Is it possible to be overly rational in chess? — Hrvoje

What kind of answer are you looking for? A rational one as far as I can tell but that is a point against what seems to be your thesis - that we're overly rational [on occasion I suppose]. I sense a contradiction in your approach - you don't trust rationality but you wish for rationality to prove that rationality can't be trusted. Nice paradox!

Is it possible to be overly rational in chess? — Hrvoje

Chess software doesn't program in emotion, so I think the way to win is entirely through rationality.

For me as a chess player that is an interesting question. Actually, I agree with Hanover. The Dutch grandmaster Hein Donner has compared chess to other games. According to him chess adheres to the 'ontological conception of truth'. (A position he considered 'German' actually.) There is an objectively best move in every position. We just cannot find it and even a computer cannot yet, even though it gets much closer to perfection than humans. In chess all parties have in principle full information. The world of chess is totally knowable, there is no hidden element, at least not on the board.

There is of course a human element in chess and it is possible to play on psychological anxieties of the opposition. I believe it was Tartkower who said that the best move in chess is the one that causes most problems for your opponent. Mikhail Tal is notorious for playing combinative attacking chess that is upon close analysis often incorrect, but befuddled his opponents. Still also Tal will have to accept that with correct play on both sides one move is better than another.

He compared chess to bridge. He considered bridge to be an example pf a game adhering to the 'English' (Humean) conception that truth is a matter of consensus between people. In bridge, together making sense of the situation in which both partners are in, is key to victory. Most of the 'board' is actually hidden and the point is to assess the probabilties given and communicating them correctly to your partner.

Whether everything he says is correct is debatable, but I think his main insight holds: life is not like chess, but bridge comes a lot closer...

Nice post. I'm also a chess player (around 2000/2100 on chess.com) and I agree with you in some respects and disagree in others. I agree that life is not really like chess; chess to me is basically war, especially under short time controls. The more calculated, careful player does not always win. Chess really ought to be played under some sort of time control, it's just a matter of what time control we're talking about. One absolutely must manage their thinking and calculation time efficiently/treat it as a resources, and resources are not endless and require proper management.

I am not too sure that there is an objectively best move in every situation. I remember Hikaru Nakamura commented on his stream one time that there's typically 3-4 'good' moves in a normal, non-sharp position and my own thinking more lends itself to pragmatism so until that "objectively" best move is demonstrated I'll probably remain a little skeptical. I would also ask what makes a certain move in a non-sharp normal middle game superior to another when considering 2-3 candidate good moves. I think perfect chess on both sides would just always result in a draw. We're really just talking about the ability to navigate a game tree and hoping your opponent screws up, but if your opponent is perfect then he'll navigate the game tree perfectly and so will you... so draw.

Anyway your points about Tal and Tarkatower were spot on - how chess has evolved!

I am not looking for any particular kind of answer, and the question is equally about life and chess, so feel free to contribute whatever you find you are more familiar with. True, chess engines are superior to human players, and in their context emotion is not defined, and they are the result of human ratio, more than human emotions, so, looking at it that way, ratio should prevail in chess. However, as others pointed out, when humans play chess, it is not the only factor.
This can be also about the Kasparov’s book. Namely, here at wikipedia are mentioned only two reviews, none of them is very favourable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Life_Imitates_Chess
Unlike this one: https://blas.com/how-life-imitates-chess/

And as Tobias said, besides zero sum character, chess is also a game of perfect information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information , that feature distinguishes chess from bridge, which is regardless of that fact still a game in which player’s skill is a critical factor (ie not luck). Life is also not the game of perfect information, but it is not a game in which pure luck is not a factor, but what is most important, is it a game in which we are supposed to be fiercely focused on our goals all the time in order to succeed?

You can most certainly be too rational in chess. And in poker, for that matter.

One instance of that might be Karpov’s reluctance to give up a pawn if not entirely sure it leads to a win?

No, one plays less than rationally all the time, in chess and in poker. Why? Because if you can tell, from experience, intuition, instinct, etc., that the other player is bad and in what ways he's bad, you can very easily take advantage of it by making moves that are sub-optimal, even bad. That's not playing like a computer would play, which is completely based on logic but has no clue about their opponents.

I would never use the scholar's mate against a good player, for instance. Against a child, yes. A computer, however, would not. To play a child the way a computer would is to be way too rational/logical/theoretical about the game.

I am amazed that a grand master can stroll around in a hall and play simultaneous games against say 50 opponents. She seldom pauses to think and hardly ever stops to calculate.
What is the kind of thought process that can give away a 1:50 advantage in response time to reasonably decent players?

Reasonably decent is a relative term, which can sometimes obstruct strolling around:
https://youtu.be/uoJFnuJv60c
https://youtu.be/1lXeygPM5CY

It doesn’t mean that their thought process is not impressive when they manage to defeat 50 average players hardly ever pausing to think, but not every simultaneous exhibition is of that format. In one of them organizers even expected from GM to guess who is the strongest opposition, and allocate more time to these players, or to be cool with losing against them. None of that happened.
Even more impressive to me are blind simultaneous games, and in one of them Magnus received moves out of order (along with the table number), whenever the opponent had one, which must be yet another level harder, than playing in normal sequence, I guess. I never learned how to play blind, whenever I tried, I would soon be lost after a few moves, and I can’t imagine how they manage to do any of that. Although each chess player has to have certain visualization capabilities in order to be able to analyze a few moves ahead, without actually moving pieces on the board, that is immensely harder when you cannot look at the board.

For another thing, chess pieces are named after things that we encounter in life: King, Queen, Bishops, Rooks, Knights and pawns are treated as foot soldiers. The nomenclature suggests some parallel between life and chess - it's a simulation of an actual battle on a board. So, chess imitates life and not the other way round. If life imitates chess, there should be a similarity between the two that has origins in chess and we don't see that (to be fair, I don't).

I think that pun was intended, at least that was my impression when I read that book.

There is another distinction between life and bridge, and that is information symmetry, which is present in bridge, giving equal opportunity to players to show their skill and determination. Visible and hidden part of information is equally distributed between players. I guess in poker one could say the same, if one player better reads the poker tells than the other, such information asymmetry is considered part of the player’s skill, right? I am guessing now, I don’t have a slightest clue about that game.

And information asymmetry present in life, is not the source of pure luck, which is an important factor in games such as lottery and life. It is the source of unfair advantage, unequal opportunity, or maybe not?

And where do you think Jesus stands on the issue? In this time of year it is proper to ask our selves about it. He wasn’t concerned with game theory, but he said that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God", he spoke about “The Birds of Heaven” and “The Flowers of the Field” (or “The Lilies of the Field”), this alegory reveals his social teaching and philosophy: one should not worry too much about its prospects, for God will provide what is most important. That is not as rational as: “Help your self, and God will help you”, but is there a real conflict between these two views? Maybe there are two areas in life, one in which we are supposed to rely on God’s providence, and the other in which we are supposed to make a rational effort, to work, to struggle and fight?

For another thing, chess pieces are named after things that we encounter in life: King, Queen, Bishops, Rooks, Knights and pawns are treated as foot soldiers. The nomenclature suggests some parallel between life and chess - it's a simulation of an actual battle on a board. So, chess imitates life and not the other way round. If life imitates chess, there should be a similarity between the two that has origins in chess and we don't see that (to be fair, I don't). — TheMadFool

Chess imitates a battle, not life. Life does not imitate chess, it does not imitate anything...Battles of course are a part of life, so there are situations in which chess comparisons are helpful. Bridge of course also does not imitate life, but it imitates some kind of negotiation game or decision making under consitions of uncertainty. Therefore there are some situations in life which can be compared to bridge. Other than that I do not see much point in such analogies.

Other than that — Tobias

The OP doesn't seem to extend the analogy to anything "other than that". In fact, all analogies are limited to similarities and that's that!

The OP is quite clear on where he wants to take this discussion. The goal is to put rationality itself on trial and the expected/desired verdict is there are times when we're "overly" rational and, as far as I can tell, that's being painted as a downside to the all-time philosophical blue-eyed boy, rationality.

Apart from this being a paradoxical affirmation and negation of critical thinking - it seeks or asks for a good reason why reason is bad - it also relies on an analogy that exposes the OP's got it backwards. Chess imitates life not the other way round.

Too, Inter arma enim silent leges. The only law that people seem to possess a natural instinct to "obey" is the "law" of the jungle. Chess has unbreakable, inflexible rules - do anything whacky with your pieces and you're out of the game, literally and figuratively. In life, rules are changed, bent and broken to suit the needs of the day - this happens most often and as anticipated when the stakes are high and when are stakes not high, right?

The OP asks whether one can be overly rational in chess, just as one can be overly rational in many aspects in life, according to the op. the answer in chess is, no, one cannot be overly rational, due to the characteristic features of chess. It is always, I repeat always handy to know the best move in the position. One might resort to playing an objectively less strong move though, because one knows it will put your opponent of guard. Than that is still a rational consideration to opt for second best. However that does not imply one can calculate too much or one would be actually a better player when not calculating and just trusting instinct.

In a social setting that might be different. The one not calculating a lot and acting spontaneous might actually have an advantage in building bridges to other people. Calculation in a social setting might be seen as cold while in chess with its win or lose parameters it is always virtuous. So sure, chess and life can be usefully compared but there are fundamental differences, this being one of them.

Well, I play chess too, but am cautious when it comes to comparing what is, I think, a beautiful game with life. Bobby Fischer said "Chess is life" and I suppose it was for him, at least until he transported himself into a world full of evil Jews and other enemies trying to cheat him out of Fischer Random Chess and fame and fortune. His life is a cautionary tale for those enamored with the game.

G.K Chesterton, that glib, facile thinker, said something about insanity resulting from rationality, and I think may have pointed to chess and chess players as evidence of this claim. But I think to be rational is to be reasonable, and don't think one can be "overly reasonable." At the higher levels, though, I think chess play has become less and less a matter of intuition and ingenuity. I don't think there's much room left for inspired play among grandmasters; too much is book. But I may be wrong.

I recall reading somewhere that aesthetics used to the fashion in chess at some point in history, don't recall what era.

Chess for humans isn't really about rationality, it's about your ability to envision future positions and calculate. If chess were just about rationality Einstein or Kant or who ever would be the world's greatest chess players. You must be able to visualize future positions and assess all possible counter play. It's about sight and pattern recognition, not rationality.

It's about sight and pattern recognition, not rationality. — BitconnectCarlos

Indeed, some can play dozens of blind chess games simultaneously.

I recall reading somewhere that aesthetics used to the fashion in chess at some point in history, don't recall what era. — praxis

That makes sense to me. I think it still does, at least for me. For example, there are some openings/defenses which I think look better than others, a judgment which has little or nothing to do with their merits. Not to say that aesthetics is purely a matter "looking good." But I have to admit that some defenses, for example, simply "look" or "feel" good to me. e.g. the Dutch Defense, though it weakens the king side.

You must be able to visualize future positions and assess all possible counter play. It's about sight and pattern recognition, not rationality. — BitconnectCarlos

I think that's true. But the assessment of responses is, I think, a process of judging what is reasonable given the position and rules of the game.

I have to admit that some defenses, for example, simply "look" or "feel" good to me. e.g. the Dutch Defense, though it weakens the king side. — Ciceronianus the White

In the wiki article on chess aesthetics that I just looked up I guess the specific aesthetic factor in the Dutch Defense would be paradox, the range of things that violate 'good practice' in chess, for example, the deliberate exposure of one's king.

All the factors:

• Expediency refers to a move's effectiveness in achieving something tangible, like checkmate or a decisive material gain.
• Disguise occurs when a move played (usually the key move) does not expose the solution immediately.
• Sacrifice refers to the exchange of a more powerful piece for a weaker one, but can also mean the exchange of other less tangible advantages, like mobility.
• Correctness simply means the solution should work against any defense. (A plus but not always possible in real games.)
• Preparation means that the aesthetic perceived—say, in a particular tactical combination—was achieved in great part due to the strategic play preceding it.[8]
• Paradox refers to the range of things that violate 'good practice' in chess, for example, the deliberate exposure of one's king.
• Unity refers to the cooperation between pieces toward the attainment of a specific goal (e.g. checkmate, winning material, controlling more space).
• Originality means something the observer has not seen before, and must therefore rely heavily on personal experience.

I remember this scene from an animated movie (or tv show) made for adults.

Two robots (resembling humans in appearance) sit down to play chess. They both look at the board in its initial set-up for a long time. Then the taller one, playing white declares without moving a piece: "Mate in 243 moves." The other one exclaims: "Aw! You always win!"

:rofl:

:up: