PDA

View Full Version : Chess and postmodernism



Kevin Bonham
29-07-2007, 09:42 PM
Just about every art form known to humanity has a "postmodernist" faction, so if chess is partly an art, surely there should be "postmodern" chess.

What players (if any) would be postmodern in style? What would justify calling a style postmodern? Could the increasing preference for obscure lines to evade the opponent's databasing abilities be itself seen as intrinsically pomo, representing the death of a certain line of metanarrative? How would "postmodern" chess tie in with "hypermodern" - presumably they'd have nothing in common at all? Does the authority of nature in the form of chess games having results make it difficult for postmodernism to even pretend to get off the ground?

Just wondering if anyone has ever encountered this term applied to the style of any particular player or period in chess history. Oh, and fishing for a HADBBA for most ridiculous thread, or something of the kind.

Disclaimer: the author of this post actively opposes "postmodernism" in most academic contexts.

Basil
29-07-2007, 09:45 PM
I have a really really really horrible feeling about this thread!

Axiom
29-07-2007, 09:53 PM
my old coach gorkiananov used to describe himself as a postmodernist chessplayer, and that was 1954!..............but you dont want to hear about that...

Kevin Bonham
29-07-2007, 09:58 PM
I have a really really really horrible feeling about this thread!

Me too; that's why I had to begin it. I have to know how bad it can possibly get.

From shoutbox:


is watson's secrets of modern chess strategy a postmodern reinterpretation of nimzowitch's my system?

Garvinator
29-07-2007, 10:14 PM
:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: Ok I will start with the first suckers question. What do you define as postmodernism in general and in particular to chess?

Denis_Jessop
29-07-2007, 10:22 PM
I have a really really really horrible feeling about this thread!

And with justification.

For there to have been a "hypermodern" school there should first have been a "modern" school presumably that of Tarrasch or Lasker or Steinitz (Nimzovich was shooting at Tarrasch eg in the article "Does Dr Ttarrasch's "Modern Chess " really set out modern theory?" - see page 1 of "My System").

If there was a "postmodern" school it should have come between the "modern" and the "hypermodern" schools. If it came after the "hypermodern" school it would have been the "posthypermodern" school.

Thus it can be postulated that the postmodern school did not exist.

We can add to that that chess as now played is closer to the coffee house chess of the 18th and 19th century and so is "premodern" chess. :hmm:

DJ

Kevin Bonham
29-07-2007, 10:31 PM
If there was a "postmodern" school it should have come between the "modern" and the "hypermodern" schools. If it came after the "hypermodern" school it would have been the "posthypermodern" school.

I wonder about that. Is "hypermodern" equivalent to the cliche "late modernism" sometimes encountered in philisophy or art? I thought "hypermodernism" should be "modernism" embraced and taken to its ultimate extreme while "postmodernism" is the view that the "modern" is all done and dusted.


We can add to that that chess as now played is closer to the coffee house chess of the 18th and 19th century and so is "premodern" chess. :hmm:

Some "postmodernists" (who are actually de facto conservatives) would probably quite like that sort of thing - retreat to premodern tendencies as an escape from modernity.

But I think modern chess has better defensive technique, even if the attackers are still hacking away as they always did.

Kevin Bonham
29-07-2007, 10:34 PM
:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: Ok I will start with the first suckers question. What do you define as postmodernism in general

I think the way this works is that everybody uses their own definition, if they have one. :lol:

I couldn't see that much wrong with the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism), but that's probably just because I find most pomo too faddish and short on academic rigour to care whether anyone else adequately defines it or not.


and in particular to chess?

That's what we may, if we're extremely unlucky, find out.

Basil
29-07-2007, 10:58 PM
For there to have been a "hypermodern" school ...

... And they're off ...

... And so am I http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/escape.gif

Aaron Guthrie
29-07-2007, 11:02 PM
If there was a "postmodern" school it should have come between the "modern" and the "hypermodern" schools. If it came after the "hypermodern" school it would have been the "posthypermodern" school.Postmodernism could be a total rejection of hypermodernism, i.e. a revival (or rejection) of modernism. So posthypermodernism would then be in a different development line to postmodernism. But I dare not speculate on what hyperposthypermodernism is.

Capablanca-Fan
29-07-2007, 11:08 PM
IIRC Tartakover invented the term "hypermodern" in his Die Hypermoderne Schachpartie, which was having a go at Tarrasch's title Die Moderne Schachpartie. There wasn't the slightest connection to postmodernist crap. For some light amusement, you can generate your own totally original postmodern essay (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo) :P

WhiteElephant
30-07-2007, 12:00 AM
For some light amusement, you can generate your own totally original postmodern essay (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo) :P

That is really cool :D

Basil
30-07-2007, 12:03 AM
Good one, Jono. Someone get this to fg, quick.

Denis_Jessop
30-07-2007, 01:30 PM
I wonder about that. Is "hypermodern" equivalent to the cliche "late modernism" sometimes encountered in philisophy or art? I thought "hypermodernism" should be "modernism" embraced and taken to its ultimate extreme while "postmodernism" is the view that the "modern" is all done and dusted.



Some "postmodernists" (who are actually de facto conservatives) would probably quite like that sort of thing - retreat to premodern tendencies as an escape from modernity.

But I think modern chess has better defensive technique, even if the attackers are still hacking away as they always did.

I was thinking something the same after my post and wondered if perhaps there may now be a chess school equivalent to the pre-Raphaelites. Pre-Philidor sounds attractive. :wall: :clap: :hmm:

PS I don't think the old-time players had any defensive technique that is now visible. It was probably also regarded as unsporting or unmanly. (Incidentally many more women played chess socially then than now but few, if any, of their games are recorded so I don't know what style they used.)

PPS Howard, please come back - your street cred is essential for this thread. :rolleyes: and there are many HCDs to be awarded.

PPPS I can understand Jono's lack of enthusiasm for this thread as it is essentially one for left-wing intellectuals, that is, anyone who can write and doesn't believe in the death penalty for swearing at George W Bush.:(

DJ

Capablanca-Fan
30-07-2007, 02:00 PM
PPPS I can understand Jono's lack of enthusiasm for this thread as it is essentially one for left-wing intellectuals, that is, anyone who can write and doesn't believe in the death penalty for swearing at George W Bush.:(

Typical leftist smear from a pretend-intellectual Anointed One, who probably thinks the essays of that PoMo generator are the epitome of intellectual rigor :P. And one of the best demolition jobs of PoMo comes from a leftist physicist (so lefties can occasionally get it right :P), Alan Sokal, who famously submitted a hoax paper to a postmodern journal, which was accepted (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/).

Aaron Guthrie
30-07-2007, 02:05 PM
Typical leftist smear from a pretend-intellectual Anointed One, who probably thinks the essays of that PoMo generator are the epitome of intellectual rigor :P. And one of the best demolition jobs of PoMo comes from a leftist physicist (so lefties can occasionally get it right :P), Alan Sokal, who famously submitted a hoax paper to a postmodern journal, which was accepted (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/).A leftist physicist? Presumably the physics has nothing to do with the political leanings, and vice versa.

Basil
30-07-2007, 02:57 PM
Denis, you're baiting me! :)


PS I don't think the old-time players had any defensive technique that is now visible. It was probably also regarded as unsporting or unmanly. (Incidentally many more women played chess socially then than now but few, if any, of their games are recorded so I don't know what style they used.)
Yes, just reading up on this part of the game. My play seems to have improved somewhat now that I am incorporating some of its (defence) basic principles. :wall:



PPS Howard, please come back - your street cred is essential for this thread. :rolleyes:
:drool:


and there are many HCDs to be awarded.
You may have a point.


PPPS I can understand Jono's lack of enthusiasm for this thread as it is essentially one for 'left-wing intellectuals' ...
Den, THE biggest difference between us (and I think you know I respect you on many fronts) is that you are game to use the term LWI. Please let's not discuss the value of same...

OK, lets! :lol:

While I concede my lot can be prone to being a tad trigger-happy and authoritarian; on balance I'd have to settle for them ahead of a studious bunch of twits, with the cleanest, most gleaming hands imaginable all the while pontificating the minutiae of the universe and all its parts without the remotest clue, the slightest inkling or any tabled idea in the history of mankind that has any workable or proven merit.

Basil
30-07-2007, 03:18 PM
Whoops ... still going!

It's not the cluelessness to which I object. None of us are born with an idea of how things plug together. Nor do I object to the clamour of the Battlas who think they're being screwed as a matter of course and class.

What rerally really really winds me up is the persistence of LWIs writing their dribblings which (like references here to the telephone boxes) supply the aforementioned Battlas (and their champions) with sufficient oxygen to actually believe they are on to something.

At what point will you accept that all your political idols and ideals [100 years worth] have achieved A/B/S/O/L/U/T/E/L/Y N/O/T/H/I/N/G ??? [/rhetorical]

Everybody carry on. I'm off for a lie down in a dark place for some contemplation and breathing exercises.

Aaron Guthrie
30-07-2007, 03:27 PM
Let me examine your argument.
While I concede my lot can be prone to being a tad trigger-happy and authoritarian; on balance I'd have to settle for them ahead ofMy lot have faults, but they are not so bad compared to-
a studious bunch of twits, with the cleanest, most gleaming hands imaginable all the while pontificating the minutiae of the universe and all its parts without the remotest clue, the slightest inkling orThe insults and rheteoric I can throw about.
any tabled idea in the history of mankind that has any workable or proven merit.Before I finally get to the crux of my complaint against the other side.

So now let me present the counter argument, in GD form-

While I concede my lot can be prone to being a tad daydreamy and impractical; on balance I'd have to settle for them ahead of an ignorant herd of morons, with the dirtiest, bloodiest hands imaginable, all the while pontificating irrelevant details of the universe and its constitution with not any idea of what they speak, whilst their rhetoric driven politics brings a great deal of hate, ignorance, intolerance and war with them throughout the history of mankind.

I think this argument is just as strong as the one you presented. I refute you thus!

Capablanca-Fan
30-07-2007, 03:28 PM
A leftist physicist? Presumably the physics has nothing to do with the political leanings, and vice versa.
No it doesn't. But Sokal explicitly described himself as a leftist, but was critiquing some of the nonsense emanating from his fellow leftists [A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html)]:


In the end, I resorted to parody for a simple pragmatic reason. The targets of my critique have by now become a self-perpetuating academic subculture that typically ignores (or disdains) reasoned criticism from the outside. In such a situation, a more direct demonstration of the subculture's intellectual standards was required. But how can one show that the emperor has no clothes? Satire is by far the best weapon; and the blow that can't be brushed off is the one that's self-inflicted. I offered the Social Text editors an opportunity to demonstrate their intellectual rigor. Did they meet the test? I don't think so.

I say this not in glee but in sadness. After all, I'm a leftist too (under the Sandinista government I taught mathematics at the National University of Nicaragua). On nearly all practical political issues — including many concerning science and technology — I'm on the same side as the Social Text editors. But I'm a leftist (and feminist) becauseof evidence and logic, not in spite of it. Why should the right wing be allowed to monopolize the intellectual high ground?

And why should self-indulgent nonsense — whatever its professed political orientation — be lauded as the height of scholarly achievement?

Basil
30-07-2007, 03:41 PM
I think this argument is just as strong as the one you presented. I refute you thus!
Aaron, you have accurately refuted the argument, but completely missed the point! Which was mutual insults.

If you would like to debate the merits for real, just let me know and we'll kick off a thread.

Aaron Guthrie
30-07-2007, 03:45 PM
If you would like to debate the merits for real, just let me know and we'll kick off a thread.I don't know history or politics enough to do so. What I was trying to suggest is that if any serious debate goes on in this thread it would be more convincing if not couched (or indeed almost entirely composed) in rhetoric, and just focused on establishing whether or not the left are useless, and whether or not the right are (whatever the real lefty claim against the right is).

So for example I wasn't very convinced by my own claim about the right being warmongers, as I thought that was just a human trait. So I would expect myself to argue more on that point than just asserting it. But I was just presenting this claim as parody, so I don't have an argument to this effect.

Capablanca-Fan
30-07-2007, 03:47 PM
My lot have faults, but they are not so bad compared to-The insults and rheteoric I can throw about.Before I finally get to the crux of my complaint against the other side.
And note that the free market is the antithesis to authoritarian government. It is the Left that want Big Government to interfere with a free buyer making a voluntary transaction with a free seller, and it's the Left who want to redistribute wealth coercively.


While I concede my lot can be prone to being a tad daydreamy and impractical; on balance I'd have to settle for them ahead of an ignorant herd of morons, with the dirtiest, bloodiest hands imaginable, all the while pontificating irrelevant details of the universe and its constitution with not any idea of what they speak, whilst brining a great deal of hate, ignorance, intolerance and war with them throughout the history of mankind.
Try reading Death By Government (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM) by R.J. Rummel.

Basil
30-07-2007, 03:55 PM
What I was trying to suggest is that if any serious debate goes on in this thread it would be more convincing if not couched (or indeed almost entirely composed) in rhetoric
Yes, you're always trying to suggest this. It's the way you're built (remember we were discussing our professional lives inexorably blending with our social ones?).

Anyhoo, by all means be the cop on the fallacious appeals to whatever, but perhaps try and select your both your topics and targets a little more judiciously.

This thread was well into political baiting before I got in on it, and so are other threads without me. But like that slightly aggressive bear, Shirty, it seems Gunner Duggan is an exocet target for the two of you ... luckily I can handle a couple of rank amateurs like you two and a hundred more. Ooops that was an insult. Sorry. My points?

1. You are being a logical argument cop where one isn't necessary.
2. You are being a selective logical argument cop when other material abounds.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-07-2007, 04:05 PM
And note that the free market is the antithesis to authoritarian government. It is the Left that want Big Government to interfere with a free buyer making a voluntary transaction with a free seller, and it's the Left who want to redistribute wealth coercively.

Try reading Death By Government (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM) by R.J. Rummel.

I started a new thread in non-chess forum "What is the government".

Aaron Guthrie
30-07-2007, 04:09 PM
Anyhoo, by all means be the cop on the fallacious appeals to whatever, but perhaps try and select your both your topicsAs regards my interest in argument, topics are not relevant. So I reject this suggestion.
and targets a little more judiciously.

This thread was well into political baiting before I got in on it, and so are other threads without me.What you presented seemed to me to be some kind of (weak) argument. While Denis and Jono had only presented insults.
But like that slightly aggressive bear, Shirty, it seems Gunner Duggan is an exocet target for the two of you ...Along with Axiom, and Jono, two others that are prolific posters (and I imagine I have made many other comments about arguments, but offhand those are two easy examples). Sorry but you are not being singled out.
luckily I can handle a couple of rank amateurs like you two and a hundred more. Ooops that was an insult. Sorry. Insult and sarcasm, clever.
My points?

1. You are being a logical argument cop where one isn't necessary.This is a forum, which to me means it is the locality of crap talking. You are talking about left vs right in a thread about postmodern chess, this is the crap you like to talk. I am talking about arguments, this is the crap I like to talk.
2. You are being a selective logical argument cop when other material abounds.I have my criteria of what I feel like responding to, but it does not involve the name "Gunner Duggan". If I attack your arguments more than others, it is because you fit that criteria (feel proud ;)), whatever that may be.

Rhubarb
30-07-2007, 04:23 PM
This thread was well into political baiting before I got in on it, and so are other threads without me. But like that slightly aggressive bear, Shirty, it seems Gunner Duggan is an exocet target for the two of you ... luckily I can handle a couple of rank amateurs like you two and a hundred more. Ooops that was an insult. Sorry. My points? Good afternoon, Gunner. The reality, of course, is that when it comes to politics you constantly make a target out of yourself with your antagonistic posting style. Why else would you have mentioned my name, even after I told you I was a centrist?

Methinks you're really missing your erstwhile love affair with Firegoat.

Basil
30-07-2007, 04:27 PM
The reality, of course, is that when it comes to politics you constantly make a target out of yourself with your antagonistic posting style.

That's a fair point.


Why else would you have mentioned my name in vain, even after I told you I was a centrist?
Not mentioned vein - mentioned as in selective targeting systems - which you've nailed above.


Methinks you're really missing your erstwhile love affair with Firegoat.
Please don't say that! :P

Basil
30-07-2007, 04:37 PM
As regards my interest in argument, topics are not relevant.
Whoops! There is no argument. We were insulting mutually. The fact that yoou are insisting that I was arguing doesn't mean that I was having one.

You are justifying your input on the basis of a premise which doesn't exist. There is no argument. Denis was baiting me - I joined in by insulting him.

Your position is circular, begs the question and other doo doo as well.

Now I have to go and reset the Hydro-Sucker :doh:

Aaron Guthrie
30-07-2007, 05:16 PM
Whoops! There is no argument. We were insulting mutually. The fact that yoou are insisting that I was arguing doesn't mean that I was having one.Firstly, an argument (in the logical sense) doesn't become an argument by your assertion that it is one, nor become not one on your assertion that it isn't. The fact that you intended the post to be insulting is just not relevant.

Secondly you said "Aaron, you have accurately refuted the argument, but completely missed the point!". So you actually said there was an argument in there.
You are justifying your input...I reject the notion that I need to justify my input. My input will be input whenever I feel like it.
Your position is circular, begs the question and other doo doo as well.And is question begging?

Basil
30-07-2007, 05:39 PM
Oh no you don't ... You'll have to get out of bed earlier than that.


Firstly, an argument (in the logical sense) doesn't become an argument by your assertion that it is one, nor become not one on your assertion that it isn't.
And by (your) extension is not one because you say so; which is the sole grounds which I can determine for your input.

Nevertheless, an argument exists or otherwise on its qualities, viz at least two people in genuine disagreement. As a) Denis hadn't rejected what I was saying :P, and b) the conversation wasn't entirely genuine anyway, my statement that there was no argument stands, on its facts.


Secondly you said "Aaron, you have accurately refuted the argument, but completely missed the point!".
That is true. I said that. However I used the word loosely not knowing at the time that the discussion was going to end up probing whether an argument existed. At the time I was acknowledging the propriety of your (entirely unnecessary) defeat of my (sarcastic and insulting) reasoning.

Aaron Guthrie
30-07-2007, 06:04 PM
Ok, here is a deconstruction (in more rigorous fashion than originally offered) of the argument presented in the original post of contention. In offering this I note that in my last post I never claimed that I proved that you presented an argument. What I claimed in the last post was your assertion that the construction in question was meant to be insulting isn't relevant to its status as an argument. I also note that in saying this now, I am not saying that I have previously made no argument that the construction in question was an argument.


While I concede my lot can be prone to being a tad trigger-happy and authoritarian; on balance I'd have to settle for them ahead of a studious bunch of twits, with the cleanest, most gleaming hands imaginable all the while pontificating the minutiae of the universe and all its parts without the remotest clue, the slightest inkling or any tabled idea in the history of mankind that has any workable or proven merit.Here is my interpretation of the argument. This is simplified, (e.g. I could have separated out each part of premise 2, or included assumptions not stated) to show clearly my interpretation of the argument.

Premise 1)-The right "can be prone to being a tad trigger-happy and authoritarian"
Premise 2)-The left are "a studious bunch of twits, with the cleanest, most gleaming hands imaginable all the while pontificating the minutiae of the universe and all its parts without the remotest clue, the slightest inkling"
Premise 3)-The left also "(have not) tabled idea in the history of mankind that has any workable or proven merit"
Conclusion-"on balance I'd have to settle for them (the right) ahead of (the left)"
Nevertheless, an argument exists or otherwise on its qualities, viz at least two people in genuine disagreement. As a) Denis hadn't rejected what I was saying :P, and b) the conversation wasn't entirely genuine anyway, my statement that there was no argument stands, on its facts.When I use the word "argument" it means, loosely, "a line of reasoning leading to a conclusion".



At the time I was acknowledging the propriety of your (entirely unnecessary) defeat of my (sarcastic and insulting) reasoning.And I can just as well say that your sarcastic and insulting reasoning was entirely unnecessary. But of course it would not do to say so, since for whatever reason you enjoy sarcasm and insulting, and for whatever reason, I enjoy talking about arguments.

Basil
30-07-2007, 06:13 PM
I skipped through to the end by for reasons that would be obvious to most ...


... since for whatever reason you enjoy sarcasm and insulting, and for whatever reason, I enjoy talking about arguments.

:clap: Amen brother! :lol:

Denis_Jessop
30-07-2007, 06:50 PM
Hey guys this was supposed to be a serious consideration of the proper description of current chess style or something like that. What's happened to it?

To get back on track let me suggest that, having looked at David Smerdon's last-round game in Pardubice, I am inclined to think that he is a member of the Deconstructivist School which followed postmodernism, at least in architecture.

Serious disclaimer: I add that this comment is not intended in any way to reflect on David's playing of that game, but rather to the style of the game on both sides, especially in the early stages..

DJ

Basil
30-07-2007, 06:58 PM
Hey guys this was supposed to be a serious consideration of the proper description of current chess style or something like that. What's happened to it?
Frankly I preferred the carry-on, but you are quite correct.


If there was a "postmodern" school it should have come between the "modern" and the "hypermodern" schools. If it came after the "hypermodern" school it would have been the "posthypermodern" school.

Thus it can be postulated that the postmodern school did not exist
Or was not properly or popularly identified.


A leftist physicist? Presumably the physics has nothing to do with the political leanings, and vice versa.
15 HCDs

Desmond
30-07-2007, 08:30 PM
I'm so post-modern... (http://www.bedroomphilosopher.com/2006/01/10/im-so-postmodern-lyrics)

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2007, 01:48 AM
I'm impressed; my thread is even worse than I expected it would be. :P

Other mods should feel free to move it to non-chess if at any point no-one still wishes to engage the chess side of things but the usual political battles are continuing.

Denis_Jessop
31-07-2007, 12:58 PM
I'm impressed; my thread is even worse than I expected it would be. :P

Other mods should feel free to move it to non-chess if at any point no-one still wishes to engage the chess side of things but the usual political battles are continuing.

You've done very well, Kevin. You've created a thread with lots of in-fighting but so far nobody seems to have had a shot a you. :clap: :D

DJ

Basil
31-07-2007, 01:03 PM
Hang on! Early days yet. We're all just warming up! *kisses all 'round*

Aaron Guthrie
31-07-2007, 01:06 PM
You've done very well, Kevin. You've created a thread with lots of in-fighting but so far nobody seems to have had a shot a you. :clap: :D

DJAn instance of uber skilled trolling from Kevin, then?

Capablanca-Fan
31-07-2007, 04:38 PM
BTW, the alleged trend cited by John Watson to rule independence is NOT postmodernism. Watson argues that top players don't always follow the general rules in textbooks. But this doesn't deny that positions have objective characteristics, just that they are peculiar to the features of that position, not to general rules.

firegoat7
31-07-2007, 06:31 PM
Just about every art form known to humanity has a "postmodernist" faction, so if chess is partly an art, surely there should be "postmodern" chess.
Note:Very late developer, displays signs of being a little bit slow.




Disclaimer: the author of this post actively opposes "postmodernism" in most academic contexts.

Note: Possibly the most stupidest person on the planet.


cheers fg7

firegoat7
31-07-2007, 06:38 PM
IIRC Tartakover invented the term "hypermodern" in his Die Hypermoderne Schachpartie, which was having a go at Tarrasch's title Die Moderne Schachpartie. There wasn't the slightest connection to postmodernist crap. For some light amusement, you can generate your own totally original postmodern essay (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo) :P

Note: Correction here is the most stupidest person on the planet. Carry on as usual.

cheers Fg7

Capablanca-Fan
31-07-2007, 11:02 PM
Note: Correction here is the most stupidest person on the planet. Carry on as usual.
Another one who probably thinks those postmodern essays reach the heights of profundity.:P

Kevin Bonham
04-08-2007, 12:41 PM
Note: Possibly the most stupidest person on the planet.

But not stupid enough to fail to pick up on a redundant use of "most". :owned:

Capablanca-Fan
04-08-2007, 02:53 PM
But not stupid enough to fail to pick up on a redundant use of "most". :owned:
As in, "This was the most unkindest cut of all", Mark Antony about Brutus.*

*Shakespeare, W., The Tragedy of Julius Cæsar, III, ii, 1600.