Chess is a fight between animals for survival

I have begun to strongly believe that every chess player actually has a style of play that can be assimilated to the way animals fight for survival. Here I am talking about strong players who have understood at least the principles of chess and know what is meant by opening, middlegame or endgame. This was highlighted to me from one game by Kasparov which I share the link below where he completely smothered his opponent like the python does with his preys. Tal on the other side or Topalov are more tactical and sacrifice enclined players which I assimilate to the venimous snakes or the eagle (unexpected, unpredictable and deadly).

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1069558

Interesting analogy.  My chess objective is to recapitulate the parasitoidal arthropod, infect my opponent's position, preferably with a knight or a queen, and gradually eat him from the inside; Darwin's objections notwithstanding...

my cat and dog played chess the other day but it all went pear shaped after the cat sent a king flying with its paw only for the dog to go and chase it dog lost on time trying to retrieve piece and return to board

Chess is like two koala bears wrestling.

yes... chess is a fight where kazoo_checkmater runs away and let's u wait for 6 minutes... such a philosopher of life and game...

No it isn't.  The worst at stake is a few rating points and maybe some prize money. 

Sacrifices and attacks are within the context of improving one's position.  You attack the king to force certain concessions from the opponent, divert them from the center or queenside while you work over there.  The actual mates only happen because the opponent was careless enough to let it happen, or in the most dangerous cases a seemingly nonsensical exchange sac many moves down the line forces a mate.  Chess is more comparable to math or even morality.

In math there are certain laws, and in morality you have basic tenets such as don't murder, steal, destroy others' property, etc.  If someone intends to drive a car bomb into a building then slashing the tires and deactivating the bomb (i.e., destruction of someone else's property) is morally just despite the usual rules.  Morality is defined as whatever causes harm or loss is bad, that which adds is good.  Since gay marriage for example doesn't cause any real harm it isn't immoral, even from a theological standpoint:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuly-yanklowitz/orthodox-rabbi-gay-marriage_b_4452154.html

Note the word Orthodox, it's the strictest denomination, and the Hasidics are a subset of Orthodox.  That's for a different thread and perhaps even website however, but the point remains that Chess and morality, or Chess and math have a lot in common. 

If you are mathematically incorrect then a space telescope would be rendered useless or misleading data given, likewise in Chess we can think we're clearly better when we're really equal or even worse, overestimate our chances, play as if we have an advantage, and go down in flames.  It is a learning process. 

Bullet chess is like two samurai fighting in a phone booth.