I'm happy the response to the 2001 episode is pretty good. We got a lot of good overall very yeah. Yeah, I feel like we took 100% credit for it when it got his masters and we're going to take 100%credit for it now. Like I think like what he does from here we only get like 75% credit. So if you would like to email us or contact us you can email us very bad wizards at gmail.comYou can follow us on Instagram like us on Facebook join the lively community on the subreddit. You can also subscribe on Spotify and rate us on Apple podcasts. If you want to support us in more tangible ways you can always go to
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: