Chess Secrets You Must Know

Secrets of The Checkered Square

The first lesson

You don't pick a paradox, it piques you. I don't believe you're familiar with that saying because I am the author, and it is my first time sharing it with you.

Yes, paradoxes. Here's a famous one:

If I said to you that I am a liar and I never tell the truth, would you believe me?

That's one heck of a paradox. I''ll tell you right now, if you were on a date and the decibels suddenly dropped to an unbearable level, you might want to light that candle.

Here's another one:

'Chaos is order yet undiscovered' - J.S.

It's an old one alright, long before Jose picked up a pen to write about it. Some people think that chaos and order are opposites, but that is incorrect. It is a paradox. Good luck trying to prove me wrong, don't lose any sleep over it.

The real truth is that there is no order, and there is no chaos. They are mathematical constructs to describe the measurable and the immeasurable. Even that is paradoxical in itself because to deem something immeasurable is to put a measure on it, and yet you're measuring something that cannot be gauged. I know - it's maddening.

But what does this all have to do with chess? And even more to the point, just what exactly are paradoxes - why do they exist?

It is my firm belief that paradoxes are an error in the abstract construct of the human psyche. As people we love to put a label on things and attempt to make order of everything, but order does not always exist.

And what makes paradoxes even more intriguing is that they have a sense of infinity to them, much like blackholes and the grip they've had on us since the dawn of time.

Chess is also a paradox. Or more precisely, it is built upon a paradox. That is the reason why we are so enthralled by the great game. We find ourselves stuck in a state of trying to find order out of chaos when we play, we start applying logic to it, mathematics, and down the rabbit hole we go, even if only subconsciously.

WSama

what exact definiton of paradox are you using

Paradox: a statement or proposition which, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems logically unacceptable or self-contradictory.

but the first supposed paradox you present is neither a statement nor a proposition, it is a question which leads to no conclusions. and the second one is a proposition but leads only to the conclusion that chaos is misunderstood order, which is not logically unacceptable as a theory nor self-contradictory, and anyways it is an opinion which can be argued upon.

you do not disprove the premise that order and chaos are opposites, you merely disregard this opinion with the words, "that is incorrect" and i was wondering on what basis you made that statement. were you just blindly putting your faith in the genius of the anonymous J.S. or was there a more thought out rationale? next you say "the real truth is that... [t]hey are mathematical constructs to describe the measurable and the immeasurable," but i fail to see how either one describes something immeasurable. are you saying either order or chaos is immeasurable? why cant they be measured through use of subjective terms as a lot or a little without reverting to call either immeasurable?

then you presented as a paradox the claim that calling something immeasurable is a paradox because you put a measure on it, but cant you call something immeasurable without measuring it, just through understanding that it cant be measured? for example, although i have not counted the fractions of numbers between zero and one, i can still say they are infinite through logic. thus this is not a paradox at all according to your definition, compounded by the fact that terms such as immeasurable are simply words and thus theoretical, therefore you can not create a real paradox to which i cant respond that you are misusing or misdefining the terms in question. 

please do your best to answer these questions, i would enjoy to hear what you have to say

Sure thing, chessmix63.

The first paradox is an old and popular one. It's called the liar paradox. I simply rephrased it to no detriment.

As for the quote from Jose's novel, The Double, or better yet for some the movie based on it, Enemy, I am the one declaring it a paradox - I do not claim it to be the author's intent.

It is also my opinion that chaos and order are not quite opposites but are in fact paradoxical. Of course all of this is my own hypotheses backed by no immediate research results, but I see no reason to ruin my paragraphs with uncertainty or ambivalence when a little sense and willingness can iron out some obvious creases.

Order a term referring to measurement, or observation, of rules and the patterns that stem from those rules. Chaos is a term often referencing the lack of order, the lack of rules and the consequential patterns. Because of this they are lumped together as opposites, counterparts, but I argue that they are not quite so if one considers my little paradoxical situation expressed in my first post. 

Mathematically speaking, Jose's quote is solid. That is the nature of maths; in this universe everything has a logic to it, therefore order. Chaos is then not quite an opposite of order but rather an element of it.

I then argue that order is itself a non-existent. Nothing but a mathematical construct or concept used to describe the observation of rules which are themselves nothing but reoccurring phenomena.

pardon, but order certainly exists. otherwise things like the internet would not work, or a winner in chess could not be determined. chaos likely doesn't exist, we just don't understand the forces causing the chaos. chaos is a name for a practical environment someone put on event(s) they don't understand.

thank you i appreciate your attempt to clarify this for me, but this has raised further objections.

you have not explained how the first paradox you quoted was actually a paradox according to the definition in post 3.

though i understand your desire for straightforward and assertive statements, i think its only fair that you explain why you dont think chaos and order are opposites. also you failed to explain what the paradox of order and chaos was unless it was with reference to this that you said "[T]here is no order, and there is no chaos. They are mathematical constructs to describe the measurable and the immeasurable. Even that is paradoxical in itself because to deem something immeasurable is to put a measure on it, and yet you're measuring something that cannot be gauged." if that is so, you still have not answered the second question i posed in note 4 paragraph 2. if it is not so, then both of these things require exposition.

again i appreciate your efforts as to enlighten me to your reasoning. please respond at your earliest convenience

how are you defining order in this context? and how are you defining  chaos?

I agree with you Kingsgam. I'm simply digging into theory that most probably has no practical use. Just a fun argument, but a solid nonetheless.

order would be 2+2=4 or Rules of chess followed, winner determined. an example of chaos might be a swamp about to release noxious deadly gas. tribes people are around the swamp, ignorant to the danger. the swamp releases the deadly gas, chaos ensues as people start to die, others rush closer. whole scene is a chaotic mess. tribes people later blame it on the gods, just ignorant. order and chaos

so order is logic/nature and chaos is anything else?

That's exactly it, chessmix63. Both order and chaos cannot be measured in the context I described earlier where rules are but reoccurring phenomenon. We can only observe, because of the degree of uncertainty that exists in that context.

The very concept of order and chaos then becomes entangled or intertwined in a mess of contradiction, hence your paradox,

before i respond i must also clarify what you mean by measuring order and chaos?

There is no order or chaos. The ideas themselves obliterate each other. We are simply observing reoccurring phenomenon.

Now we can count the number of times certain phenomena occurs, and we can call that order for the sake of labelling things, because what would we two legged humans do without our labels... we need them.

one paradoxical statement being "..chess is only a game.."

I have to disagree, Chill-Bhronai. Not only is it not as titillating as the liar paradox, or simpler ones such as 'deafening silence', but it is simply a false statement.

But one thing's true, chess is more than just a pastime. People have dedicated their lives to it. Chess is a social gem just the way diamonds are. If we leave aside industrial uses of diamonds such as cutting, diamonds don't really have much value to most people except for enthusiasts and stone collectors. For most people It's a social barter, a way to buy status. Chess is also just like that, more so in the past than it is now.