Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 04:42:19 02/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2000 at 06:26:10, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On February 20, 2000 at 03:23:38, Andrew Dados wrote: > >>Now my _guess_ is that what most call 'beauty' is taking a chance that move we >>made can be a blunder but opponent will go wrong. > >I disagree. > >Humans consider a number of things beautiful. Examples: >1) Connected rooks on an open file >2) Lack of isolated pawns >3) Two bishops next to each other on wide open diagonals >etc. > >If you can maneuver yourself into positions with beautiful stuff, I would say >that you're playing beautifully. You might lose, but you're still playing >beautifully. > >-Tom maybe playing beautiful is also senseful to win ? who knows ? when you live, but you don't care about others, but you get very good "results" for yourself. and you don't help others who need your help. than maybe your life is ok and your results are ok. but i would prefer a life that is different. where NOT the results counts at all. where YOUR actions and the actions of the others are together in harmony. i would call this beauty. and the egocentric style of life i would call materialistic way.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.