Setians and chess?

[Daelach]

Many Setians tend to regard their path not (or not only) as "religious" in the sense of centering around belief, rituals, myths etc, but also as intellectual, involving philosophy and rational thought.

That makes me wonder whether Setians are more interested in chess than average people. By "being interested in chess", I do not mean "knowing how the pieces move", but also working or having worked with chess books, knowing (or being learning) opening basics, basic tactical motives, middlegame strategies and fundamental endgames. That would correspond to a at least some club player level.

 

[Functionless]

It is possible, but I wouldn't put my money on it. What makes a person interested in chess is beyond me.

 

[Father Heathen]

What makes a person interested in chess is beyond me.

Chess is an awesome game.

 

[Apion]

There are plenty of "average people" who are philosophically and rationally inclined, so your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.

 

[Daelach]

Well, chess is not just about moving some wooden pieces across some board. Chess is a game with full information, so there are no hidden or random things with it. The position on the board is everything there is.

At its core, it is a duel between two minds. There are many possibilities for both sides, but they remain just that - possibilities. Or better, they would, if it were not for the two wills, both trying to weave fortunate possibilities into reality, condensing it from the realms of possibilities into a concrete position on the board.

The one who is better at this will win - he will deny his opponent realising his will. There are eight files on the board, but the ninth one is invisible, and yet maybe the most important one. It is the mental file where not pieces, but minds get into fight. The one who can take this mental file normally is the one who will unleash an attack on the physical files. From the mental to the physical, that is the fight. Yes, chess is FIGHT.

If you see it this slightly mystic way which fits Setianism perfectly, then you can consider it as a mental duel where the material position is only the representation of the mental plane. On a very abstract level, this is magic - forcing your will upon reality, thus MAKING reality.

By the way, that is why computers are particularly nasty to fight. They do not have a will like we do, so it cannot be broken. They cannot give in to despair since they do not know it. Even under the most unfortunate conditions, they will give their best. Many attacks which would crush a human will not crush a computer of equal playing strength. One slightly weak point in an overwhelming attack, and the computer will retaliate although his position just seemed dead.

Reminds me a bit of the T-800 in "Terminator 2" - nearly killed, one arm left, and still no giving in. And still it computes its possibilities and acts as efficiently as it can. Granted, chess programs are limited just to chess; but in this specific domain, they represent a form of intelligence completely alien to us. It is rather ironic that one of the main reasons for making chess programs was to understand human intelligence. And all they found out was that human intelligence is not necessary for playing chess.. makes me laugh.


Oh, and btw, normal people are not interested in philosopy. That is why "news"paper like The Sun sell extremely well - they would not if they revolved around current philosophic debates.

 

[Apion]

Have you ever been to a university's Philosophy department? Philosophy majors are becoming more popular.

 

[Daelach]

Have you ever been to a university's Philosophy department?

Well, no - I studied at a technical university.

Philosophy majors are becoming more popular.

Things may be different where you live.. but here, philosophic courses are rather being shut down because they cannot easily be turned into something which the industrie can draw profit from.

And besides, I respect students of philosphy; but normal people do not take philosophic courses at universities. At least not where I live.

 

[Apion]

Just be careful about generalizations. Additionally, it matters how you define "normal." People are unique in one way or another. I assume you are meaning those not interested in the occult.

 

[Sireal]

I'm always curious as to what "normal" really is...personally I don't think it can be defined. What is "acceptable repetition" today is a crime tomorrow.....this to shall pass, etc..

Apion,
Yes, all humans are unique in one way or another and the heroin dealer Xeper's too but most often only into a dead heroin dealer or something worse, or the university student gets the degree and sits in a lab at Monsanto or spends the rest of their life regurgitating pet theories until they retire- so what?! Uniqueness is only valuable when engaged and expanded beyond one's present knowledge. If you think you've "arrived" you are at another beginning that is all. It doesn't matter how much "occult" or academic knowledge a person has, if the psyche does not aspire to expand Self one is no better off than the heroin dealer, maybe more corporeal but not much.
For the purposes of this forum as well I completely assume we are speaking of individuals who are either Initiated or desire to be, the profane and what they may or may not be have no business here, their world and its matrix are easily indentifiable. YouTube - shaun of the dead - zombie nation

The purpose of psyche worshipping religions and philosophies has always been to reach for the particular goal of self-deification.

....and chess helps

 

[blackout]

Perhaps many avid chess players,
who study moves,
play with awareness of "psycology"
and play to win,
would find themselves highly interested in Setianism.....
if they had any idea it existed .

I have ALWAYS loved chess.
My #1 favorite game,
and years back I did study moves and such.
And now it turns out I am all the MORE intreigued with Setianism.

Coincidence?
I think not.

 

[blackout]

I just realized something very important.

I always liked playing black.
I felt much more at home, playing black.
This MUST factor in somehow.

 

[blackout]

Think I'm gunna teach my 2 older kids to play chess this summer. :yes:

 

[Sireal]

IMO chess hasn't much to do with Setianism.

"Chess can trace its roots to a game called Chaturanga which was played in India around 600 AD. Chinese Chess (Xiangqi) and Japanese Chess (Shogi) came into existence by 800 AD. Near the end of the 1400s, the bishop and queen were added to Western Chess."

and then there's this one which I have observed being played and seems interesting/challenging,"Go"

"First played in China more than 3000 years ago, Go is so popular in Japan today that newspapers run columns about the game. Known as Wei Ch'i in China and Baduk in Korea, Go is truly the grand-daddy of all board games."

the oldest
"The word "Mancala" means "to transfer" in Arabic. This game, which by some estimates is 7000 years old, challenges players to move pieces from bin to bin. Many rule variations exist, and Mancala is played in some form in almost every African country."
Top 5 Ancient Board Games

With LBM though I would agree that chess, any of these games actually, hones strategy, timing, perspective- if you play often and/or with different people.

 

[Daelach]

IMO chess hasn't much to do with Setianism.

"Chess can trace its roots to a game called Chaturanga which was played in India around 600 AD. Chinese Chess (Xiangqi) and Japanese Chess (Shogi) came into existence by 800 AD. Near the end of the 1400s, the bishop and queen were added to Western Chess."

Western chess is quite a modern thing, and things like en-passant were added even later. This means that "Setians" in ancient Egypt never played chess, of course. But modern Setianism has little to do with ancient Egypt, anyway, because there is no unbroken line of tradition. So Setianism as it is today is even younger than chess.

And even if the latter were not the case, why would one exclude things only because they are not traditional..?

"Would you betray innovation in the name of tradition" (Samael)

and then there's this one which I have observed being played and seems interesting/challenging,"Go"

Indeed, I only read some articles about that game, but I think that it is also some interesting kind of strategy game. The main difference is that is is not about a battle like chess (two armies on the battlefield), but more like politics where people establish zones of influence, like in the Cold War.

 

[Commoner]

I just realized something very important.

I always liked playing black.
I felt much more at home, playing black.
This MUST factor in somehow.

That generally means that you are better at defensive tactics than offensive tactics. Or that you are so good at chess, you have to give the advantage to the opponent, otherwise you'd just destroy them completely.*

*or that you're so bad that you can only justify your likely loss by having had the disadvantage in the first place. So, I think all-in-all, it's pretty conclusive. You're either good or bad at playing chess. Success!

 

[sinistercurrent]

From my point of view chess is a good tool to promote logical thinking, we can use it for strategy, relationships between people and to train our intuition. We can check our ability to perceive the next step in this simulation of a working. By the way, were there not a kind of black magical chess by which we can create new situations, effects and patterns in the objective universe?

 

[blackout]

I'm really enjoying "playing" chess with my two older children now.

By playing to teach them,
I mySelf am learning the game in a more insightful,
and well defined manner.
When you speak, demonstrate and define things for others
they come into sharper definition for yourSelf.

We love adding in the element of "societal rank" while playing as well.
Sometimes the moves become a commentary on "social" studies.