[lit-ideas] Re: Chess
- From: david ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:58:36 -0700
On Sep 26, 2005, at 10:12 PM, Eric Yost wrote:
Phil: To make my argument even more confusing, I would be
willing to argue that discussing the rules of a game is itself part
of the game, though not a case of playing the game. . . . The
question I would raise is how Eric identifies something as an
external significance when it is part of the playing of the game.
Eric: Arguing that discussing the rules of chess is part of the
game of chess is in fact a way of defining what you consider "the
game of chess" to be.
For the sake of such an argument, I would maintain that the game of
chess is fairly standardized. Betting a million dollars on a pawn
promotion is outside of the game of chess because the game could go
on with or without it, and it is extraneous to the goals of the
game itself whether for black or white.
Does it help to know that the Queen used to be a vizier, that this
piece used to be very restricted in its moves, that in one version of
the game all moves were determined by a roll of dice, that in the
Arab game pieces were carved in abstract fashion, that the Russians
were hundreds of years behind everyone else in adopting the modern
queen? My reference is a flawed history that nonetheless makes an
interesting read, Marilyn Yalom, "The Birth of the Chess Queen."
David Ritchie
Portland, Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
