chess- a psycopathic game?

clerck de bonk

Dagobah Resident
A friend just sent me this:

__http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6796

And he pointed this out:

"But that overwhelmingly, absurdly disproportionate dominance suggests there must be something more to the phenomenon, something about chess itself that resonates particularly with the Jews, with the Jewish condition? Greenfeld doesn’t really think so. “If so, it’s very deep,”
he offers after a long pause. “Most of the [top Israeli] players don’t have a real connection to Judaism – not knowledge, not observance. If it’s something genetic? I don’t know.”"

I remember reading somewhere on the forum that Israel's share of PP's are also disproportionate.
I also remember reading in the Wave that chess is, more or less what I wrote as headline or am I totally off here?
 

Atreides

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
In a way yes, and in a way no.

Chess in many ways epitomizes the 3d mentality. The idea that there must be a win/lose/draw. The necessity to entrap your opponent by correctly anticipating their moves. Like anything it can be taken to extremes in your personal life, you can tend to see everything in the form of a chess match, and start interacting with people in a chess like way.

I do not for a second believe that psychopaths are inherently better at chess by virtue of being psychopathic, though they might tend to be attracted to the game. Anyone can be good at chess, all it requires is the ability to visualize and remember gambits and strategies. For instance I am fond of playing chess and Ark is also very good at it as well.

It is possible to see that the C's quote may have been less of an admonishment against the actual game, but the mentality of it, that is, chess represents a perfect contest, which is the STS method of interaction, it is purely about dominance, in chess, there is no room for anything else.

If you goal in life is to play chess with the universe, then you will fail eventually, however, this is a 3d existence, and there are a great many people who play chess with everyone, and it's a good idea to have some concept of how their game is played, knowledge protects after all. It's just important that you don't get drawn in.
 
So any comments on the eastern game of 'Go'? At first glance, it seems the same as chess, but a little further examination, and it seems to be more about 'balance'
 
Answering my own question. found this on Tony Smith's page

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/ficw2.html#weiqi

Might be of interest to those who like these kinds of games/maths.
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I guess it depends on how one identifies with the game. Of course there are many aspects in it like being battle in a black and white world were the protagonists kill each other and entrap each other. They are also subject to an external consciousness :D etc. who could ring a bell. But it is as any other game where you have to win against the other. It depends upon the player to identify into it or not, and that depends on the player's being osit.
 

dannybananny

Jedi Council Member
But it is as any other game where you have to win against the other.
And the question is how can you win if other loses, like you are "better" than that person that lost . It's based on ego like everything else, consciously or unconsciously. I remember reading one book about aborigines how they were repelled when white men suggested, when they were playing, that is running, that there should be first, second, etc.. place. They were group,all celebrating when one accomplishes something and all being sad when one is hurt.
 
H

Hildegarda

Guest
clerck de bonk said:
"But that overwhelmingly, absurdly disproportionate dominance suggests there must be something more to the phenomenon, something about chess itself that resonates particularly with the Jews, with the Jewish condition? [..] I remember reading somewhere on the forum that Israel's share of PP's are also disproportionate.
It may be not so much the game of chess itself but the social aspects of a career in playing chess professionally. Recently, I was reading about the famous Polgar sisters, the Hungarian girls who were the world's top chess players even as pre-teens. Their father was a big proponent of gifted education, believing that "geniuses are made, not born". He and his wife have trained their daughters following their own special methods, and their goal was to make them into chess champs. My first reaction was a genuine "why, of all things, chess? Why not music, art, math or other things that we more commonly associate with the idea of a genius"?

And then someone who is, so to speak, in the industry, clarified that it makes perfect sense simply from the point of view of financial gains and popularity. For someone with a strong intellectual gifts in math, strategy, and logic, chess offers an opportunity to win a lot of money and gain recognition even at a relatively young age, and even more so if the person does go on to become one of the very top players. But if the same person were to do math, programming or other things in which he/she is guaranteed to be equally good at, the rewards are not nearly as good. In fact, chess is probably the only field in which stereotypical "geeks" can truly compete with one another, and the winner is rewarded and admired so much.

The article also correctly states that the Israel's dominance in chess is due to influx of Russian repatriants. In Russian immigrant community and in Russian Jewish community in particular, math and technical education has always been valued. In Israel, by accounts of people I know, there is a bit of discrimination against them, and they have to work their way up which they do through, again, excelling in math and technical educational track, to parlay it into IT-type jobs. Chess, as a career or a second career, is, againm a sure way to shoot up socially, make a name for yourself and make money.
 

Guardian

The Living Force
Atreides said:
I do not for a second believe that psychopaths are inherently better at chess by virtue of being psychopathic,
Me either! I too love Chess, and have played since I was a child :)



Personally, I think many psychopaths are repelled by the thought of playing Chess...a game where they're judged entirely by their ability and meet their opponents on even ground. Psychopaths like vulnerable victims and situations where they can lie, cheat, etc....and they don't like to lose. That isn't Chess.
 

Voyageur

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Hi clerck de bonk,

Hildegarda seemed to sum things up well, and as Guardian said, and i've never read any papers on this, but for kids it seems to help cognitive skills, interaction and memory; don't know if it sets up some kind of future pathology as long as the winning at all costs is avoided - learning is fun.

On a fictional note; the author, Katherine Neville, wrote these two books about Chess, named The Eight & Fire, and she plays around with humor and history and the lives of characters in the game of chess and what she deemed esoteric connections to tell these tales.

Fun read and learned a few things about the game.

THE EIGHT (1988) is the story of the quest for a fabulous, gold-and-silver, bejeweled chess set that once belonged to Charlemagne. It has been buried for a thousand years. At the dawn of the French Revolution, when soldiers are looting the abbeys and monasteries, the set is dug up from an abbey in the Pyrenees and scattered around the world. This begins a 200-year-long chase across the globe– from the 1790s of the Revolution to the 1970s of the OPEC embargo — with 64 characters, (32 historic and 32 modern) all seeking the pieces in a giant chess game that forms the plot.
THE FIRE (2008) (sequel to The Eight) is launched thirty years after the events of The Eight, when the Black Queen shockingly resurfaces in Russia. The children of the previous characters know nothing of the quest of their parents, but are drawn into it nonetheless — and “The Game” is afoot again. In 1822: at the dawn of the war of Greek Independence, Haidee, daughter of the powerful ruler, Ali Pascha, smuggles the most valuable piece of the chess set out of Albania under the very noses of the attacking Turks. In 2003: former child chess prodigy, Alexandra Solarin, returns home to Washington DC at the dawn of the Iraq War, the exact moment of our entry into Baghdad, only to discover the connection between the “chessboard” of modern DC and the key to the ancient city of Baghdad: the very spot where, twelve hundred years earlier, the magical chess set of Charlemagne was created.
-http://www.katherineneville.com/the-books/
 

BK

Padawan Learner
The game itself has no psychopathic elements.
It's simply relentless logic, a testimony to precise and creative thinking.
Chess is a wonderful tool to expose faux cleverness.
Hypocrisy and lies won't work on a chessboard.
While mental intimidation can be present in human players, a chess playing computer isn't the least bit intimidated by such human antics.
It just goes about its business and can now play many GM's to a draw on a regular basis.
The beauty of chess is that the answers are right there on a universe of 64 squares, you just have to discern the best moves.
Failure to do so cannot be blamed on anything outside your own mind.
The chessboard is a canvas where you can create some beautifully flawless combinations that
will result in "winning" the game.
The game itself requires no special schooling or education.
For me, chess is a source of constant humility because I've never been able to play beyond the level of a novice no matter how hard or long I've tried.
There's nothing to blame except my own utter ineptitude, there's nowhere to hide.
 

Turgon

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
mkrnhr said:
I guess it depends on how one identifies with the game. Of course there are many aspects in it like being battle in a black and white world were the protagonists kill each other and entrap each other. They are also subject to an external consciousness :D etc. who could ring a bell. But it is as any other game where you have to win against the other. It depends upon the player to identify into it or not, and that depends on the player's being osit.


I tend to agree with this. If you get so caught up in the game that you have to beat the other person, then that leaves something about your intent that needs to be questioned. But if you are just having fun enjoying a game with a friend without thinking of it as a do-or-die situation to win, then it's something else altogether. I just came back from a chess game with my friend and neither of us were overly identified with winning or losing.

Even though he's beaten me every single time we've played! :curse:
 

Atreides

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
Miyamoto Musashi said:
The only reason to be a warrior is to fight, the only reason to fight is to win, if you aren't here to win, then why be a warrior, it is easier to count beads.
Don't be too anti-winning. In martial arts we say: Anyone can be a good Nage, it takes a rare person to be a good Uke.

If you are just playing chess for pure fun, that's fine, but games can be a good way for you to practice mental skills, so if both sides do not make an effort to act according to the games raison d'etre, in the case of chess, if you don't try to win, and more importantly, try to win well, then neither of you gains experience, then it just becomes an effort in dissociation, which is fine, everyone needs to dissociate now and again, but if you are willing and amenable, everything provides an opportunity to better yourself.

In the context of the above quote, Nage is the person who will successfully defend an attack, and Uke will feed the attack. The better Uke performs, the better the skills developed by Nage. That is, if Nage only learns to defend him/herself against weak half hearted attacks, then in real life, that's all they will be able to do. If Uke however really tries to provide a realistic, but still safe, attack, then Nage will learn good defensive skills that will apply in real life. Read this page to learn more http://aikido-west.org/handbook/uke_nage.html

Of course chess isn't serious, or shouldn't be, but the skills and abilities in memory and forward thinking can be very useful in a persons life, so giving them a good run for their money is important. Always keep in mind that this is 3d, and while they might be playing chess with you, they are safe, but maybe they will be playing against a psychopath tomorrow, and anything you can do to help them develop good critical thinking skills is a way of giving. What I am trying to say is that, considering the context of a situation, you should look to put into it as much quality as you can, for you and for them, and games are a great and safe way to do this. Sometimes.
 
Atreides said:
In a way yes, and in a way no.

Chess in many ways epitomizes the 3d mentality. The idea that there must be a win/lose/draw. The necessity to entrap your opponent by correctly anticipating their moves. Like anything it can be taken to extremes in your personal life, you can tend to see everything in the form of a chess match, and start interacting with people in a chess like way.
When I read this bit on the transcripts:

Q: (L) I want you guys to know that I sometimes feel a wee tiny bit like a pawn on a chessboard!
A: You should, you inhabit 3rd density STS environment.
Q: (L) I was at least hoping that if I was a pawn, that some of the players were good guys. Is that asking too much?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) To which statement?
A: Good guys don't play chess.

My thoughts were along the lines with Atreides, in that the game involves strategies against a perceived (because we are in 3D) opponent. If we understand that we are not actually separate, there is no joy in seeing another lose. In the purist sense, games like this might only serve to perpetuate the perception of separation, which is ultimately an illusion. And further, maybe exercising this perspective by involvement in such games, has consequences on other "levels" of our psyche/spirit, ie by "tipping the scales" more to one side.

I realise that this is an extreme pov!

That's what occurred to me anyhow..
 
Top Bottom