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

:rofl: Yer such a smartass :rofl:

Actually I think that it wouldn’t be inaccurate to say that chess software can more or less simulate emotion. In my recently updated chess.con app, for example, they’ve added ‘personalities’ to the computer matches. Some of them are more aggressive than others or display varying combination (see list of aesthetic factors in my previous post) styles.

Actually I think that it wouldn’t be inaccurate to say that chess software can more or less simulate emotion. In my recently updated chess.con app, for example, they’ve added ‘personalities’ to the computer matches. Some of them are more aggressive than others or display varying combination (see list of aesthetic factors in my previous post) styles. — praxis

Those programmed in personalities might make for a more interesting game, but not a stronger one.

I'm stating the obvious here. If you name your calculator George and program it to have a happy go lucky personality and to ask you about your day, it's worth as a calculator will still only be measured by how well it adds and subtracts.

If you name your calculator George and program it to have a happy go lucky personality and to ask you about your day, it's worth as a calculator will still only be measured by how well it adds and subtracts. — Hanover

That's not entirely true, because we're not entirely rational beings. Studies show that the devices we use, such as calculators, are typically judged to function better if they're aesthetically appealing, even if they don't actually function better than less aesthetically appealing devices.

In chess, a particular programmed pattern or style of play may throw off a human player for some reason without it actually being a more powerful or deep thinking program.

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. — Tobias

This is a decent summary of the discussion. Plus, convincing oneself that suboptimal play is intentional, is rationalization. Every now and then it may be, the rest of the time it is a result of incapability to find a better move.

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? — TheMadFool

This I don’t like. There is no such goal, and not participating much in philosophical discussions, I did not know that rationality is “all-time philosophical blue-eyed boy”, otherwise I probably would not raise this question at all. Although, in that case I would also still not know who is Jane Elliott.
I can only wonder how you came to such conclusions, I am certainly not apologetic about using arms to bend or break rules, and install the law of jungle instead of civilization, I don’t think I could thrive in such circumstances. Probably this was caused by my mentioning of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry
I also don’t understand fixation on the title that was supposed to be witty, joke, funny. How many times one has to repeat it?
I think that rationality is a fundamental human virtue, especially when it allows you to calculate that the best life strategy is to always be true to yourself. The fact that it can be unnecessary or even excessive in certain aspects of life, does not undermine the fact that it is irreplaceable in others, such as science, math, technology, engineering, economy, ...

My chess program laughs at me and calls me a ninny when I lose. If I beat him three times in a row, it asks my wife to come over and hit me over the head with the board.

Little does the little kaka know that I preempted his queen's gambit by very cleverly having got a divorce seven years ago. Hahaha!

Inter arma enim silent leges. — TheMadFool

Between my arms, silent legs.

What does this have to do with chess?

Between my arms, silent legs.

What does this have to do with chess? — god must be atheist

:rofl: Good one!

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." — Ciceronianus the White

What could have been known to Chesterton, Steinitz was the worst example of, not excessive rationality, but excessive mental activity and stress caused by chess, leading to insanity. However, there are other factors that may have affected Steinitz, such as syphilis and financial problems. Until today, I didn’t know who was Chesterton, so, thank you for this post.

People can be just as rude. In fact I’ve disabled chat in the app that I use because people are too often that way online.

Until today, I didn’t know who was Chesterton, so, thank you for this post. — Hrvoje

He can be quite amusing and is insightful sometimes. A clever man rather than a thoughtful one, I think.

I think that rationality is a fundamental human virtue, especially when it allows you to calculate that the best life strategy is to always be true to yourself. — Hrvoje

Nobody objected to this, but if this is really true, that such conclusion can be a result of calculation, can anyone show the exact procedure? In mathematical examination, presenting a correct method is equally important as presenting a correct result. What I meant there is that a good calculation ability is a fundamental human virtue, despite of the fact that a calculated person is considered a negative attribute connotation.
And not be true to yourself may mean different things, intentional self deception, denial of truth, or unintentional bad self assessment. So, to calculate anything about it, one should first define precisely what is it exactly one is talking about.

Or, in modern language, a good computation ability of ones brain is a fundamental virtue.

In the same dialect, the question would be can anyone prove that claim about being true to yourself as a best life strategy? Because, proving a theorem and calculating something are both instances of the same activity, ie brain computation.