mig)
>wrote:

>>Tal's sparkle will never be
>>diminished, but if one of his sacrifices is unsound it is exactly what
>>I said, tragic beauty, failed.
>

>I should have addressed this point as well. I don't believe in the
>"failed" beauty, though I do believe in the element of tragedy in a
>refutation. On this point we will just have to agree to disagree, I
>think. It's a philosophy of aesthetics thing.

Perhaps I should call it a "transference of beauty" in that the
refutation of a beautiful sacrifice is then what is beautiful!

>But let me ground myself in another area where I think art and
>quantifiable functionality come together: architecture. Architecture
>has followed all of the currents of painting and other visual arts
>(and then a few) but, except in rare cases, there are two aspects that
>define the process: the art and the utility. So, let's say that
>Architect X creates a most beautiful building that wins numerous
>awards from around the world. This is a beautiful work of art, no? Now
>let's say that it is discovered that X's building is uninhabitable
>(far-fetched? Travel only to Seattle...) due to structural stresses
>brought about by his design for the edifice. The building has been
>"refuted" but the beauty of the creation remains.
>
>I don't think this is far fetched because it gives me much the same
>feeling that my crowning sacrifice does now that it has been refuted
>by Fritz during postmortem.

It's not far fetched at all. It's an excellent metaphor. The initial
artistic impression of beauty everyone has of that building is the
same one we all have when we see a spectacular combination for the
first time. The realization that the building is uninhabitable is
finding out later that the combination was unsound. You can never look
at that building again without associating it with its lack of
utility, just like you will never look at that combination without
seeing the refutation. (My chess oeuvre must look a lot like Seattle.)

>So, is it art? No. Is it artistic? Of course. For me, the real "art"
>in chess lies in even more hazy realms related to the "zen" of play
>and position.
>

>>Perhaps what then becomes beautiful is
>>the *refutation* itself! An amazing, beautiful saving resource to
>>defend against what appears to an overwhelming Tal attack is just as
>>inspiring, even in endings. He won, so it is beautiful?
>

>I don't know, how about a beautiful sacrifice leading to a drawn out
>position that ultimately the person making the sacrifice loses? Not
>like it doesn't happen. Is the sacrifice not beautiful because it led
>to the eventual loss? How about the sac that brings a person from
>losing badly to NEARLY winning? Again, this is a personal matter, I am
>sure.

I don't really make such distinctions, I think "improving the sporting
result" suffices. If the sacrifice loses, but increased the chances of
winning more than other options it would be perhaps better than one
that wins due to a blunder by your opponent when there were several
better alternatives. Here the sporting element comes in. In a
situation like the KO tourney in Groningen you have must-win
situations, so one's moves must be seen through that lens as well.
(Though this is leaving the discussion of objective chess beauty.)

>
>>Poetry and other art forms do not have a defined goal, chess does. If
>>your move does not help you attain the goal of winning the game (or
>>drawing) it is not beautiful.
>

>See directly above. Not all positions directly dictate the game-- I
>think you place too much emphasis on the win coloring everything that
>comes after (which may explain why you win more...)

I'm trying to say that the win *doesn't* color it, objective best play
in pursuit of the win does. Or, regarding beauty, the end result does
not matter as much as the quality of the moves made.

>c

>>This is because chess can, even if it
>>is often almost impossible on a practical plane, be boiled down to a
>>solitary objective and an undeniably best way of achieving that
>>objective.
>

>This is questionable when you consider that a weaky like myself can
>see beauty in a sacrifice that leads to a position marked winning--
>even when we can't tell WHY the position is necessarily a win. I'm
>sure you remember that time :) It wouldn't change my appreciation if
>there was a note saying (eventually X LOST the game).

Right, but would it change it if there was a note saying, that the
position actually isn't winning?! That's what I mean, it comes down to
analysis of technique. I can look at a Bronstein game and see a
beautiful sacrifice. I'm impressed, stunned, wowed. Then in the
annotations Bronstein says that it was a bad move and loses! My
artistic appreciation is limited by my skill, or lack thereof. This is
why I say analysis is important because without it everything that
looks impressive to somebody is a beautiful move! Without analysis how
can you tell the blunders from the masterpieces? If I hang my queen
against a patzer and then win the game it certainly wasn't a beautiful
queen sac, but another patzer might be convinced that it was because
he doesn't possess the technical skills to distinguish. *Whether I
made that queen move intentionally or not is irrelevant as far as
beauty is concerned.* There are just different levels of obvious! It
may take days of analysis to figure out a defense to a Tal attack,
saying there is one for argument. Does this make that attack more
beautiful than my queen sac that can be refuted by Fritz 5 in 30
seconds even though both attacks are, in the end, refuted? It just
seems like a question of degree.

Take the game of mine that I mentioned with the queen and rook sac. I
thought it was pure genius, a beautiful attack. The IMs and GMs I
analyzed it with were less impressed at first as there seemed to be
several refutations. But as each refutation was in turn refuted, they
became impressed! *What was *not* initially beautiful to them became
so as they saw it was sound.* When I showed it to Alexei Shirov he
just looked at it for a few minutes, grunted when I showed him some of
the cool analysis lines and said it was, "interesting". After a few
minutes he found an absolutely stunning move that I am still amazed by
that allows Black to draw! And when I showed this move to those IMs
and GMs at home my game got officially downgraded from beautiful to
interesting for them too! (And to this day I would pay cash money for
someone to prove that I had a forced win...)

>>>Chess is a game with artistic elements, conducted in a sporting format
>>>utilizing scientific rules. It is all three of them, really, which is what
>>>makes it so interesting.
>>
>>Agreed.
>

>Whew.

Now everybody can pick apart my analysis of the first Adams-Short game
(please!), at least we'll learn something practical!

saludos, Mig "don't hate me because I'm objectively beautiful"

[J.Levitt]

jre...@cts.com (James W. Revak) wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 19:55:10 GMT, jle...@dircon.co.uk (J.Levitt)
>wrote:

>>Thought the following excerpt from Secrets of Spectacular Chess

>>(Batsford) might be of interst to you:
>>
>>6 THE POETRY OF WAR: the aesthetics of practical play
>>

><snip>

>>Once you make allowance for such limitations, there is a great deal to
>>appreciate, aesthetically, in competitive chess. Our four elements
>>(paradox, geometry, depth and flow) apply mainly to 'episodes' -
>>pieces of chess action. But a whole game can consist of several
>>phases, each comprising one or more such episodes.

><snip>

>I don't understand this section except in a very vague way. What does
>the author mean by the "four elements" (i.e. paradox, geometry, depth
>and flow) and how do they relate to the aesthetics of chess. Anyone
>else understand this better?

Yes, sorry, the meaning would be unclear given you have not seen the
introduction to the book.
The same may be true even after I offer you the following
excerpt...perhaps you might get the book if the subject of chess
aesthetics intersts you!

Second excerpt:

Our Four Elements and Why We Have Introduced Them

In this book we are going to consider four basic elements: 1. Paradox
2. Depth 3. Geometry and 4. Flow. These terms will be defined more
fully (with many examples) when we come to the individual chapters
dedicated to each of them; but for the present, the following should
help you to understand what we mean by them.

1. Paradox

Surprise, outrageousness. An immediate confrontational tension is
created. The response to a paradoxical move might be 'How can this be
possible?' or 'That simply cannot work!'. An example would be the move
2 Qf2!! in the solution to the Gurvich study (see the first example in
the book) or the underpromotion 6 c8R!! in the Saavedra position. To
win by such means is a heroic form of achievement, and, other things
being equal, the more paradox in the play, the better.

2. Depth

Subtlety, complexity. A deep move is one which is not obvious (though
not necessarily paradoxical) and for which the point is well hidden.
Initially one does not understand it, and later the response is 'Ah,
so that was the point!'. In the study by Ratner given earlier, the
move 1 Be2! would qualify as being deep. In the Richter position 1
Kb7!! is both paradoxical (moving away from the action) and deep.
Depth relates to the complexity of what is being achieved. Again,
other things being equal, the deeper the moves the stronger the
aesthetic effect. A game with no deep moves at all might be enjoyable
the first time you see it, and maybe even a second time if it is good
for other reasons; but some degree of depth is required to generate
sufficient tension to count as a true masterpiece that can be played
over many times with pleasure.

3. Geometry

Patterns , repetitions, echoes, mutual interferences between a rook
and a bishop... The response might be 'Oh, what a pretty pattern!'. An
example of mainly geometrical play would be the Nissl position (see
the end of the brief history section). Here the bishop jockeys with
the rook (in what could be described as a geometrical duel) before
completing a diamond- shaped 'rundlauf' (Bg5-h4-g3-f4-g5). In the Sam
Loyd Organ Pipes mate in two, the mutual interference on lines and
diagonals would also be called geometrical. As explained earlier, the
brain is good at spotting such patterns and the prettier the pattern
that is involved in achieving something, the better (the tension is
resolved in a pleasing, aesthetic fashion).
In our extended meaning of 'geometry', any striking pattern or special
feature could be included. For example, if during the solution to a
problem one side promotes pawns to each of the four possible pieces
(Q, N, R, B known as 'Allumwandlung') this would be a 'pattern' or
feature that the brain might easily recognize. Many tasks and special
effects achieved by composers fall into this broader 'geometry' which
is not restricted entirely to its spatial sense.

4. Flow

Smoothness of movement. It relates to the length of the sequence of
moves for which the tension is dynamically maintained. For example in
the Rinck position (see history section), the play flows across the
board as the king chases the bishop for a whole series of moves. The
degree of tension (or 'area' of tension) could be seen in terms of
length x depth. The response to flow might be something like: 'Whoosh!
I'm being carried along!', and again, the more flow the stronger the
aesthetic effect. Often, in top class studies, an elegant flow is
abruptly halted by a paradoxical finish.

These four factors are relatively independent of one another and have
come about after a sort of 'instinctive factor analysis' of our
experience of beautiful chess ideas.

What is the point of this categorisation? Basically to help us
communicate about tension and the aesthetic effect in chess and chess
composition. Games, studies and problems exist regardless of how we
try to describe them. There is nothing 'real' about our categories,
they are just words and one should not expect too much from them. As
with any descriptive theory, if the categories prove helpful in
communication, they will be useful and will survive. If not, they will
die and we would have failed in our task. Certainly your co-authors
find the categories useful. With surprising consistency and clarity we
agree as to which of the four elements (one, two, three or all four of
them) are present in a piece of chess action. The categories help us
identify and pinpoint the tension- creating features of the play and
thus to talk more usefully about aesthetic issues (and it is never
that easy to talk about such abstract matters).

[perspective]

Mig wrote:

As always, Mig resorts to name calling and obfuscation. Anonymity is irrelevant to
the question, and Mig knows it, but it gives him the illusion that he's making a
point.

His whole "taken out of context" crud is a whining distraction. Last year, a man was
arrested for raping, robbing and murdering 8 women. One of his friends commented
that other than that he was a very sweet person. Yeah, they took his life out of
context.....

That was overstatement to make a point: "taken out of context" is a classic dodge
favored by weasels like Mig. I stand by my statement, if he believes in a "minimal
sporting element" he is incompetent to write a chess column.

[Mig]

On Thu, 25 Dec 1997 10:09:19 -0500, perspective <Bo...@By.Mig> wrote:

>
> As always, Mig resorts to name calling and obfuscation. Anonymity is irrelevant to
>the question, and Mig knows it, but it gives him the illusion that he's making a
>point.

Still too lazy to read the post, eh? You were the name-caller,
remember? Your keepers need to let you out either more often or less
often.

>His whole "taken out of context" crud is a whining distraction. Last year, a man was
>arrested for raping, robbing and murdering 8 women. One of his friends commented
>that other than that he was a very sweet person. Yeah, they took his life out of
>context.....

Good, show everyone exactly what an idiot you are, saves me time and
effort.

>That was overstatement to make a point: "taken out of context" is a classic dodge
>favored by weasels like Mig. I stand by my statement, if he believes in a "minimal
>sporting element" he is incompetent to write a chess column.

No. Actually, taking things out of context is the classic dodge, not
pointing it out. Thanks for trying though. Anytime you're ready to
read my posts and respond like a vertebrate, go ahead. You completely
misunderstood my post and now refuse to even admit it. Instead you dig
yourself ever deeper with bizarre silliness and ranting. C'mon, just
admit how important squeaking at more intelligent people makes you
feel so we can all get on with ignoring you like everyone at your
school always did.

Hugs and kisses,

Mig

-------
Anyone who says that it's not whether you win or lose
but how you play the game was probably sitting in the
back of the losers' bus covered in human filth.
-- Duckman

[Ron Moskovitz]

In article <01bd1095$e22096c0$0100007f@p133>,
Alex Anderson <alexander...@virgin.net> wrote:

>
>Towards the end of a rather intense game with my father-in-law the other
>evening, a game which had gone horribly wrong (at least as far as I was
>concerned), I really would have liked to claim a draw by repeting the same
>move 3 times with my king.
>
>My question is: Could I intentionally draw a game through this ploy?

No.

This is one of the most common misunderstandings of the rules of chess
I've seen in casual players. Somebody, somewhere, decided that if you could
move your king back and forth three times successfully, the game was
drawn. This is not so.

The rule is that the same position must appear on the board, with the
same side to move, three times. They do not have to be in succession, or
"in a row". When the position appears for a third time, you may claim
a draw.

You may attempt to create this, situation, but you probably won't
succeed just by moving your king back and forth, unless your opponent
also just moves his peices back and forth.

[marcplum]

In addition to the other answers you received, which defined what the triple
repetition is:

The proper way to claim the draw is either just before making the move that
would create the threefold occurence ( in a tournament you would call the
director over and say something like "if I play Nd7 we have a triple
repetition" ) or just after your opponent has repeated the position for the
third time. The actual rule is designed for tournament play, where the
players are keeping a record of the moves, and can demonstrate the
repetition by playing over the game if necessary. Of course, in an offhand
game where you are not keeping such a record, it is necessary to rely on the
good sportsmanship and memory of the players. Note that if a triple
repetition occurs, but no one claims a draw, and you go on to play other
moves, then you can't go back later and claim the draw unless there is still
another repetition.
M Plum

Alex Anderson wrote in message <01bd1095$e22096c0$0100007f@p133>...

[Matt Beckwith]

perspective wrote:

>> I gave consideration to the minimal sporting element involved, such as
>> the fact that it was played OTB. Tal's sparkle will never be
>> diminished, but if one of his sacrifices is unsound it is exactly what
>> I said, tragic beauty, failed. Perhaps what then becomes beautiful is
>> the *refutation* itself!

I think this view that an imperfect combination is "failed beauty"
overlooks the conditions of play: Chess is played with a clock. It's
an equal contest. No one expects both players to play flawless games.
For that, all we need is a computer. People bring more than computers
do to the board. We don't stand around watching computers play, do
we?

[Matt Beckwith]

J.Levitt wrote:

>>>Thought the following excerpt from Secrets of Spectacular Chess

>>>(Batsford) might be of [interest] to you:

>>>6 THE POETRY OF WAR: the aesthetics of practical play

>>>Our four elements

>>>(paradox, geometry, depth and flow)

What an excellent idea: to analyze the aesthetics of the game! I'll
pick up this book and read it. Very interesting. After all, we spend
hours and hours playing this game; there must be a reason besides
winning and losing.

[J.Levitt]

mattbe...@hotmail.com (Matt Beckwith) wrote:

>J.Levitt wrote:

>>>>Thought the following excerpt from Secrets of Spectacular Chess

>>>>(Batsford) might be of [interest] to you:

>>>>Our four elements
>>>>(paradox, geometry, depth and flow)

>What an excellent idea: to analyze the aesthetics of the game! I'll

>pick up this book and read it. Very interesting. After all, we spend
>hours and hours playing this game; there must be a reason besides
>winning and losing.

Matt: Given you just wrote those words, you're sure to enjoy it!
Regards,
Jon

selected comments from book reviews follow; apologies for the advert,
couldn't resist it:

‘This refreshingly innovative book could well prove to be one of the
most important improvement aids in years...cannot fail to broaden the
chess horizons of even the most imaginative players.’ Angus
Dunnington, Yorkshire Post

‘If ever there was a book to encourage you to admire beauty in chess
for its own sake, this must be it. Many of the examples are pure magic
and the authors’ zeal is infectious...Will all this improve your play?
The answer is an unequivocal yes. It will open your eyes to
possibilities you had no idea existed...’ review, British Chess
Magazine.

‘A treasure not to be missed’ Murray Chandler, editorial in the B.C.M.

‘An enormous amount of work - and love - has gone into this
imaginative book.’ review, Chess Monthly.

‘Refreshingly wordy’ Jon Speelman, The Observer Magazine.

‘It certainly makes spectacular bedtime reading’ Dominic Lawson,
editor of the Spectator.

‘Few chess books these days make you anxious to get back to the board.
This one does.’ David Lawson, Dragon.

‘The most fascinating chess book I have seen in years...it`s just a
lovely book to own.’ John Walker The Oxford Times.

‘Secrets of Spectacular Chess is a very interesting book; an excellent
guide for people like me...’ Hans Ree, New in Chess.

‘Un ouvrage aussi remarquable qu`inhabituel qui sera une mine de
plaisir pour celui qui voudra prendre le peine de le lire et de le
relire de la première à la dernière page.’ review, Europe Echecs.

‘Dieses Buch ist ein kleines Meisterwerk, aber man kann es nicht
erzählen, man muß es einfach gelesen haben.’ Gerald Hertneck, Schach.

‘...will definitely win the 1995 (BCF Book of the Year) award’ J.A
Tait, Correspondence Chess.

[It didn't!]

‘A delightful feast of fantastic chess...In this masterpiece the
authors combine the three elements of chess - practical play, problems
and studies - to delight and amaze the reader.’ Ivor Annetts, The Mid
Devon Gazette.

‘Reading Spectacular Chess has made me understand why this move eluded
me for over a decade’ (about the move 15...a6 in a critical line of
the Benoni) David Norwood, The Weekend Telegraph.

‘Outstanding’ Bill Hartston, The Independent.

But why take their word for it? Get a copy for yourself!

Secrets Of Spectacular Chess, by GM Jonathan Levitt & David Friedgood
(Batsford, 1995, £14.99 ISBN 0 7134 7721 0), is available from all
good bookshops.
Signed copies also available by post, e-mail for details.

[Duif]

On 24 Dec 1997 18:01:09 GMT, "Alex Anderson"
<alexander...@virgin.net> wrote:

>
>Can someone describe the 'Three Move Repetition Rule' and how it is
>specifically applied to the claiming of a draw in chess.
>

>Towards the end of a rather intense game with my father-in-law the other
>evening, a game which had gone horribly wrong (at least as far as I was
>concerned), I really would have liked to claim a draw by repeting the same
>move 3 times with my king.
>
>My question is: Could I intentionally draw a game through this ploy?

It depends on the position.

Imagine that you are taking a polaroid snapshot of the game after
every single move.

Now you are putting these photos spread out on the table next to the
game.

If the exact same POSITION occurs three times (that is, there are
three identical photographs) AND each time it was the same player's
turn to move (always White's move in each of the three photographs, or
always Black's move in each of the three photographs), THEN it would
be a "draw by repetition of position" or "draw by repeition" for
short.

You claim this by claiming it just BEFORE you make the move that would
be the third "photograph."

You prove it by having a written record on the game that can be played
through on a different board to show that, indeed, the same position
occurred three times.

A very common occurrence of this would be in a position where White
had a single pawn on e5, Black had his King on e8, and White had his
King on e6.

It is White's move. White is trying to avoid stalemating Black.

White moves, say,
1. Kf6

Black replies

1...Kf8

White plays
2. Ke6

Black responds

2...Ke8 (second repeition of position)

White tries

3. Kd6

Black maintains the opposition, playing

3...Kd8

White again plays:

4. Ke6

At this point, Black (with a correct scoresheet) may claim a draw by
repetiion, repeating the position for the third time with the intended
move
4...Ke8

Notice several important points:

a) the repetition does not have to three-moves-in-a-row, as this
example shows.

b) the same player must be "on the move" each time.

c) the repetition does not have to be forced. Either White or Black
could have made different moves during the sequence.

d) the draw is claimed just BEFORE the third position is reached.

e) the draw is proven by an accurate shoresheet.

Hope that helps!

---Duif

du...@jaderiverx.com - Remove x to reply
Jade River Designs is pleased to sponsor Duif's Place
the Guide for Chess Fans and New Tournament Players
at http://www.jaderiver.com/chess/

[Thomas L. Foster]

marcplum wrote:
>
> In addition to the other answers you received, which defined what the triple
> repetition is:
>
> The proper way to claim the draw is either just before making the move that
> would create the threefold occurence ( in a tournament you would call the
> director over and say something like "if I play Nd7 we have a triple
> repetition" ) or just after your opponent has repeated the position for the
> third time. The actual rule is designed for tournament play, where the
> players are keeping a record of the moves, and can demonstrate the
> repetition by playing over the game if necessary. Of course, in an offhand
> game where you are not keeping such a record, it is necessary to rely on the
> good sportsmanship and memory of the players. Note that if a triple
> repetition occurs, but no one claims a draw, and you go on to play other
> moves, then you can't go back later and claim the draw unless there is still
> another repetition.
> M Plum
>
> Alex Anderson wrote in message <01bd1095$e22096c0$0100007f@p133>...
> >

> >Can someone describe the 'Three Move Repetition Rule' and how it is
> >specifically applied to the claiming of a draw in chess.
> >

In addition to what has been stated before all the pieces must have the
same capabilities as before. In other words, if you could castle before
the third repetition, you must be able to castle after the third
repetition or it would not be a draw. This result could occur where
either a king or rook have moved back to the same square, but it would
now be illegal to castle.

[Mig]

On Sun, 28 Dec 1997 12:32:09 GMT, mattbe...@hotmail.com (Matt
Beckwith) wrote:
>
>>> I gave consideration to the minimal sporting element involved, such as
>>> the fact that it was played OTB. Tal's sparkle will never be
>>> diminished, but if one of his sacrifices is unsound it is exactly what
>>> I said, tragic beauty, failed. Perhaps what then becomes beautiful is
>>> the *refutation* itself!
>

>I think this view that an imperfect combination is "failed beauty"
>overlooks the conditions of play: Chess is played with a clock. It's
>an equal contest. No one expects both players to play flawless games.
>For that, all we need is a computer. People bring more than computers
>do to the board. We don't stand around watching computers play, do
>we?

Computers hardly play flawlessly, even in tactical positions, as they
fail to see the long-term consequences of their moves. The above
snippet only makes the point that what distinguishes a brilliancy from
a blunder shouldn't be the mistakes of one's opponent. If we go
completely with the result of the game or the sporting aspect then
anything can be a brilliancy if the game is won.

[jbri...@efn.org]

Perhaps Steinitz's quote would not be out of place here: "An unsound
combination, however showy, fills me with artistic horror."

Also Fischer, in the notes to his brilliancy against Robert Byrne at the
1963-64 USA Championship says that after Averbakh found a hole in his
previous analysis to the game that, "I spent an evening just staring at
the position after 14 QR-Q1, trying everything, unwilling to let my
brilliancy go down the drain."

[jbri...@efn.org]

However pieces of the same kind and color *can* be interchanged, for
example one's King-Rook and Queen-Rook could be switched and a draw
could still properly be claimed.

[Kenneth Sloan]

Time to drag out this problem (be careful!):

================================================================
White: Kh5, Re4, Pb6, Pe6, Pg4, Pg6
Black: Ke8, Rh8, Ng8, Pb7, Pe7, Pg7, Pg5, Ph6

After 1 Rc4 Kd8 2 Rd4+ Ke8 3 Rc4 Kd8 4 Rd4+ Ke8

White claims a draw, intending 5 Rc4.

Black objects, claiming that he still had "castling rights" after 1 Rc4,
so 5 Rc4 would not be a triple occurence.

How do you rule?
================================================================

"Thomas L. Foster" <tfos...@pacbell.net> writes:

> ...

> In addition to what has been stated before all the pieces must have the
> same capabilities as before. In other words, if you could castle before
> the third repetition, you must be able to castle after the third
> repetition or it would not be a draw. This result could occur where
> either a king or rook have moved back to the same square, but it would
> now be illegal to castle.

--
Kenneth Sloan sl...@cis.uab.edu
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/

[Tim Mirabile]

The problem is a bit silly since there is 1...Nf6 mate or 2.Rc8+ Kxc8 stalemate,
but anyway...

I'd check the scoresheet to see if either Black's king or rook had been moved
previously, and if not, I'd rule against the draw claim. At the World Open a
year or so ago I asked about a similar situation, and several arbiters seemed to
agree with the interpretation that if castling were only temporarily prevented
in one instance and permanently prevented in another, the positions are
different.

But there is no excuse for this rule to be vague. Instead of being written in
legalese, there should be a simple algorithm for determining if two positions
are identical under the rule. There should not need to be any retrograde or
foward analysis to apply, all that would be needed are the current positions,
whether the previous move in each position allows en passant, and the king and
queenside castling availability of both sides. If all of these things are the
same then the positions are identical. If any of them are different, then the
positions are not identical.

For "castling availability" I intend the same as that described in the PGN
Standard describing FEN notation:

"16.1.3.3: Castling availability

The third field represents castling availability. This indicates potential
future castling that may of may not be possible at the moment due to blocking
pieces or enemy attacks.[...]"

( full document at http://www.clark.net/pub/pribut/standard.txt )

The only thing which can affect castling availability in this way is prior
movement of the king or the rooks.

Kenneth Sloan <sl...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:

>
>Time to drag out this problem (be careful!):
>
>================================================================
>White: Kh5, Re4, Pb6, Pe6, Pg4, Pg6
>Black: Ke8, Rh8, Ng8, Pb7, Pe7, Pg7, Pg5, Ph6
>
>After 1 Rc4 Kd8 2 Rd4+ Ke8 3 Rc4 Kd8 4 Rd4+ Ke8
>
>White claims a draw, intending 5 Rc4.
>
>Black objects, claiming that he still had "castling rights" after 1 Rc4,
>so 5 Rc4 would not be a triple occurence.
>
>How do you rule?
>================================================================
>
>
>"Thomas L. Foster" <tfos...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
>> ...
>> In addition to what has been stated before all the pieces must have the
>> same capabilities as before. In other words, if you could castle before
>> the third repetition, you must be able to castle after the third
>> repetition or it would not be a draw. This result could occur where
>> either a king or rook have moved back to the same square, but it would
>> now be illegal to castle.

--
Long Island chess -> http://www.webcom.com/timm/ TimM on ICC and A-FICS
Webmaster, tech support - Your Move Chess & Games: http://www.icdchess.com/
The opinions of my employers are not necessarily mine and vice versa.

[Ilias Kastanas]

In article <t7en2wu...@cis.uab.edu>,

Kenneth Sloan <sl...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>
>Time to drag out this problem (be careful!):
>
>================================================================
>White: Kh5, Re4, Pb6, Pe6, Pg4, Pg6
>Black: Ke8, Rh8, Ng8, Pb7, Pe7, Pg7, Pg5, Ph6
>
>After 1 Rc4 Kd8 2 Rd4+ Ke8 3 Rc4 Kd8 4 Rd4+ Ke8
>
>White claims a draw, intending 5 Rc4.
>
>Black objects, claiming that he still had "castling rights" after 1 Rc4,
>so 5 Rc4 would not be a triple occurence.

He did have castling rights; we cannot prove he didn't, as there
is a possible history to that effect, ending with 0. ... f:g5. So this
is not 3-fold repetition. Whether 0-0 was actually feasible or not is
irrelevant.

>How do you rule?

After duly considering the facts, that if White wanted a draw he
had Rc8+ stalemating, and that if Black did not want a draw he had ...Nf6+
mating, and good cause appearing,

I forfeit them both,

for being jokers and wasting my time. So ordered.

But it's not always so easy. Consider:

(a) Ke1, Ra1, Rf8, Ba4, Bb8, Nh8, Pb5, c2, d2, e3, f4, g2, h2; Kb7, Qg7,
Rf3, Rf2, Bg3, Bg8, Na8, Nh4, Pb4, b6, c7, d7, e7, f5, f7, g6.

White to play and draw.

Eh?! White is in dire straits, right? Well, the way out is _not_
1. 0-0-0 ??, Qa1+ mate; but 1. (0-0-0 !!)/draw claimed by the 50-move
rule! Yes, with the WK and WR not having moved, you can prove White's
move completes 50 full moves with no captures or P pushes. Now, _there_
is a claim!

(b) Kc1, Rd3, Rd1, Pb4, c2, d2, f2, f6, g2, h3; Ke8, Rh8, Pa6, b7, c3,
c7, e6, f7, g3, h6.

Retractor: White takes back his last move
and then plays and mates in 3.

By now it should be no surprise that White takes back 1. 0-0-0.
But what move does he play then? Why, 1. 0-0-0 !

With the de-castled King on e1, it's obvious Rd3 is not the R
that started on h1; it's a promoted Pawn. What was the promotion square?
Anything other than g8 means _Black_ has lost the right to castle. (For
g8, there might have been a Black piece on f8 shielding the BK, during
g8 = R and then the R getting out). But it cannot be g8, since then the
WP's must have made 7 captures; while only 6 Black units have been taken.
Conclusion: Black cannot castle.

That was the point of taking back 0-0-0; eliminating that defense.
So _now_ 1. 0-0-0! ... and Black is helpless versus 2. d:c3... 3. Rd8#.

Hmm... okay, but the ice is getting thin...

(c) Kf5, Rd5, Bf6, Ph5, h6; Ke8, Rh8, Pg5.

Undecidable: White provably has mate in 2,
but we cannot find it!

Here, 1. Ke6 threatens 2. Rd8# ... but Black defends by 1... 0-0.
Right to castle! Sure; but if so, his last move was 0. ... g5. In that
case, White has instead 1. h:g6, with 1... 0-0 2. h7#. But Black defends
by claiming his last move could have been 0. ... Kf8-e8. All right, if so
he cannot castle, hence 1. Ke6. But Black then defends by claiming it could
have been 0. ... g5; and so on.

It's no use. To be sure, it's one thing or the other; but we cannot
prove either -- so we can play neither!

That does it. Must be those two jokers at work again. Hand me
the Penal Code. (But which State's ?! They played on a plane, flying
over three different ones...).

Ilias