Winning doesn't have to mean that somebody else loses. Secondly, chess teaches consequences. The universe created within a chess game can be a very unforgiving one. There are no instant replays, no extra credit after school, no disaster relief loans. It is a sharped edged reality, lacking the dulling aspects of Deus ex machina luck, and un-warped by insider connections. Things don't go wrong and break your heart so you can become bitter and give up. They happen to break you down and build you up so you can be all that you were intended to be. Again this runs counter to the no-fault society at large. Gray skies are just clouds passing over. Perhaps this is what attracts those troubled youth to chess. Having been surrounded all their lives by the ever forgiving psychobabble of well meaning social bureaucrats, it must be refreshing to get into something that says clearly: do it right or you lose! Chess players learn the importance of detail, as well as the dangers of oversight, assumption, and good old fashioned ignorance. Would you rather have your brakes worked on by a player of 1) the lottery, or 2) chess? Maybe its your lucky day! Again, the main misunderstanding comes from the confusion over what entities really are. Polarities are one of the key tools available for the playing of games. There are other aspects to life than intellectual, including emotional and physical well being, and, regardless of your beliefs, the human spirit. As rich and varied as real life is, a game cannot solve all problems.

OG

We can argue that the physical universe is rather illusory too, but it is a lot more real than most copies made of it. So, instead of dealing with what is actually there we deal with a copy of what is there. If the physical universe is the territory, then the facsimiles are the chess boards maps. Maps can be very useful for navigating by and for simplifying things. But, when you start mistaking the map for the territory, and when you look only at the map when you could be exploring the territory, then we are getting into the field of aberration. In conclusion, consciousness – and in particular self-awareness – is fundamental to the chess universe overall.

Best Wishes,

Astv

Again, some excellent strategic thinking going on here. Unfortunately, falling right into the blind spot trap. ;-)

“My delusions on a chess board appeared to me of the same quality as my mathematical knowledge, and so I took them seriously.” The 'quality' and various attributes of the 'irrational' thought produced by the mechanisms of mind that operate in the processes of 'individuation/regeneration' once they become visible/audible, can be understood in that process of 'life re-view'. A facsimile is usually a frozen snapshot taken at some specific point in time in the case of Chess sequence thoughts and filters variations of that tree order. It is then preserved and carried forward through time. It becomes part of the person's mind. The facsimile becomes a filter that the person is perceiving life through. Instead of dealing with the environment exactly as it is, it is filtered through facsimiles that will identify what it means and what an appropriate response would be. The human body may be such a device already. We are only beginning to understand what makes our neural networks work. They may in fact be closely tied to the underlying quantum vacuum. We shall see… The underlying thought is that the world is too overwhelming to perceive directly; it is easier to remember the closest similar facsimile and respond according to the contents of that. But, responding to something else than what is there is never going to be as good as being in present time, perceiving and dealing with the actual real events; at that present time chess physical representation. Various degrees of aberration can be observed, but copying is never as effective as the real thing. When it gets to the point of getting a headache when one sees a red car, or an imaginary check or/and things like that, we are obviously talking rather unsane behavior.

Not quite a complete presentation, but I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Best Wishes,

OG

Chess is simply a useful tool in an important aspect of life, like a pickup truck to a farmer. If you assume that an entity is always another whole being who is stuck in your space, then you are likely to guide them on to the cognition that they are somebody else, so that they will leave your space…,What doesn't kill us makes us stronger. So it is in chess, you will soon find that to become a great business professional one must gain this big picture perspective. The knowledge you gain from various sources every day will complement your functional strengths and allow you to compete in almost any arena. . The trouble is when it isn't really other beings you are auditing directly, but rather ridges that are either shared with other beings, or are facsimiles of collisions with other beings who no longer are here. If you take your energy and your attention units that you have invested in those ridges and you assign all of that to somebody else, you are misowning your own cause. The ultimate “Me” answer is the highest cause level you have, which is what we call the 8th dynamic. The level of usefulness that others see in chess will depend upon two things. First, it will depend upon the level of usefulness that they see in chess players. Second, it will depend upon their perception of the game itself, its depth, complexity and disciplines. That is, the authorship of anything that might concern you will ultimately come back to you, yourself, as an 8D source. Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. True friendship is a plant of slow growth, and must undergo and withstand the shocks of ADVERSITY before it is entitled to the appellation. Final responsibility for both of these perceptions rests with chess players, so if chess suffers a bad reputation we really have no one to blame but ourselves. Although I refer to some Chess Geometrical Formations maybe for being adaptive, the numbers mutate in t own frequency dials thru the ““WIDE WEB.”” I'm conscious that their adaptiveness; is not as complex and “fine-tuned” as the one displayed by living organisms (nor could it be, since the chess “world” is a board with 64 squares and up to 32 pieces inhabiting it, contrasting with the billions of molecules of a living organism?). Forget the times of your distress, but never forget what they taught you. In the course of this kind of exploration one will confront and overcome one's own limited and fixed realities.

Ast-V

Chess is one such activity that forces us to engage in an “internal dialogue” with the self or the mind. It has become a way of materializing our subconscious mind into the physical realm. “One must have the adventurous daring to accept oneself as a bundle of possibilities and undertake the most interesting game in the world making the most of one's best.” Every time we play chess, we are able to “see” and “examine” our minds. The ghosts of past words breathe life into each individual's present words.“Losers visualize the penalties of failure. Winners visualize the rewards of success.” If you become flexible in handling any aspect of it you will no longer be trapped by it.Usually one has to start by freeing up one's mental and emotional flexibility. If one has fixed ideas about what one should or shouldn't do, or if one has emotional blockages or compulsions, it is difficult to explore behavioral flexibility freely. chess is “a lot like football because you have to set up your offense and your defense, every once in a while you need to give up a piece of your team in order to make the big play. It’s a game of patience, and that pretty much defines how I run the ball. I’m patient, always looking for the opportunity and always trying to capitalize on the other person’s mistake.” “A vision keeps the Wealthy Soul focused on the path and not on the boulders.” The other important part is knowledge and experience. The relative positions of the chess pieces must be meaningful. This tends to be true for stronger players of course, but even they have difficulty remembering a position if the pieces are arranged haphazardly. First off, forget about “seeing” the board. If later on you want to try and visualize the board in your head, that's your choice and you can see if you are able to do it. What is the real issue here is “knowing” the board, not “seeing”. “Vision without action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision with action can change the world.” “The more specific your vision is, the better your chances of making it a reality.

I hope that some of you may find my analysis helpful.

Best of luck training.

OG

Most realities would be based on the agreement that things are different but similar. It is also interesting to speculate on what happens when we continue the scale in either direction that include the 64 squares or any giant chess board or/and the abstract gravions of the Universe. In a picture we can keep the elements of the picture separate, but they are still in the same picture. We can have several pictures, but still in the same field of vision. What if we increase separation towards infinity, so that there is no longer any relation between the elements whatsoever? The most likely result of moving something towards infinity on the separation scale is that it will disappear. More correctly, it will disappear from the realm of actual realities back into the realm of possibilities of multidimesional colors, maybe electromagnetic signal sounds chess variations!!.

King - Ace - Spirit

Queen - Queen - Water

Knight - King - Fire

Bishop - Knight - Air

Rook or Castle - Knave - Earth.

Pawns, the potencies of the Ace combined with each of the other forces, the servant or viceroy of that force. Perhaps more importantly, or this identification of the abstract with the realm of non-sensible non-mental things entails that unobservable physical objects such as quarks and electrons should be classified as abstract entities. But this is at odds with standard usage, and almost certainly with my intention. If you look at a ballpen as a picture, it appears to be one contiguous object. However, if we increase the magnification and see what it is really made of the picture changes. It is made out of trillions of little atoms and with that magnification it doesn't even have definite borders, and the atoms are changing all the time. And in the atomic and subatomic world things don't even have a finite location, it is all a matter of probabilities. So, the more we separate things out, the less we would worry about the artificial groupings that we call “objects” and “thoughts” and so forth. How about if we go the other way on the scale, towards less separation, more togetherness. Also there would we lose track of the associations that we are used to in life. Everything would become the same and no distinction of location or time would be possible. Both directions move us out of the ordinary reality by sabotaging the lies that keep a reality together. Most realities would be based on the agreement that things are different but similar. This association, somewhere between total differentiation and total identification, is what makes it possible to play a game of life. The truth is probably that things are both totally separate and totally the same at the same time in Go..Black or white; or Resign you chess game!! That is a paradox one would have to figure out to solve the mystery of universes. (“Sameness” of memory items is determined with respect to the above-mentioned abstraction system of the observer.) There are some twists on this though, and again language gets in the way. It is so to say not as simple as just “simple” or “complex”. The “simplicity” of an advanced state of awareness really encompasses a lot of “complexity”.

After sitting at my computer for the last couple of hours, I know remember why it took me so long to put this answer together. :-)

Waiyu

Respectfully and Sincerely,

I'm dying out of curiosity…

Why did it take you so long? :)

When you play chess (and this is true regardless of the level of your opponent) FORGET about your opponent! Better still, play each game as if it were against Daddy GM_Joe fART! Play the board. Build your faith in strong moves-not weak opponents! Have expectations that only concern your own ability. Clear could be said to be the turning point where one now has more than 50% power of choice as to one's personal 1D semantic reactions, one is more in present time than anywhere else. Because some people tend to extrapolate it into meaning that you would be better off without anything whatsoever, so that whatever you bump into in your mind is something to get rid of. I wouldn't find that to be very wise. What is to happen in the future determines what happened in the past.“If you change the contents of that framework well enough, then your present would tend to change accordingly. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions. Copies of situations from other places, other times, and the meanings attached to them form the basis for the biased perception of the current situation, and former viewpoints and responses are replayed out of context. Again, What is to happen in the future determines what happened in the past.“If you keep a projected future firmly in place for long enough, then you would gradually change the Now to look like it. That doesn't mean that you successfully guessed what the future was gonna be and now you are in the future. It just means that you transformed the Now according to your representation of future. You can also use your representation of the past to change the Now. Let me make the following training suggestion: suppose you want to start preparing for a club championship where you know there are no weak players…how should you start? My idea is to spend a little time before the tournament looking only at endgames ! By focusing on positions where ‘little’ details are important you will become accustomed to thinking in a concrete and practical manner. Facsimiles generally represent fixed content. You have the answer before you get the question. Facsimiles generally become “held-down-7s” in the calculator, and will make it more difficult to deal with what is there. Getting rid of the calculator is not a good idea, but getting rid of the stuck numbers is. I hope this makes it more clear what it is we are addressing in clearing.

Best of luck training.

OG

Whenever you use a subjective mechanism as a stand-in for your own presence, it is likely to lead to further degradation of your experience in life or chess. If you wish to get out of the way, you need to do it objectively, not subjectively; maybe that, that include a simple check. In its simplicity Clearing could be said to be the activity of helping people become more present. This is done mostly by taking attention that is “elsewhere” and bringing it back into contact with present time reality. As an example, if you are standing in the projected path of a speeding bullet, and you don't wish to have the experience in your body of being shot, then you have two main choices. You could just close your eyes and pretend that everything is fine. That is the subjective handling. But, if you didn't get your body out of the way, it would still be shot, and you would get a mess anyway. The objective choice would be to move your body out of the way, so that it won't be hit. That would not be aberrative. Just like the ostrich sticking its head in the sand, or the child closing his eyes and assuming that nobody can then see him when playing hide-and-seek – they are all subjective approaches. You will still run into trouble, and you might have to construct more elaborate facsimiles to explain your failure to handle the situation. The mechanisms by which one would lose one's attention units elsewhere than the here and now are very interesting in life or a simple friendly game or chess.

WakYu

It is a good idea to get out of your car if it is burning, but it doesn't mean that it will be back to normal when you get back into it afterwards. “Deus Ex Machina Luck”. You would need to either get a new one, or fix it if the damage is slight. And with the chess analogy in mind, I think of that move on his part, that ingenious blend of social imperative and rhetorical invention, as the Chess MCO's Matis Religioso Variation. A variation in chess, like a variation in other games, is a function in context. It is a move which opens a new set of possibilities within standard rules and regulations of play. We say a variation is brilliant not because it transcends the game not because it reaches to some higher realm beyond the rules and not because it demonstrates our capacity to ascend or escape into a world elsewhere of free play but just the opposite. It's brilliant insofar as the variation leads us to a deeper understanding of how the rules work. Appreciation, so conceived, is a function of cognition, and cognition requires us to acknowledge the power of limitations. The boundaries that hedge us in constitute the conditions of agency and innovation. In this sense, the variation in chess is a model for understanding the cultural work of literature. Board games in general, and chess in particular originated in magic and divination. the grid was a powerful symbol of the structure of the world, and of divine or human dominion over it. The form of the world, the layout of the countryside, the capital city, the holy temple of the gods and the palace of the king were all symbols of order expressed as the grid.“In the course of delivering some Thoughts on the Origin of Chess, Needham says the game of chess (as we know it) has been associated throughout its development with astronomical symbolism, and this was more overt in related games now long obsolete. In Scotland there is a saying that honour is the sun of the mind, According to Needham the battle element of chess developed from a technique of divination designed to determine the balance of ever-contending Yin and Yang forces in the universe..Thus the ancestor of all dial-and pointer-readings, the greatest single factor in the voyages of discovery, and the oldest instrument of magnetic-electrical science may perhaps be said to have begun as a proto-chess-man used in a divination technique. We are placed on the planet just like an Angel inside the Rock on a Chess Board. We are all the same. We cannot control the game, and we cannot change our location. We may be placed in a pivotal time and position, or we may not. We may have a lifetime of peace, or of disturbance. We can be wiped off the board at any time. We have no control over the patterns of the higher game. on our depends on your next move, not your last move. It is an intense and potent means to examine and refine self, life and relationship to others. It is a means of moving into the future with respect and intent; Deus Ex Machina Luck.

And if you wish chess life to be fun you've better focus on what you want and not on what you don't want. It might be a crazy idea, almost certainly is, and it might not be workable at all. Peripheral Perceptions,,,“Now it could be objected here that a coded message unlike an uncoded message does not express anything on its own. It requires knowledge of the chess notation's codes. But in Reality there is no such thing as an uncoded message, there are only messages written in more familiar codes and messages written in less familiar codes. If the meaning of a message is to be revealed it must be pulled out of the code by some sort of mechanism or isomorphism. It may be difficult to discover the method by which the decoding the all chess board should be done; but once that method has been discovered the message becomes transparent as water. When a code is familiar enough it ceases to be appearing like a code. One forgets that there is a decoding mechanism. The message is a message and the meaning is so strong that it is hard for us to conceive of an alternate meaning residing in the same symbols. Different ranges of perception are available depending on how one focuses one's senses. It is easiest to explain in the visual sense, but probably applies to all senses. In the human eye there are two kinds of receptors of light: cones and rods. The cones are good for receiving bright, colorful, high-resolution, focused pictures. The rods on the other hand are very sensitive to dim light and cover a bigger field of vision, but not with as high resolution, not focused, and not with as many colors. What I think is (1) to think of a cognitive map as constituted by its uses, rather than by intrinsic properties; (2) that the uses of a map will often involve indexical and demonstrative modes of presentation, but that (3) this is still compatible with the cognitive map's securing the objectivity of the fundamental level. When is you turn to move in chess continuos questions are appropriate to the logical secuences order thinking process. The “heres”, “theres”, “thises” I go here you go there…etc..and “thats” disperse across the map in different uses of it; the map itself does not fix, at a time, some place as “here” or some object as “that one”; the “you are here” pointer is not part of the cognitive map, but has a varying location in the map depending on the changing alignment of the egocentric frame of reference with the cognitive map. The map does not force us to use “here” of a particular place or “that” of a particular object, for that would be a map which allowed thought from only one particular point of view. That is how an egocentric frame works, but not a frame which is “from no point of view”. motivated this claim requirements for non-fundamental singular thought were too stringent by considering a subject in a fairground who sees an apple through a complex array of mirrors, in this case in the internet; some of which may be moving in ways unknown to the {subject}chess player in this case…, the subject enjoys an information link with the Queen's apple necklace which puts the subject in a position to form, without engaging in any inference, correct observational judgements about, for example, the color and the shape of the apple. Moreover, the apple appears in the subject's perceptual experience as having an apparent position in egocentric space, though in fact the apple is not at this apparent position in egocentric space. The subject does not know where in egocentric space the apple is, or how far it is from him; a lack of knowledge which is manifested in his inability to reliably point in the direction of the apple, or to be able to walk reliably towards the Queen uniform. There can be no adequate singular demonstrative thought about the apple in this case because the subject neither knows where the object is in objective space, nor does he know where it is in egocentric space. That the subject nevertheless enjoys an information link with the apple secures at best only descriptive thoughts about the Queen's necklace apple shape, such as the thought *the apple which is causally producing these images is juicy* where the subject refers singularly to a component of the information link (“these images”) but only descriptively to the apple. that line by contrast is that the information link is sufficient for a singular demonstrative concept so long as “some conceivable additional evidence, experiences, and devices … would allow the subject to locate the presented object”. Now, this can't be right as it stands. “the bare existence of any information-link at all will make it conceivable that additional evidence, and so forth, would enable the subject to locate the presented object; supposed extra requirement adds nothing. Modern industrialized society would tend to promote continuous focusing, both mentally and visually. People sit and look at computer screens right in front of their faces, with little symbols on. They have to think and concentrate to do their work right. All of it tends to promote more focusing and less peripheral perception. One way of noticing that is by the number of chess players who have to wear glasses, just a symptom of too fixed focusation. However, a lot of information is lost by omitting peripheral perception. That is what one uses to get the whole picture, or should I said the all board; it is much more holistic than focused perception. It is what one uses to get the broad, general overview of what is going on. If you don't use it you might miss the big picture. It is very common today that people are focusing on many little details without really knowing what they relate to. A lot of what we usually call extra-sensory perceptions seems to be tied to peripheral perceptions. Is the 'transcendental function' the 'seventh sense'? Is 'synchronicity' a language? It is a language that was discovered by Emanuel Laker, from germany I think he was a matematician and a engineer back in Germany. My self I defined a 'symbolic sense' as different than a 'literal sense' to the meaning in the Bible. I experienced the 'literal sense' as a result of a mechanism of mind , working with an activating of the 'depths', and from this mechanism everything changed. An attribute of literalness and self reference was added to 'selected material' in the individualizing process which was abstracted from material in ordinary daily life. Those perceptions are used so little that when they are it becomes something very mysterious. Maintaining an ability to see, hear, and feel peripherally is important for one's chess player sanity. If one doesn't have it one would tend to get lost in interesting specifics without any idea of where one is. With peripheral orientation one would always know the big 3D Picture, how pieces and squares relate to each other and so forth. If you can both focus on something interesting, and still maintain perspective, then you will have much less adverse effects from life. You can must easier stay out of trouble, and you can much easier put yourself in the situations you want to be in. Peripheral perceptions can be increased simply by using them. For example, by forcing oneself to see not with one's central, focused vision, but out of the sides. By using that vision more one can develop it again.

“I saw not with the eyes of the body but the eye of the soul.”

Also, mentally, by working one's ability to move swiftly between generalities and specifics, between global and local, between big chunks and small pieces. In that spirit, I ask you now to entertain the following proposition: " Queen " is a symbol that designates a distinctive social-symbolic system, as " chess " designates a game with distinctive rules. The rules of chess have sometimes been said to point to universals which transcend the game e.g., the extraordinary powers of the queen have been explained in the meta-historical terms of the Oedipus Complex. But isn't that just to leap from one historically-bounded game into another? In any case, to understand what a chess piece signifies is to engage in concrete and particular questions. You turn to move!!

The analogy tells us that order is pervasive and absolute and at the same time it reminds us of the chasm separating earthly from divine power. In other's words, “the condition of mankind” is not that of the kingdom of heaven. Next comes the direct figural connection: “We are all one in Christ,” intones, “members of the same body,” “knit together in love. 2 Here the picture he offers is one of essential equality. The community he portrays partakes of the spirit (reflects it in a glass, darkly) and so transcends all worldly hierarchies, along with every limit of time, office, and place. Of course, these two images – the community as social network, the community as one in Christ – are not contradictory. Indeed, they often appear as complementary forms of speech, secular and sacred. In the tradition that inherited, the word “model” denotes either a replica, as in an architect's design, which represents but is not itself the building, or else a perfected pattern of what we see a kind of ideal mirror- reflection as Christ's life re-presents the believer's journey to God. In the first case, the community might be said at best to represent the divine order, but only with the understanding that to represent it signals a qualitative difference between the sign and what's signified. In the second case what's signified, the divine, is re-presented (presented again) in the sign, as a historical being. The common substance between the sign and what it signifies is an ideal in which the believer (through grace) partakes, and so directly (if imperfectly) embodies. Replica or mirror-reflection, representation or re-presentation: the “or” makes all the difference in the world. More precisely, it marks the difference between this world and the next. And yet the two kinds of speech are as close as “like” and “alike.” They are complementary pieces in the same game, like rook and bishop. They work together on the premise that their functions are distinct. In order to make this as clear as possible, he charged, was a replica of the true church, not a re-presentation of it. The fact that it claimed to re-present the true church made it a false replica, hence the Antichrist incarnate.

Check!! It's you MOVE!!

We might think in this regard of a chess-master demonstrating that the knight can move in eight possible different directions, and that each of these directions involves its own interesting consequences. Indeed, one might distinguish on this basis between high and low culture, or to put it more starkly between art and propaganda. Propaganda plays the game in ways that limit options, as though only one or two moves were available to the knight. (8D)= caballero de la luz. It thus seems to close down possibilities. Art tends to move in ways that maximize our interpretive options, sometimes to the point of throwing a quite different light on the situation in question. Whitman's editorials seem propagandistic; his poems universal. The difference lies not in his refusal as poet to play the game, but on the contrary in the intensity of his engagement with its rules. The creative move tests the rules by forcing them to their limits. It is thus an assertion of limitations, a full display of the power of boundaries. It may also be a clue to transgression, a test of the rules that leads us by indirections to a different kind of game. What does the knight signify? One answer would be technical and practical, formulated from within the game as it is played. The knight moves in such- and- such prescribed ways and it has a certain relative value, also prescribed. Our free agency here is a function of our recognition of necessity. Another answer would be historical, formulated from within a perspective on how the game of chess changed over time. This long view is not independent of the game as we now play it, but it challenges the prescriptions we accept as necessary, since those prescriptions are part and parcel of the changes we're examining. It makes for a kind of non-transcendent space, where we are free to speculate on directions and values , and to contextualize the very concept of necessity. We have to speak from within the game of chess, of course, but it's then the game as distinguished from the game as we now play it. And the distinction is particularly dramatic in this case. For the fact is that of all games chess is the one most susceptible to the vicissitudes of history. To understand the function of the knight historically we would have to begin by recognizing that there were not always knights on the chess board. Like virtually every other chess-piece, the knight is the product of the most unlikely cross-cultural, multi-national, inter-racial recombinations. So too by the way is the queen. She is a medieval addition, replacing a petty counselor called Vizier or Senex, the Old Man. The queen took his place after an extended debate on the proprieties of sex-change, and for centuries she remained (as the Vizier had been) the weakest unit on the board. Then in the 1490's, the Columbus era, somewhere in Isabella's Spain, the queen was declared (what we now know her to be) the dominant figure of play. This particular version of the Oedipal theme is grounded in the history of gender and of empire. In the long view, chess is the game of inter- contextuality par excellence. Hence the dramatic value of the chess-analogy. Chess is traditionally invoked to tell us why we're trapped in systems. By all convention it is the game of Fate, the immemorial symbol for fixed regulations, universal conditions, and objective rules. In the long view, however, the chess analogy works in exactly the opposite direction. It reminds us of the concrete cultural sources of the rules we inherit. It offers not only a critique of the arbitrary nature of all foundational systems, but more to of the point of textual analysis, a model of the shifting sands of culture on which we build our houses of necessity.

From this perspective, let me press the question of function I just posed – how did the knight come into play?– and translate it into a problem in cultural transvaluation. How were the boundaries of the social symbology we're considering established? The rhetoric of America is perhaps the major instance of the power of the games of modern nationality. Its scope of play is emblazoned in its official logo, “out of many, one”; and the effectiveness of its strategies is documented in the processes by which such risky catch-words as “individualism,” “independence,” “revolution,” and most recently “subversion” have been made a summons to conformity. And yet, like the game of chess as we now play it, “America” has drawn perforce on many earlier models. One of these, a persistent and influential one, is the model of Christian charity.

Wakai Yushi

Check!!