Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism: A Prolegomenon to the Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics Book

If Chess Theory Were Science: A Fable

Chess forms such an important part of modern society that it can be hard to remember how recent an innovation it is; had Isaac Newton never written the Principia Schachistica, history might have taken a completely different turn. Be that as it may, chess is now the essential substrate of our civilization. One may rejoice over this fact, or one may deplore it. For some people, chess theory has become the unquestioned standard of intellectual excellence, and the word "chessic" is often used in what one might call an honorific sense. ("This has been proven with chessic certainty"). Other people have deep misgivings about chess, and there are a growing number of "chess sceptics".

Szusza Hack, in this excellent book, steers a well thought out course between the competing standpoints she calls the "Old Deferentialism" and the "New Cynicism". An Old Deferentialist views chess theory as a kind of logic, and thinks that the core task of the Philosophy of Chess is to explain in formal terms how this logic functions. Early philosophers of chess were puzzled by the "problem of induction"; on what grounds can one say that many successful occurrences of playing an opening demonstrate its soundness? More recently, following Popper's influential Logik der Schachforschung, the mainstream point of view has swung to the opposite extreme; openings, and chess ideas in general, can never be proved sound, but only refuted, and refutability is the hallmark of true chessic thought.

The New Cynics view chess in yet another way; they consider it as no more than another human activity, and prefer to analyse chess theory in terms of power relationships, particularly stressing the fact that successful chess players tend to be white European males. Hack accepts part of each of these accounts. Clearly logic plays an important part in chess, but it is misleading to imagine that chess is just logic; on the other hand, although chess is undeniably a social activity, considering chess theories as no more than socially constructed narratives also misses an essential point. 1 e4 is almost certainly a better opening move than 1 h4 neither because this can be proved logically or because it has been more popular with white male grandmasters, but because experience shows that controlling the center increases one's chance of winning.

In general, Hack argues that experience is the most important part of chess. There is no special "chess logic"; chess thinking, as Lasker pointed out a century ago, is just common sense applied to the chessboard. A move may appear theoretically impeccable, but if it is consistently found to lose then the responsible conclusion is that there must be something wrong with it. In the same way, sociologists of chess who argue that backward pawns are only considered "weak" because of androcentric prejudices need to explain why such pawns are often hard to defend when they occur in actual games. Hack is particularly scathing about chess rhetoreticians. As she says, it is entirely misguided to say that My Sixty Memorable Games was influential because of the author's stylistic flourishes; Fischer's collection was widely read because of the quality of the moves, not the language.

One aspect of the book which I particularly like is the consistent metaphor Hack uses, where she compares chess theory to the popular pastime of natural science. As every science enthusiast knows, there is no "logic of science"; one uses one's imagination to construct hypotheses, deduces consequences, and compares them with the known facts. There are no hard and fast rules, and it is just as foolish to cling to a hypothesis which evidently does not fit the data as it is abandon it at the first sign of possible trouble. The only advice a seasoned amateur scientist can give is to use one's judgement as wisely as one can in weighing the available evidence, and in this respect chess theory is just the same. Indeed, I found Hack's general point extremely convincing: all reality-based reasoning - chessic, scientific, historical or legal - in the end comes down to honestly and responsibly evaluating the evidence to the best of one's ability.

It is depressing right now to hear so many people saying that chess is a fraud and chess theory overrated. If you believe in chess - or any other evidence-based discipline for that matter - I can't recommend this book too highly.