Chess as Art, Science, Sport, and War Combined

The inspiration for this piece was a shirt worn by a fellow chessplayer I made the acquaintance of at the 32nd Annual Eastern Open in DC which read "Chess is not Art, Science, or Sport-Chess is War" or something along those lines that led me to realize chess can represent a constellation of all of the above.

I am not trying to make the argument that one can't think of other apt descriptive terms for our beloved game but the above four are the exclusive focus of this post.

Chess as Art:

"From my close contact with artists and chess players I have come to the conclusion that while all artists are not chess players,all chess players are artists"
- Surrealist Artist Marcel Duchamp from pg.75 of Bobby Fischer Goes to War: How the Soviets Lost the Most Extraordinary Chess Match of All Time by David Edmonds and John Eidinow

There's a need to add the caveat that not all chessplayers are equally able artistically since the positions I create on the board are not of the same quality as say a Fischer or Capablanca creation but the quote has significance nonetheless.

It's true that the beauty of the positions and ideas that can potentially arise on the chessboard fully make the game deserving of the label artistic although not all positions are created equal artistically speaking.

I've taken the liberty of going through my game collections and selecting some choice positions that I find supportive of chess as an art form.

1. The end position of the fifth match game between Frank James Marshall and Jose Raul Capablanca is very picturesque since Capablanca's king is in the open but is impervious to all checks while mate in two is threatened with only the short delaying of the inevitable possible to white.

2. The final position of the second game from the classic text Three Hundred Chess Games that was played between the famous German player Siegbert Tarrasch and a fellow by the name of Mendelsohn.

Chess as Science: The game of chess can't be described as an exact science because of the immense complexities involved but it's possible to isolate a scientific element in the discovery and articulation of general principles to aid players in making decisions on the board. It's not possible to engage in a dogmatic application of abstract guidelines because the concrete or specific nature of the position before you must always be taken into account but they can certainly be useful in conjunction with specificity.

Chess as War:
The origins of the game of chess as a bloodless imitation of human warfare make this connection an obvious one to make but I'd like to discuss it within the specific context of the ideal of what I perceive as civilized chessic warfare.

I like to think of chess as a kind of civilized warfare when both players exhibit good sportsmanship and manners in dealing with one another while still retaining a warrior like resolve to win at the board. It's important to have a fighting spirit and strive to make things difficult for your opponent with the aim of defeating them in the war occurring on the 64 squares that make up the chessic battlefield but this can be done in an overall humane setting.There shouldn't be any diminishing of one's willingness to trimuph over their opponent but simply the practice of appropriate maturity, civility, and victory achieved within the boundaries of the game.