27 Jan 2008 @ 09:37, by John Grieve
On Creating and Resolving Contradictions on the ChessBoard : Part I
Introduction
One of the great arts of wisdom is the study of opposites or contradictions, known as dialectics. This is the knowledge of the observation, analysis, creation (where appropriate) and resolution of contradictions in any of a large number of fields ranging from logical debate to mathematics and, as in the present case, even board games like chess. The Perennial Philosophy, in its many different versions, affirms that the universe has a dual nature, everything being composed of pairs of opposites. When we come to practical action of any sort it is possible to take this fact into account. Socrates did, in ancient Athens, and he and his followers applied Dialectics to the practical task of drawing out the contradictions, inconsistencies and confusions in the customary arguments of their fellow citizens, and in this process uncovered the foundations of logical debate and a grand philosophical theory which came to fruition in Plato’s system of Forms.
Many mathematicians were also dialecticians but the example I have in mind is the little known case of Pierre de Fermat who, in 17th century France, laid the foundations of number theory and modern mathematics. In doing so he invented a wonderful technique called “the method of infinite descent” which is in reality a sophisticated dialectical handling of algebraic forms to arrive at a contradiction and thus prove different mathematical theorems. After Fermat’s death his techniques gradually fell into disuse and science, not just mathematics, turned its back and reacted against this knowledge of contradictions.
In the late 18th century philosophy was reinvigorated by the theories of opposites inherent in the work of Kant and Hegel. Unfortunately, following on from this, attempts to change society which came with Karl Marx’s adoption of dialectics, led to another reaction against it which has lasted ‘til the present day.
Now this knowledge is ready for a rebirth, and I present the following simple account of its application to the game of chess, as an attempt to de-mystify something which is really very simple to understand but very difficult to practise well. Indeed it is not called an art of wisdom for no reason. It is the art of mastery or mistressy.
Chess
In everyday life a double-bind is usually something that cannot be beaten. In a game that proceeds one move at a time, like chess, if you can create double or multiple threats with one move, the equivalent of a double-bind, then your opponent is usually in trouble.
There are many ways to win at chess, but as you improve and so do your opponents, it becomes impossible to rely on people making mistakes or blunders. One can’t even rely on an overwhelming powerful attack to win, brute force, because to every move you make there is a counter-move your opponent makes that neutralizes or otherwise gets them out of the trouble your move has created for them.
As a game proceeds, both players move their pieces into what are often, chaotic and disorganised formations. The original, undifferentiated position which exists at the start, gradually becomes more complex, interpenetrated and differentiated and, despite every effort to maintain organised, strong and harmonious formations, certain awkwardnesses and weaknesses are created in both positions.
These are what I call the “contradictions” on the chessboard. There are well-known and obvious weaknesses which can be exploited by pins, forks, checks, discovered checks, double checks etc. This leads to the possibility of skilful moves, employing subtle threats and tempo gains, either separately or in combination, in order to derive an advantage, whether of material or position.
Indeed, this finding and working on a contradiction and finally resolving it, is often the course followed in a game. One side, will bring pressure to bear on weak-points, and as each move is met by a counter-move, a position is finally reached where one player is able to get a double-bind and thus win.
In the next part of this article I will look at creating contradictions on the chessboard in more detail.
|
|
