?

cthia wrote: "My only point is every war or battle is a chess match and that all generals play chess."

tlb wrote:We have no statistics on how many generals play chess versus poker or any other game, so lets dispense with that part of your second statement.

Sorry, but I can't exactly do that. My statement is true.

We DO have statistics on how many generals play chess. I gave you those statistics. Some things can be intuited with your brain, if you don't miss certain connections.

You have a problem with metaphors and analogies. It is your Achilles heel in conversations. You can't make simple mental connections, and as a result you consistently get lost in the weeds.

All generals play chess.

You are just repeating yourself because you cannot show how both of these statements can be true:

Is it there are "serious differences" between chess and war?

cthia wrote:Yes.

Is it "every war or battle is a chess match"?

cthia wrote:Yes.

No, the two statements are thesis and antithesis and you have not provided the synthesis.

You statement that "all generals play chess" is just a restatement of your unsupported assertion that "war is a chess match".

I have no problem with metaphors and analogies, because I have already agreed with Jonathan S that chess is at best a very superficial analog for the thought processes that go into planning a battle or war,

My biggest problem with your statements is that you are not limiting the "war is a chess match" to just the analogy, since you keep throwing in scraps like this:

cthia wrote:What chess truly is? Chess is a classroom, where one can learn the concepts of warfare. Surely you are not renouncing the benefits of a classroom?

I am not renouncing the benefits of the classroom, I am saying that chess cannot be the only item on the curriculum.

It seems Star Trek also simulated submarine warfare. They went so far as to make it rather obvious.

Note the periscope aboard the cloaked Romulan vessel. Think the LD will have a periscope too?

tlb wrote:Some of that is possible in chess; but in war there are also spies and so on, to help uncover the enemies hidden strategy. There is no equivalent to code breaking in chess.

There are also spies in chess. Admittedly, I used my sister as a spy in many cases. She'd tell me which opening my niece was polishing off for our upcoming battle. Until my niece found out there was a spy in her camp.

There IS a bit of code to break too, like your opponent's mannerisms, and opening move. My niece used to telegraph combinations. When she moves a piece and lifts her pinky finger like she's sipping tea...look out!

tlb wrote:The fact that war can allow additional pieces means the measure of superior force can change, unlike in chess.

Promotions in chess, does the same.

****** *

I would be gobsmacked if there is anyone in the Academy who didn't play chess. I'd be surprised if anyone in the Academy would even ADMIT to not playing chess. Even if you're no good at it, you should play.

I would imagine that NOT playing chess casts certain aspersions on you in the eyes of the military. True or not.

We can probably give good odds that Elvis Santino didn't play chess at all, he was hardly in the habit of thinking several moves ahead. Jaruwalski would have settled with just a couple moves ahead.

It also must be said that I am not advocating a philosophy that says a good chess player will make a good general.

But I'd be gobsmacked if a great general does not play chess.

Honor could be terrible at chess.
YUCK! THAT STATEMENT LEAVES A BAD TASTE IN MY MOUTH. OF COURSE HONOR IS GREAT AT CHESS. IT'S THAT DAMN SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. SHE WILL ALWAYS KNOW WHEN HER HEINE IS ABOUT TO FALL INTO A ... SITUATION.

cthia wrote:It also must be said that I am not advocating a philosophy that says a good chess player will make a good general.

But I'd be gobsmacked if a great general does not play chess.

It seems to me that we have reached the point of diminishing returns on this discussion and so I will limit any further replies.

I find the imaginative reinvention of chess by George Eliot to be a better analogy for the messy group dynamics of something like war.

Despite a youthful interest in chess, I never developed a passion for it as I believe that you have. I expect that passion causes you to make broader claims for the value of chess than I would ever accept. So we are left in opposed positions that cannot be reconciled; as has been true of various other disagreements in the past.

PS. It appears that Honor regularly loses to her mother in chess, but that is not the same thing as being terrible.

It seems that cthia can think outside the box but has serious issue thinking outside the board.

Grant vs Lee endgame.
Looking back at the years of people writing about what was going on in the Eastern campaigns, and at the campaings from the Southern point of view, yes it is clear that they were using the interior lines of communication and supply, and yes it is clear that the Federal Generals were pausing- even drawing back- after pushing hard, espeicialy if stopped hard or suffered defeat.
When Grant took command he did as described here, kept pushing. Never give Lee any appreciable time to rest. If stopped, try to force the otherside to continue to defend while moving part of the army around to one flank or other.
One component of that was that the Federal forces did have by that time more troops in the field and still a significant reserve of civilians which could be called on to maintain the forces in the field. They also had the logistics.
Why did Sherman specificaly take his army and drive at Savannah instead of the other two major options available to him. What was basicaly required of him was to move his army into the Eastern campaign and bring all that force against Lee's positions there. He had two other options as I understand it. One was to back out essentily making his way to the Ohio and up that river then cross to the mountains above Washington (think the C&O route). The other was to drive south down to probably Mobile, AL and take ship around FL, ending up on the East Coast, again to be landed to bring the army against the Richmond greater defence problem. Either way he was going to have a relativly smaller Confederate force behind him and ready to retake at least Atlanta but the South's resources were dwindling there. What he decided to do- along with teach a lesson in almost total war- was to lay waste to a swath about 50 miles wide to the coast and not only brush aside what relativley little there was in the way of forces between himself and the sea, but to make it both massivly difficult for any serious organized Confederate force to follow him and take that entire corridor (agricultural production) out of the Southern logistics network. It also put him SOUTH of Lee with that army and Savannah- which had already been quite cut off from any relief or abilty to supply much support to Lee- was then fully isolated.
Grant, unlike Lee, not only had a large remaining pool of manpower that could be brought into the army, he had a large trained group already in uniform- just not yet actualy functional as seasoned infantry. The massive fortifications around Washington to protect it were full of heavy artillery units. Much of that manpower was moved into Grant's army with essentialy a skeleton force left to provide a relativly light guard and still be able to man some of the guns. The rest was added- in company sized pieces retaining their original HA unit designations- to make up INFANTRY regiments attached to existing battalions of infantry. Which is how a a regiment make up of companies of several heavy artillery-including Co L from the 4th NYHA personal with muskets got surprized and pushed back on the flank of one battle in the Wildlerness. Or the a company of 7th NYHA ended up at the bottom of a hill (and shielded from Confederate fire) at Cold Harbor and was the only part of the assault to make it into the Southern trenches and finaly withdraw when the were not supported and got couterattacked.
Lee could not keep up either his supply lines nor replace any of his troop losses. Grant kept the pressure on. Lee's forces were shrinking and starving with no possibility of replacing either men or materials and he knew that the noose was closing around what was left of his army defending Richmond. In the end, even retreat wasn't an effective option although he tried to get them out.

Galactic Sapper wrote:It seems that cthia can think outside the box but has serious issue thinking outside the board.

Elaborate please. I'd like to fix that if it's true. Or is it simply the chess "analogies" -- totally appropriate for the conversation and subject matter -- which sours your puss?

My father taught me to think outside the box. The chess board is simply a "box." Your statement is odd applied to the one person on the forum who constantly has to point out inconsistencies in logic, life, the grave but constant error of ignoring the human element, and how things work in the real world outside the classroom. My parents stressed a well rounded education. Travel included -- "It is an education not found in textbooks," so preached my mom.

In fact, my parents one-two punch was my father preaching "Think outside the box." My mother would always add "You need to see the world to see how big the box is." That fact never helped alleviate the pain and distress of leaving my girlfriend for half the summer. Or having to pretend that I didn't enjoy myself, AT ALL, when seeing her again. LOL

tlb wrote:PS. It appears that Honor regularly loses to her mother in chess, but that is not the same thing as being terrible.

That's interesting. I agree, it doesn't mean Honor is terrible at it, rather than her mother is great at it too. Chess teaches you to know your enemy. Is it possible that Allison knows Honor as well as anyone? Being Honor, I'm willing to bet a family member first taught her chess as a toddler. Might even have been mom.

tlb wrote:I am not renouncing the benefits of the classroom, I am saying that chess cannot be the only item on the curriculum.

And my statement that chess is "A" classroom infers that it should be the only item in the curriculum? One class does not a curriculum make.

I could be wrong, but I'd imagine being a member of the chess club with a high rating doesn't hurt your transcripts at all when applying to any college. But of all the extracurricular activities that are rather important to one's college transcripts, I'd imagine "chess club" would rank at the very top if applying to the military academy.

cthia wrote:I could be wrong, but I'd imagine being a member of the chess club with a high rating doesn't hurt your transcripts at all when applying to any college. But of all the extracurricular activities that are rather important to one's college transcripts, I'd imagine "chess club" would rank at the very top if applying to the military academy.

Both my brother and my best friend went to West Point and chess was on neither resume.

Looking at the website, this is what is needed:
Academic requirements:
SAT or ACT with Writing Portion

Leadership requirements:
If you are in high school, ensure you are serving in a leadership position, whether it’s as a sports team captain, a class or club officer, or community leader

Physical requirements:
Medical Exam
Candidate Fitness Assessment consists of six events:
. Basketball throw (from a kneeling position)
. Cadence pull-ups or flexed-arm hang (women's option)
. 40-yard shuttle run (for time)
. Abdominal crunches (number completed in 2 minutes)
. Push-ups (number completed in 2 minutes)
. 1-mile run (for time)

So chess club is okay, as long as you are an officer; but equal weight is given for being good in a sports team (which would also give a boost to the Candidate Fitness Assessment).

PS. Because of a surplus of junior officers when I came out of graduate school, my active duty was limited to officers basic at Fort Bliss. But there may be many members of this forum who made a military carreer. Would any of them care to make a brief statement about whether chess was useful and include branch and whether an academy graduate?

Moustrapping takes on many disguises in chess. I suppose anytime the KING is checkmated, it is trapped. However, a classic mousetrap is one which is engineered. My favorite -- because it is the most pleasing to obtain on the chess board for me personally -- is when utilizing two ROOKS . . .

KR to R7

setting the trap ... followed by

QR to R8.

****** *

tlb wrote:In chess every move is made on the board in a way that is visible to the opponent. Remember the maxim that Honor keeps repeating;

'Surprise' is what happens when someone's seen something all along . . . and thought it was something else.

Fool's Mate readily comes to mind.

I wouldn't be surprised if Anton and Victor both play a mean game of chess. I bet Horace is no slouch either. I imagine the three of them add a deadly poker face to their chess skills.

However, I wouldn't trade my ticket to one of the greatest chess matches of the quadrant. Eloise Pritchard playing White. And Elizabeth Winton playing Black. MY PREDICTION? ELOISE WINS UNTIL SHE FINALLY ADMITS SHE CHEATED.

cthia wrote:MY PREDICTION? ELOISE WINS UNTIL SHE FINALLY ADMITS SHE CHEATED.

Eloise does not cheat.