Is chess a game of logic?

Are you stalking me now?  You can keep up your feeble assault as long as you like; your attempts at insulting me are quite laughable, and reflect badly on you and your mental health. 

Is chess is a logical game AND , and only AND, all humans are mortal, the Socrates should be playing 1...e6.

I took the word "solvable" to implys practice, not theory.

It's sufficient to say that it's a perfect information game as all such games are theoretically solvable.

Returning to the topic's original question...

All logic is based on certian assumptions. For instance, a right wing and a left wing politician each have perfectly valid logical reasonings as a basis of their ideology, however their sets of logic are based on different assumptions.

Now, if we base our logical reasoning here, on the assumption that the logic of chess includes positions, lines, variations, strategies, tactics etc. then chess is definitely a game that can be mastered with the right equation. There is a logical/mathematical problem on the board - now solve it!

If we, on the other hand, base our logical reasoning on the assumption that the logic of chess contain all of the above factors but also taking into account another factor: "Who's playing?" - then chess logic changes. Then you're not only playing the board (even if many say that "playing the board" is the soundest way of playing), you are, whether you like it or not, also playing an opponent.

The conclusion is that, if the goal is to win the game, then: Who or what is the game? If you beat a human opponent in OTB chess, you win the game. You don't have to beat the game or find the solution to it. Logically, you can therefore be the best player in the world if no other player can beat you. Is chess an equation or a parlour game? Can it be both?

Chess is definitely a game of logic. The question is what assumptions chess logic is based upon and who or what it is that is performing this logic; I guess it all boils down to how we define chess in the first place.

Referring to title; just wing it eh...it'll come to you.

There is still a significant amount of luck at slow OTB speeds, otherwise every game would be a perfect game and no mistakes would be made by either side. Even computers play imperfectly, and so luck comes into games played between them. The only difference is the superficiality of the luck.

This thread has fully degenerated into Symbolic Logic 101.

OK guys, it's time to graduate from freshman year. 

Hahaha...funny stuff. I've read some of your other comments here (all quite good).

Chess by itlsef doesnt mean anything, it's just a pattern of pieces. But when you play it, it becomes a clash of minds. May that be a computer or human. That's all there is.

In the same way, one could argue that the universe by itself doesn't mean anything, being just a pattern of pieces. 

There is nothing wrong with the London system.  In the past Bronstein and Petrosian played it.  Nowadays the list of GMs that use it regularly is a very long one.

Certainly a game of imperfect logic.

Yes.  It is also a game of creativity!

"You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one."

(Mikhail Tal)

logic leads to creativity. I have known this all of my life since age of 10 or so. logic and creativity go hand in hand. 

not the way i play it....

To me, chess is not just a game of logic, but of geometry and other sciences, too. Tactics are ruled by geometry (space), moves and countermoves (time) by logic, mathematics by the value of the pieces (force). And all this wrapped into a general and specific theory - pawn structure (space), initiative (time), and dynamism (force). Intuition comes into play when you are at a loss for logic and science. And yes, there is luck because there is another human involved.

logic for player like Nimzowitsch... magic for player like tal