[lit-ideas] Re: Russia & chess
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:00:31 -0230
But let's also chase down the other fallacy in John's post below - the one Eric
seems to be so impressed by.
Typically, there is no *one* conflict, area of dispute, on the board. There are
numerous expeditions, forays, deceitful feints, and defensive tactics ongoing
simultaneously at any given time, launched and prosecuted by each side. At any
level of strategic play, a player will attempt to con her opponent into
believing that a principal area of the board is in dispute by making some
attention-atracting moves in that area. The hope is that the opponent will take
the bait and move in the big tanks ... I mean, stronger pieces. The player then
unfurls an attack on a different area of the board, or regains defensive
structure on a different area of the board.
One more small matter: Chess is a gentleperson's game. No piece is ever
"slaughtered" in chess. Pieces are captured and when they are they receive
treatment in accordance with the Geneva (actually the Icelandic) Convention.
Kings are treated with even greater delicacy and politesse as it is understood
that they are never captured. Under certain circumstances, a king will "resign"
from the field of play and retire to a tent where previously sequestered single
malt and Swedish masseuses/masseurs attempt to rekindle his/her spirits for
another foray on another day.
This is of course all in the Russian tradition. There is also the Soviet style
of play, exemplfied quite clearly recently by Walter Putin. It is guided by one
fundamental maxim (no, not gorky): "If you're stupid enough to fall for that,
you deserve what you get." In truth, some Russian players also fall to its
temptations.
Why is there no table tennis being televised from Beijing? It's not like it were
beach volleyball ....
Talking a better game than he plays,
Walter O
Quoting Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>:
> John: Even the idea of chess as helpful in understanding "an"
> international conflict is misleading. No government is ever in "an"
> international conflict; they are ALL ALWAYS engaged in several
> simultaneous conflict of interests, whether peaceful or not.
>
> John nailed it! I should have read his post before replying. (Minor
> quibble: "the 'pawns' come out first and fight it out to the death,
> leaving only the richest elite to survive the war" is not quite true of
> chess. Think pawn promotion, open v. closed chess games, and pawn-only
> endgames.)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
