"Finally, it’s totally deterministic. There’s no randomness or element of chance, which makes this a, uh, slightly less than perfect simulacrum of the world."
Yes, the game itself is deterministic, unlike say backgammon or poker. But there is an element of randomness in the quality of moves produced by the two player. As a chess master, I try to beat a lower-rated player by giving them enough chances to go wrong. Whether they do is outside my control. So good chess players, like players of non-deterministic games, are trying to maximize expectancy.
Yeah that's a good point. The randomness is introduced by the opposing player and is not intrinsic to the game itself.
As opposed to Sudoku or something where there's only a single player and thus no room for randomness to be introduced at all or games where's it's intrinsic (poker, backgammon, etc.)
> But, if we want to shorthand an intelligent character in a book or a movie, what are they doing? They’re wearing glasses and playing chess. It’s so bizarre to me the way we’ve intertwined brilliance at what’s fundamentally a game with genius or general intelligence. That’s my real beef here: Our cultural obsession with generalizing chess to some holier-than-thou thing.
Alternative perspective: writers targeting TV/feature films need to convey their ideas/characterization in as concise and accessible a manner as possible. If one can reasonably expect most people to at least know some of the rudiments of chess, then implying intelligence by having an actor display skill at chess makes sense. It takes a certain level of intelligence and diligence to learn to play the game well, and it wouldn't occur to many people that really smart people might have more pressing concerns than the mastery of chess — or at least have more interesting things to do.
(How often do chessmasters get laid, on average, compared to a reasonably intelligent and attractive person who doesn't obsess over the game?)
3 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 18.5 ms ] threadYes, the game itself is deterministic, unlike say backgammon or poker. But there is an element of randomness in the quality of moves produced by the two player. As a chess master, I try to beat a lower-rated player by giving them enough chances to go wrong. Whether they do is outside my control. So good chess players, like players of non-deterministic games, are trying to maximize expectancy.
As opposed to Sudoku or something where there's only a single player and thus no room for randomness to be introduced at all or games where's it's intrinsic (poker, backgammon, etc.)
Alternative perspective: writers targeting TV/feature films need to convey their ideas/characterization in as concise and accessible a manner as possible. If one can reasonably expect most people to at least know some of the rudiments of chess, then implying intelligence by having an actor display skill at chess makes sense. It takes a certain level of intelligence and diligence to learn to play the game well, and it wouldn't occur to many people that really smart people might have more pressing concerns than the mastery of chess — or at least have more interesting things to do.
(How often do chessmasters get laid, on average, compared to a reasonably intelligent and attractive person who doesn't obsess over the game?)