Music Philosophy Art Math Chess Programming and much more ...
“Do you play chess, Ben?” she asked.
Ben didn’t respond.
“Ben despises chess,” Ian explained. “He thinks it’s just another way to waste human intelligence. The second most wasteful, in fact.”
“And what’s the first?” Sheere asked, amused.
“Philosophy,” Ben replied.
— Carlos Ruiz Zafón, The Palace of Midnight
“White always wins, he thought with a vague sense of mysticism. Always, without exception; that’s the order of things. Throughout the history of the world, black has never won a chess problem. Could this be a symbol of the eternal, unchanging triumph of Good over Evil? A great face was watching him; it radiated calm strength. White always wins.”
— George Orwell, 1984
When engaging in chess practically, one inevitably arrives at some theoretical conclusions, essentially creating a personal philosophy of the game. What is chess theory to me? It could be said that it encompasses knowledge of openings, tactical combinations, positional play, development, sacrifices, as well as defense, attack, and even strategy. However, there’s more to it than just theory and practice. Chess can be approached in aesthetic, scientific, psychological, or sporting ways. The game uniquely blends all these significant aspects.
Now, let’s address the main issue: applying scientific methods to chess. After familiarizing myself with Karl R. Popper’s philosophy of science, I came to an interesting conclusion: his scientific approach, particularly the critical method, can be applied to chess. In every game, we start with opening theory, which suggests the best initial moves. Knowing these openings is crucial because, without this knowledge, one can easily fall into trouble and lose right from the start. This is why chess players spend so much time learning new openings and their variations.
You might ask, what do chess and scientific theories have in common? In science, we propose a hypothesis and test its validity. Similarly, in chess, we posit a thesis (e.g., that the move 1. e4 is more advantageous and offers better chances of winning than 1. d4) and then test it in practice. If it proves true, we have grounds to include it in our theory. How can we verify whether 1. e4 offers better chances than 1. d4? We can check a database of chess games to see if this holds. If the strongest players more frequently and successfully use the opening 1. e4 compared to 1. d4, we have grounds to consider 1. e4 the better move. If not, we must reject our hypothesis as false.
The same applies to openings; one might believe, for example, that the Sicilian Defense is superior to the Caro-Kann Defense. I once thought the latter was practically worthless and tried to prove this by winning as often as possible against opponents playing that defense as black. However, I eventually realized that it’s quite a solid defense, even if the Sicilian seems more active. Similarly, I considered the French Defense better for white, but in practice, I had to admit that my friend was right: the French Defense is equally good for both white and black.
Returning to the application of scientific methods to chess, it’s worth mentioning that, like in science, chess is based on axioms, hypotheses, and repeatable experiments. One could even argue that chess is the perfect subject for scientific theory. Firstly, chess has fixed and unchanging rules; secondly, neither side starts with a material advantage; and thirdly, there are three possible outcomes: a win, a loss, or a draw. But what does this mean from a scientific perspective? It means we can repeat experiments as many times as we like, knowing that the outcome will be the same—chess lacks randomness, though it is not free of mistakes.
In fact, my greatest chess discovery is that there are far more bad moves to choose from than good ones, so one must stay focused to avoid making any of them. As they say, one bad move can ruin forty good ones. Moreover, it's worth noting that scientific, philosophical, and chess theories share a common pursuit of objectivity, truth, and meaning.
“A mathematical proof, like a chess problem, must possess three qualities: inevitability, an element of surprise, and conciseness; it should resemble a simple and clearly defined constellation, not a chaotic cluster of the Milky Way.”
— Robert Harris, Enigma