Chess is a game that requires the players to think ahead and carry-out strategic combinations of movements with the chess pieces to entrap the king. A chess piece is basically a form that gives it an outward identity, and also content regarding rules for its use. I have always appreciated a good chess player that is able to outmaneuver another player's forms by being attentive to the complexity of content presented on the board. However, I do not have much attention for chess because I find it uninteresting.

Something I do find interesting, on the other hand, is philosophical debate / method. There is an element of chess that I try to emulate in philosophical debate / method, and that is thinking ahead in anticipation of how my argument or idea will be countered by an opponent. This is a reflexive activity when thinking alone, and a good practice in debate, but it is sometimes difficult to do on the fly. Socrates himself enacted a strategy by feigning ignorance and then applying his method of questioning to pick apart his opponent's concept.

If Socrates is taken as an example his concept would be a king, feigning ignorance would be any move that leaves an opening or seems naive or clumsy, a question would be a piece, let's say a Knight, because its movement looks like a question mark. His opponent simply states a 'fact' which we will call a pawn. So, in a standard Socratic dialogue the player makes clumsy moves with his knight and the opposing player sacrifices his pawns. But what other pieces are taking the pawns? Fortunately, a chess set only has king, queen, bishop, knight, rook and pawn, so I only need to think of three more things to complete this essay. King is concept, knight is question, pawn is 'fact', bishop can be reason, queen can be irrationality, and rook can be denial. The philosophical chessboard is more varied than that, but these few pieces will help me elaborate my point.

Of course, the type of arguments the pieces represents are the forms, but the contents are what they can do and what they can't do. A concept has a basic defense of its own merits, but it can't defend itself well. Irrationality has the least limitations, but it is prone to be used too wildly, so is easily sacrificed. Reason is a direct challenge against any other piece, but it is limited by rules. Question has to be used with calculation to be used with good effect. Denial is a basic defense that can be used as a barrier or used offensively as a negation. Fact is a fundamentally weak and vulnerable but is used for basic defense and offence.

The reader might be wondering, if arguments or parts of arguments are chess-pieces how can they be used with strategy? Earlier the basic strategy of Socrates was employed. Personally, I am not good at chess or at arguing, but I do have a basic strategy that I employ naturally: irony. This is related to Socrates, but the basic strategy how it unfolds is thus:

I open up my concept early with clumsy movements of facts and irrationality. I do not ask any questions, leaving them in the back row. The opponent responds with reason and questioning, judiciously stating facts that are threatening but also defensive of its concept. I am forced to castle, denying a combo of rational-questioning directed at my concept. However, I am able to defend my irrationality with rationality, eliminating the facts directed against it. The opponent's concept is left defended only with denial. I exchange irrationality with the opponent, both sacrificing it. And somehow the game ends, and I ironically, still think I won.