lundi 25 février 2008

The desperate chess player



e2-e4 / b8-a6
g1-f3 / h7-h6
f1-e2 / a8-a7


Every experienced chess-player has certainly met this situation where, playing with a beginner, the later, not knowing at all what to do, goes into some unexpected and totally absurd moves which make you wonder for a while what may be his ultimate motive. Sort of b2-b3 followed by c1-a3 and then back to c1 followed by b1-a3 etc. Is this a great move that will enable him to take advantage in 5, 6 moves from now on or simply a plain stupid, senseless one with no strategy involved whatsoever?

The truth is that your opponent simply has no clue as to which efficient and powerful move he could play and, out of despair and inability, he just pushes pawns here and there in the vain hope that, somehow, that will puzzle you to the point you will fall in a trap your opponent doesn’t even know of and certainly is totally unable to have conceived.

In the end it appears for what it is: some fake great strategy, whose sole purpose it is to grant some delay to the lost hapless one whose only possible cue it is to go errand in all directions. With the illusion that in the end he will build some sort of web in which you cannot fail to fall into whereas he will always have control of the chaos he thinks he’s both the architect and the master of…

Wishful thinking just to conceal his ineptitude, hoping you will mistake it for the moves of a brilliant strategist… In the end of course you easily win the game and your opponent has made you waste your time. The outcome is the same altogether: you win, he’s ridiculed.

When reading and hearing some pieces obviously fiddling with the basic rules of logic, I can't help but find similarities with the desperate chess player. Some people have made it their forte of twisting reasoning and argumentation and meddling about everything into a malström of fallacies and absurdities.

3 commentaires:

Anajo/Anijo/JoAnn a dit…

Hi Flocon!

the desperate chess player

Ah, the desperate chess player. I have been intrigued with attempting to discuss certain ideas of logic with desperate chess players as pertains to religion. However, the conversation always ends up with the religious one feeling upset and withdrawing from the conversation. I have finally decided that this type of conversation is a waste of my time and if said person has a good heart, then why bother?

However, that said, I do understand why you are perplexed Flocon, because I don't understand either why anyone would choose to ignore the logical conclusions.

That said, I know that I also have certain intellectual roadblocks in other areas which perhaps lead me to act and react in a manner which is not all that logical. ;)
And yet, I do appreciate any rigorous argumentation which attempts to explain to me why I may or may not be illigical in my conclusions. Said argumetation is easier for me to swallow and more easily digested if personal attacks are not part of the discussion.

I know that you and I have a history of playing chess and thus we both know how complex that such a game can be.

Very interesting post, btw, and I enjoyed thinking about this.

Jo Ann / Anajo

Anajo/Anijo/JoAnn a dit…

oops!
As I have previously stated, my fingers move more quickly than my brain!


And yet, I do appreciate any rigorous argumentation which attempts to explain to me why I may or may not be illigical in my conclusions. Said argumetation is easier for me to swallow and more easily digested if personal attacks are not part of the discussion.

Redaction!

And yet, I do appreciate any rigorous argumentation which attempts to explain to me why I may or may not be logical in my conclusions. Said argumentation is easier for me to swallow and more easily digested if personal attacks are not part of the discussion.

Flocon a dit…

Salut Joann,

I didn't particularly think of religion as an example where the "desperate chess player theory" applies but of course it's also a valid example. Could be politics or any other topic as well.

We all have our roadblocks as you say, since we're not only dealing with reason but also with emotions. But said emotions can always lead us far and further from "the truth" or at least some sensible conclusion.

We all have so many prejudice that we must first of all try to get rid of.

And above all, nobody likes to lose face... It requires some training...

Said argumetation is easier for me to swallow and more easily digested if personal attacks are not part of the discussion.

That's what logic is all about after all: no personal attacks or innuendos. Like with algebra...