Slashdot Mirror
Chess Improves Machines and Humans Alike
erick99 writes "Chess provides a window into some more arcane philosophical matters. The remainder of this article will focus on two difficult, and interrelated, questions. The first has to do with the nature of reality; the second is about the prospects for human and artificial intelligence in grappling with reality. In both cases, the search for an answer leads through a board game with 32 pieces and 64 squares."
Chess is not just a mentally challenging game to play. It is also a game that generates examples and analogies relevant to a broad range of intellectual concerns. If you do a search for "chess" here at TCS, you will find, among other things, Arnold Kling's discussion of man-versus-machine chess, Lee Harris's illustration in chess terms of the difference between rational and irrational enemies, Iain Murray's likening of Russian global-warming policy to a knight's move, and a piece by me noting philosopher Daniel Dennett's evocation of chess computers in his argument for the compatibility of free will and determinism.
I am a competent chess player (unlike Kling, that is), albeit no threat to the world's grandmasters. After falling off in participation for a few years, I have recently played frequently -- perhaps a bit too frequently -- aided by the ready availability of opponents at chess websites like this. I find the game to be not only fun but also rife with philosophical implications. It reinforces certain lessons of everyday philosophy, for instance the importance of trying hard (my games vary widely in quality, depending on effort and attention) and maintaining some humility (just when I think I've gotten good, someone comes along and wipes the board with me).
Chess also provides a window into some more arcane philosophical matters. The remainder of this article will focus on two difficult, and interrelated, questions. The first has to do with the nature of reality; the second is about the prospects for human and artificial intelligence in grappling with reality. In both cases, the search for an answer leads through a board game with 32 pieces and 64 squares.
Do Abstract Objects Exist?
No doubt, many college freshmen have rolled their eyes at the uselessness of Philosophy 101 when asked whether there exist perfect circles or other ideal entities. But a great deal rides on the longstanding philosophical debate about abstract objects. If, say, the number 12 has an existence independent of its particular manifestations in egg cartons and the like, then a view that the world consists solely of physical objects is inadequate.
This has potential religious implications; in a recent TCS essay, Edward Feser identified Platonism, or belief in a realm of abstract entities, as a key assumption underlying Western religion. Of course, believing in perfect circles does not necessarily entail believing in God; philosopher Keith Augustine has defended a naturalistic worldview that takes abstract objects into account. So, while debating Platonism will not settle an argument about religion, it does shake up easy assumptions about what does and does not exist.
To my mind, Platonism (whether in religious form or not) is a dispiriting philosophy. Its emphasis on another realm seems conducive to distaste for the messy, familiar world. Furthermore, as physicist Lee Smolin noted in his excellent book The Life of the Cosmos, Platonism calls into question whether there is any such thing as novelty. If the contents of the universe are just a playing-out of possibilities that exist in a timeless realm, then there is nothing truly new about them. Every flower, every mountain, every painting is merely a sample from a preexisting set of possible flowers, mountains or paintings.
What does this have to do with chess? The game actually complicates the question of whether abstract objects exist. Consider the Ruy Lopez, a common chess opening named after Ruy Lopez de Segura, a priest and chess expert in 16th-century Spain. White opens with a pawn, knight and bishop; black parries with pawn and knight, then decides how to respond to the bishop. The subsequent moves carry numerous, ramifying possibilities.
The various lines of attack and defense following the Ruy Lopez opening have different pros and cons. Some strategies are better than others. (The Steinitz Defense, where black pushes the queen's pawn on move three, is regarded as a bit dubious.) But no one has yet figured out any definitiv