i believe that i have established the checkmate is not a historically pre-lucery goal and i think it is a very interesting fact even if it does not entail it chess is not a game suits you know otherwise the earliest origins of chess have been lost in the mists of time but if my analysis correct then the invention of chess could not have been like the invention of golf or most other games. The inventor of chess could not have started with the goal of chess and then built a game around it as we do. He might even have laid out the pieces in a checkmate pattern before the first game of chess was ever played however because of the existence of illusory check
In this podcast we examine a recent argument for the view that chess is not, in fact, a game. We discuss the Grasshopper’s claim that all games must have a prelusory goal, as well as Skepticus’ objection to the giant Grasshopper concerning chess. We then turn to a broader analysis of the Suitsian account of games. Does the existence of illusory checkmates offer Grasshopper an avenue for replying to Skepticus? Should we bite the bullet and agree that chess is not a game? What is a lusory attitude? Is Tamler losing his mind? Why is David so giddy?
Plus – how should Arthur C. Clarke’s novel "2001: A Space Odyssey" affect our understanding of Kubrick’s movie? And a little more on Kanye.
Sponsored By:
Support Very Bad Wizards
Links: