Dialectical Thinking and Chess

Perhaps this is a stupid question but I have chess for about 18 years, ever since I was 5 years old. My grandfather taught me and I cherish the game almost more than anything. Lately I have been reading a lot of Hegel, Horkeimer & Adorno, Kant and such. It has made me wonder, is there any way that dialectics can be applied to chess? I already play in a fairly non traditional style. I sacrifice many of my pieces, occasionally even the queen for the tactical advantage but I am curious what advice Yea Forums can lend. Thank you everyone.

Attached: tal-cover.jpg (600x419, 36K)

have played*

I love you lit

Are you any good?

I don't know if I really understand dialectics. Just don't get lost in the infinities of pajeet logic playing them on chess.com.

>I sacrifice many of my pieces
Thats not how chess works faget

I am decent. Highest rating was about 1900 on lichess

Mikhail Tal. If you don't know this name or his style then you don't have a right to talk.

Impressive

Thank you. I honestly owe it to my grandfather.

Well if I consider dialectical thinking to be more along the lines of forming a conversation propelled by contradictions then a chess game bound to cohesion is inherently dialectic just by its very nature to communicate subtle flaws in a person's thinking continually until it only shows at the end who was right. If I'm understanding dialectical in the way your examples are saying, there was that one game with Fischer who just circled his king around 5 times and forfeited the opening game only as an expression for his ill-contempt to the idea of winning. Strangely enough, he was one of the one's who professed he didn't believe in mental states; (only positive moods). The thing about chess, as you can well imagine, is it's all enactments of just ways we'd respond in real life scenarios, and the more meta-game the warfare the more psychological those dimensions turn into. Even low level chess players can exhibit high degrees of creativity that sometimes can only exist at low levels because they run antithetical to the idea of conquering and focus in only on very subtle variations of doing things for the sake of expression. When you take the metrics of 'winning' to be paces up, pieces captured, you don't see as much personal expression. Chess will kill you.

positive moves*

I am a fool though. I shut up.

Thank you for this beautiful post, even if it is not what I wanted to hear.

oh, what were u thinking?

>to communicate subtle flaws in a person's thinking continually until it only shows at the end who was right
This reminds me of Todd Hodnett:
>the bullet never lies
He does not care for your fancy math or incantations. If he can develop a firing solution that puts the bullet at his point of aim then his firing solution was correct - regardless of any semantics anyone wants to argue.

Sounds like a form of intimidation to what's being countered by that logic of measuring something out and performing it. It can be real tough playing a stranger in person who's been playing their whole lives who might only be 1250 online, but just owns you on the big wooden board, where all the blunders he wants to see come to life, and it looks so complicated suddenly.

>I sacrifice many of my pieces, occasionally even the queen for the tactical advantage

So, your the basic 'wanna be mikhail tal'?
Been playing chess for many years aswell and I've come across so many faggots like you "look at me sacrifice x)"
nobody cares retard. This statement has been repeated a million and one fucking times but i'll echo it again.
>Chess has nothing to do with your intelligence, what-so-ever. You cant be retarded and play chess well, but if your not retarded and you play well,(your just not retarded).

Sure Morphy,Stientz,Tal,Kasparov,Fischer,Carlsen,Topoc,Anand,Alekhine and etc etc were all geniuses, sure. They were brilliant at chess.

Fischer himself felt insulted when people referred him to a chess genius, because he believed he was not just a chess genius but a genius of all things. And no, I dont doubt these master mind could have been geniuses in various humanities studies, its just they weren't they got overly obsessed of 64 squares and were all nearly driven mad because of it. Chess is chess, nothing more.

As for you, I already know from your post you are terrible, absolute trash. Romantic style chess has been dead for years professionals now a days never resort to such dogmatic and childish moves, everyone plays deep seated positional chess, computer chess. Everyone has to play as a grinder beautifully maneuvering pieces ina static position in anticipation for a half a pawn advantage late game. If your still playing retard chess as you are, you are very behind, and also if you don't have any official FIDE or USCF rating then your shit. Online chess is inflated as fuck and if your not playing on a premium service then your shit. Free websites are absolute garbage and the fact that you play blitz and not standard means you dont think at all when you play. Every professional believes blitz is a absolute rot to your brain in comparison to standard time controls. Get the fuck off this board patzer shit player.

t. plateaued at 2200 FIDE

Attached: 05C83019-01F3-4318-8071-B8DA4D02883A.jpg (550x371, 21K)

I lost to someone several times in a row after not playing him for several years. After maybe five losses, I poured along the left side to turn his flank - disregarding any losses that I took, because I knew that I would not beat him on raw skill. It nearly completely destroyed his strategy. He barely beat me... and he then refused to play me again after I was able to fluster him.

>plateaued at 2200 FIDE

So in other words you're trash at chess. Thanks for letting us know.

You really need to learn the difference between your and you're so you don't show everyone that you're an illiterate

Mountain is the best land.

>playing solved game
LMAO

no, the better one gets, the less one can talk about it. dialectic is supposed to be consciousness gaining more and more territory with super rational result at the end.
all strong players have good instinct and try to get into the "zone" of unconscious flow. the calculations are just a subsidiary evalutations of plans they came up subconsciously, and would have played anyway if they had less time.

the playing style of the newest generation of engines (alphazero, lc0) is resembling romantic style again. positional chess with draw as optimal outcome was a false plateau. the new engines regularly break basic principles of all common theoretical approaches.

josif dorfman has something like a new philosophy where instead of opening, middle and endgame he instead defines phases of stability and instability and recommends deep analysis during transition phases. but strong players already have a feel for this without any theoretical concepts.

Attached: Actaeon.jpg (665x499, 72K)

so you're saying chess is dead. it's just humans trying their best to play like machines. absolute garbage. someone start the butlerian jihad already.

2722 answered correctly. But don't take chess dialectic too seriously. It's just a game. The real conversation that matters is the one between you and God, expressed by how you live your life.