Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The games we play

Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 9:36:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A few questions that I"d be interested in hearing a people"s answers to:

1)Are the rules of chess subjective or objective?
2)How do we recognise a good chess player?
3)I am playing chess against someone and have a chess master telling me which moves to make. Does this mean I am a good chess player?
4)Is winning a chess tournament in the way described in (3) identical in nature to winning the same tournament without the chess master informing my every move?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 10:43:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 9:36:27 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
A few questions that I"d be interested in hearing a people"s answers to:

1)Are the rules of chess subjective or objective?
If the rules of chess are defined as being the rules of chess, then no subjective preference can change that within the context where the rules of chess are defined as the rules of chess.
2)How do we recognise a good chess player?
One who fulfills the goal of any chess player is a good chess player - a good chess player is one who wins.
3)I am playing chess against someone and have a chess master telling me which moves to make. Does this mean I am a good chess player?
You are, in that moment, playing chess that is good. As such, you are a good chess player.
4)Is winning a chess tournament in the way described in (3) identical in nature to winning the same tournament without the chess master informing my every move?

What do you mean by "identical"? Of course it's not identical because the scenarios are different. Are you trying to ask if there's some difference between the "goodness" of the players?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 10:55:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 10:43:53 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
If the rules of chess are defined as being the rules of chess, then no subjective preference can change that within the context where the rules of chess are defined as the rules of chess.

So you're saying that they are tautologically objective?

2)How do we recognise a good chess player?
One who fulfills the goal of any chess player is a good chess player - a good chess player is one who wins.

Is it only the outcome of their games that informs our judgement on this?

3)I am playing chess against someone and have a chess master telling me which moves to make. Does this mean I am a good chess player?
You are, in that moment, playing chess that is good. As such, you are a good chess player.

So my own level of skill has no role deciding whether I'm good at chess or not?

4)Is winning a chess tournament in the way described in (3) identical in nature to winning the same tournament without the chess master informing my every move?

What do you mean by "identical"? Of course it's not identical because the scenarios are different. Are you trying to ask if there's some difference between the "goodness" of the players?

I mean is it identical; is winning in the two ways described equal in all ways? If not, why not?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 11:35:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 9:36:27 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
A few questions that I"d be interested in hearing a people"s answers to:

1)Are the rules of chess subjective or objective?

Objective.

2)How do we recognise a good chess player?

By the strategies they employ, by the knowledge they have of openings, middle and end games strategies, by their win/loss record or by their ELO, or more probably by a combination of these things.

3)I am playing chess against someone and have a chess master telling me which moves to make. Does this mean I am a good chess player?

No.

4)Is winning a chess tournament in the way described in (3) identical in nature to winning the same tournament without the chess master informing my every move?

No.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 11:52:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 10:55:48 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/16/2015 10:43:53 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
If the rules of chess are defined as being the rules of chess, then no subjective preference can change that within the context where the rules of chess are defined as the rules of chess.

So you're saying that they are tautologically objective?
If you're presupposing that the "rules of chess" exist, then yes. The rules of chess are what they are.
2)How do we recognise a good chess player?
One who fulfills the goal of any chess player is a good chess player - a good chess player is one who wins.

Is it only the outcome of their games that informs our judgement on this?
I'm not really sure of what you mean...
3)I am playing chess against someone and have a chess master telling me which moves to make. Does this mean I am a good chess player?
You are, in that moment, playing chess that is good. As such, you are a good chess player.

So my own level of skill has no role deciding whether I'm good at chess or not?
Your level of skill is determined solely by how well you play chess, so, if you play chess well, you have a high level of skill. How else would you define skill?
4)Is winning a chess tournament in the way described in (3) identical in nature to winning the same tournament without the chess master informing my every move?

What do you mean by "identical"? Of course it's not identical because the scenarios are different. Are you trying to ask if there's some difference between the "goodness" of the players?

I mean is it identical; is winning in the two ways described equal in all ways? If not, why not?

Like I said, of course they're not equal in all ways. That's because they're two different scenarios...

You seem to be trying to go somewhere with this. What, specifically, do you want to know regarding their differences or similarities? You seem to be trying to lead me into making some kind of judgement here, but I have no idea what judgement you want me to make.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 1:05:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 11:52:16 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
If you're presupposing that the "rules of chess" exist, then yes. The rules of chess are what they are.

Well they do, so it's not so much a presupposition as an a posteriori observation.

I'm not really sure of what you mean...

I mean that if it doesn't matter whether their decisions are their own or not (which you suggest) and it is merely whether they are named the winner or not, it is purely a consequential judgement; only the outcome plays a part in deciding whether someone is a good chess player or not.

3)I am playing chess against someone and have a chess master telling me which moves to make. Does this mean I am a good chess player?
You are, in that moment, playing chess that is good. As such, you are a good chess player.

So my own level of skill has no role deciding whether I'm good at chess or not?
Your level of skill is determined solely by how well you play chess, so, if you play chess well, you have a high level of skill. How else would you define skill?

But am I actually playing chess in that sense of things? I make no decisions myself, I merely do what I'm told by someone else who is a chess master. Whose is the skill? Who is playing the game in anything other than a mechanistic sense; me or the chess master?

Like I said, of course they're not equal in all ways. That's because they're two different scenarios...

I don't mean are the preceding events identical. Are both equally deserving wins? Should both be celebrated equally? Are they of equal value?

You seem to be trying to go somewhere with this. What, specifically, do you want to know regarding their differences or similarities? You seem to be trying to lead me into making some kind of judgement here, but I have no idea what judgement you want me to make.

I want to know how you would perceive the two situations, comparatively. I'm not trying to lead you into making any judgement, I'm asking you what judgement you'd make.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 1:08:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 11:35:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/16/2015 9:36:27 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
A few questions that I"d be interested in hearing a people"s answers to:

1)Are the rules of chess subjective or objective?

Objective.

2)How do we recognise a good chess player?

By the strategies they employ, by the knowledge they have of openings, middle and end games strategies, by their win/loss record or by their ELO, or more probably by a combination of these things.

Thank you for giving some more detail here, I think the reliance on multiple metrics is an important aspect. I'd like to see some more people's responses before going into more depth than that though.


3)I am playing chess against someone and have a chess master telling me which moves to make. Does this mean I am a good chess player?

No.

4)Is winning a chess tournament in the way described in (3) identical in nature to winning the same tournament without the chess master informing my every move?

No.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 1:10:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 1:08:17 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/16/2015 11:35:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/16/2015 9:36:27 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
A few questions that I"d be interested in hearing a people"s answers to:

1)Are the rules of chess subjective or objective?

Objective.

2)How do we recognise a good chess player?

By the strategies they employ, by the knowledge they have of openings, middle and end games strategies, by their win/loss record or by their ELO, or more probably by a combination of these things.

Thank you for giving some more detail here, I think the reliance on multiple metrics is an important aspect. I'd like to see some more people's responses before going into more depth than that though.

I look forward to it.


3)I am playing chess against someone and have a chess master telling me which moves to make. Does this mean I am a good chess player?

No.

4)Is winning a chess tournament in the way described in (3) identical in nature to winning the same tournament without the chess master informing my every move?

No.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 1:27:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 1:05:45 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/16/2015 11:52:16 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
If you're presupposing that the "rules of chess" exist, then yes. The rules of chess are what they are.

Well they do, so it's not so much a presupposition as an a posteriori observation.

I'm not really sure of what you mean...

I mean that if it doesn't matter whether their decisions are their own or not (which you suggest) and it is merely whether they are named the winner or not, it is purely a consequential judgement; only the outcome plays a part in deciding whether someone is a good chess player or not.
The only thing that determines if you're a good chess player or not is if you play good chess. What more to it can there be?
3)I am playing chess against someone and have a chess master telling me which moves to make. Does this mean I am a good chess player?
You are, in that moment, playing chess that is good. As such, you are a good chess player.

So my own level of skill has no role deciding whether I'm good at chess or not?
Your level of skill is determined solely by how well you play chess, so, if you play chess well, you have a high level of skill. How else would you define skill?

But am I actually playing chess in that sense of things? I make no decisions myself, I merely do what I'm told by someone else who is a chess master. Whose is the skill? Who is playing the game in anything other than a mechanistic sense; me or the chess master?
A computer is said to play chess. You can play chess by randomly rolling dice to determine your moves. None of that matters - what determines if you're playing chess or not is if you act in such a manner as to fulfill the requirements to be a chess player, and those requirements are that you move pieces in accordance with the rules of chess. Your motivations for your moves are irrelevant.

You both have skills - you're good at playing chess and the person helping you is good at helping people playing chess. I don't see a reason to make it any more complicated than that.

If you were to stop getting help, you would cease to play good chess, and, as such, would not remain a good chess player. That doesn't eliminate the fact that, while you have his help, you play good chess, and, if you play good chess, you're a good chess player.

You can redefine what "plays chess" means, but, under my definition, you're still a chess player. There's no distinction between "mechanistic chess" and "real chess".
Like I said, of course they're not equal in all ways. That's because they're two different scenarios...

I don't mean are the preceding events identical. Are both equally deserving wins? Should both be celebrated equally? Are they of equal value?
What does "deserving wins" even mean? If x series of moves results in White winning, then of course White "deserves" to win - it's an objective fact that that series of moves wins.

The wins themselves can be celebrated equally. The moves are totally detached from the movers. If you're asking whether or not the player should be celebrated, that's a different question. At most, the player can be celebrated for what he actually did - he was good at following orders and moving pieces. The grandmaster behind him can be celebrated for his tactical skill. That doesn't mean that the chess player didn't "play chess", nor does it mean that he didn't win.

If you act to induce the end-result where you win, then you are, by definition, a winner.

Are they of equal value? I don't know. Do you value them or not?
You seem to be trying to go somewhere with this. What, specifically, do you want to know regarding their differences or similarities? You seem to be trying to lead me into making some kind of judgement here, but I have no idea what judgement you want me to make.

I want to know how you would perceive the two situations, comparatively. I'm not trying to lead you into making any judgement, I'm asking you what judgement you'd make.

I mean, I can ask you to make a judgement about the sky... it's a very broad question and it's hard to even begin to answer it without narrowing down what the questioner actually wants to know.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2015 4:23:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 9:36:27 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
A few questions that I"d be interested in hearing a people"s answers to:

1)Are the rules of chess subjective or objective?
2)How do we recognise a good chess player?
3)I am playing chess against someone and have a chess master telling me which moves to make. Does this mean I am a good chess player?
4)Is winning a chess tournament in the way described in (3) identical in nature to winning the same tournament without the chess master informing my every move?

These questions are really obvious lol. What are you up to?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 7:13:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 4:23:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/16/2015 9:36:27 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
A few questions that I"d be interested in hearing a people"s answers to:

1)Are the rules of chess subjective or objective?
2)How do we recognise a good chess player?
3)I am playing chess against someone and have a chess master telling me which moves to make. Does this mean I am a good chess player?
4)Is winning a chess tournament in the way described in (3) identical in nature to winning the same tournament without the chess master informing my every move?

These questions are really obvious lol. What are you up to?

Me, up to something? Why so cynical?

I'd definitely be interested in hearing your answers to them. You've a tendency to approach things from an interestingly different angle.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 7:31:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 9:36:27 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
A few questions that I"d be interested in hearing a people"s answers to:

1)Are the rules of chess subjective or objective?

Ontologically subjective- they depend on the existence and consensus of minds

Epistemically objective- there are true facts about chess.

2)How do we recognise a good chess player?
3)I am playing chess against someone and have a chess master telling me which moves to make. Does this mean I am a good chess player?
4)Is winning a chess tournament in the way described in (3) identical in nature to winning the same tournament without the chess master informing my every move?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 7:44:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 9:36:27 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
A few questions that I"d be interested in hearing a people"s answers to:

1)Are the rules of chess subjective or objective?

Objective; there are clear and unanimously accepted rules in regards to piece movement and win conditions.

2)How do we recognise a good chess player?

A player who has a consistent number of wins, especially against other veteran players.

3)I am playing chess against someone and have a chess master telling me which moves to make. Does this mean I am a good chess player?

No, you can't claim skill given that it is not your skill determining the match. This scenario is tantamount to cheating.

4)Is winning a chess tournament in the way described in (3) identical in nature to winning the same tournament without the chess master informing my every move?

No, cheating is not the same thing as relying on your own skill regardless if both scenarios end in victory.

Why ask these mundane questions?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 7:51:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 1:27:22 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
But am I actually playing chess in that sense of things? I make no decisions myself, I merely do what I'm told by someone else who is a chess master. Whose is the skill? Who is playing the game in anything other than a mechanistic sense; me or the chess master?
A computer is said to play chess. You can play chess by randomly rolling dice to determine your moves. None of that matters - what determines if you're playing chess or not is if you act in such a manner as to fulfill the requirements to be a chess player, and those requirements are that you move pieces in accordance with the rules of chess. Your motivations for your moves are irrelevant.

A computer is taught how to play chess and then makes decisions without further input, so I don't think the analogy quite works. There are interesting elements to the example though, which I'd like to come back to later.

With regard to rolling the dice, statistics dictate that rolling dice will not lead to good results. However, we could take a Chinese Room approach to this example to highlight something significant. Three examples, to contrast:

1) You know the rules of chess, but are using dice rolls to dictate what moves you make.
2) You do not know the rules of chess, but are rolling dice and then using a reference sheet that maps particular dice rolls to particular moves by co-ordinate.
3) You know the rules of chess and are making decisions on which moves to make in the 'normal' way.

Other than the mechanics of each process, how does each example differ from the others, if at all? If one person each plays a game according to each example and they all win, can we consider any one of them to be a 'better' or 'worse' player than the others?

You both have skills - you're good at playing chess and the person helping you is good at helping people playing chess. I don't see a reason to make it any more complicated than that.

What happens if you're useless at playing chess, though? If you don't know the rules or even aim of the game, but still follow the instructions of the chess master?

I don't see it as necessarily true at all that I would be good at chess in this situation.

If you were to stop getting help, you would cease to play good chess, and, as such, would not remain a good chess player. That doesn't eliminate the fact that, while you have his help, you play good chess, and, if you play good chess, you're a good chess player.

So frequency of wins, quality of opponents, consistency of play, decision making; none of these are a factor in whether we consider someone a good chess player? Is there no difference between "playing well" and "being good" or "playing badly" and "being bad"? If someone like Gary Kasparov has a bad game, do we consider him a bad chess player? If he has a bad game at the exact same time as I have a good game against a different opponent, does that make me a good player and him a bad one? Would I be a better chess player than a world champion?

The wins themselves can be celebrated equally. The moves are totally detached from the movers. If you're asking whether or not the player should be celebrated, that's a different question.

The question is of whether they are a good player and how much their win should be celebrated. I don't think anyone celebrates a win independent of the involvement of a winner. I'm not sure how much sense there would be in doing so.

At most, the player can be celebrated for what he actually did - he was good at following orders and moving pieces. The grandmaster behind him can be celebrated for his tactical skill. That doesn't mean that the chess player didn't "play chess", nor does it mean that he didn't win.

What if the player didn't know the rules of chess at all? Would we say "he doesn't know how to play chess but he's a very good chess player"?

How about this:

I find someone who has never heard of chess. I tell them there is a game whereby they sit opposite someone on the board and, when instructed, move an object from one co-ordinate to another. If the destination is occupied then whatever occupies it is removed. I tell him this is a test of his instruction-following abilities and nothing more. Is he still playing chess?

If you act to induce the end-result where you win, then you are, by definition, a winner.

The question is not whether someone is deemed the winner or not.

Are they of equal value? I don't know. Do you value them or not?

I find it strange that you can't say whether you consider someone who plays alone, making their own decisions, is a better or worse player than someone who merely follows the instructions of another.

I mean, I can ask you to make a judgement about the sky... it's a very broad question and it's hard to even begin to answer it without narrowing down what the questioner actually wants to know.

Why does my motivation for asking the question influence how you'd view the matters being investigated? If I'm asking for reason X, are the rules subjective, but objective if I'm asking for reason Y?

Thank you for your answers, but I can't help but feel you're over-thinking it and trying to second-guess what your answers 'should' be with regard to some metric external to the context of the questions. Obviously I am going somewhere with this, but at the moment that isn't relevant to the questions being asked.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 7:53:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 7:31:40 AM, Raisor wrote:
Ontologically subjective- they depend on the existence and consensus of minds

Epistemically objective- there are true facts about chess.

Interesting distinction! I'm not sure I'd agree with the first part though, since it seems to me fairer to say that they're ontologically contingent, not subjective.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 7:58:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 7:44:48 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Objective; there are clear and unanimously accepted rules in regards to piece movement and win conditions.

Does unanimous acceptance make them objectively true or just a universally shared subjective truth?

No, you can't claim skill given that it is not your skill determining the match. This scenario is tantamount to cheating.

I would tend to agree, although there is nothing in the rules of chess that states how you decide to make your moves, merely what those moves can or can't be.

Why ask these mundane questions?

Because mundane questions act as a great lens and filter. If you can bear the mundanity of it all long enough to stick around, you'll perhaps see where I'm going with them.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 8:09:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 7:58:20 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:44:48 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Objective; there are clear and unanimously accepted rules in regards to piece movement and win conditions.

Does unanimous acceptance make them objectively true or just a universally shared subjective truth?

Hmm .. I'd say universally subjective, despite that wording being an oxymoron. I suppose between a group of friends or on another planet "chess" might have completely different rules and figures. However what is commonly accepted as chess, what's played in tournaments and among common folk, as we know it, has definitive rules.

No, you can't claim skill given that it is not your skill determining the match. This scenario is tantamount to cheating.

I would tend to agree, although there is nothing in the rules of chess that states how you decide to make your moves, merely what those moves can or can't be.

Cheating is always against the rules. Cheating constitutes an unfair advantage. And if it were to be found out that a player was receiving outside help that would be unanimously accepted as cheating. When 2 people challenge each other there is a gentleman's assumption that that is what the match entails. No hidden factors. A face to face match. To have a master whispering in your ear means it's not a 1v1, but a 2v1.

Why ask these mundane questions?

Because mundane questions act as a great lens and filter. If you can bear the mundanity of it all long enough to stick around, you'll perhaps see where I'm going with them.

Fair enough. Go on then ...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 8:29:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 8:09:16 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Hmm .. I'd say universally subjective, despite that wording being an oxymoron. I suppose between a group of friends or on another planet "chess" might have completely different rules and figures. However what is commonly accepted as chess, what's played in tournaments and among common folk, as we know it, has definitive rules.

I would argue that what we mean when we use the term is subjective (i.e. our understanding of what 'chess' means is subjective), but the rules themselves are objectively true. If we use the word for something else, those rules are still objectively true because nothing else describes that system and never will do. We might call it 'choot' or something, but it is only the labelling that has changed; those are still the rules of 'that' game.

Cheating is always against the rules.

Well yes, by definition!

Cheating constitutes an unfair advantage. And if it were to be found out that a player was receiving outside help that would be unanimously accepted as cheating. When 2 people challenge each other there is a gentleman's assumption that that is what the match entails. No hidden factors. A face to face match. To have a master whispering in your ear means it's not a 1v1, but a 2v1.

In this example, it is still 1v1 as the person moving the pieces under instruction has no input in the decisions. Also, you mention fairness, which is itself an interesting concept. Would you say that something that is unfair is by definition also cheating?

Fair enough. Go on then ...

I'm hoping for a couple more people to chip in with their answers yet. So far, the one thing I expected more disagreement on has been fairly unanimous, while the one area I thought would be completely without question has, well... been questioned.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 8:46:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 8:29:10 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/17/2015 8:09:16 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Hmm .. I'd say universally subjective, despite that wording being an oxymoron. I suppose between a group of friends or on another planet "chess" might have completely different rules and figures. However what is commonly accepted as chess, what's played in tournaments and among common folk, as we know it, has definitive rules.

I would argue that what we mean when we use the term is subjective (i.e. our understanding of what 'chess' means is subjective), but the rules themselves are objectively true. If we use the word for something else, those rules are still objectively true because nothing else describes that system and never will do. We might call it 'choot' or something, but it is only the labelling that has changed; those are still the rules of 'that' game.

So if everyone where to universally agree to a rule change in chess they would no longer objectively be playing chess? Rules to games change overtime. Can we claim to play football when the rules have changed since it's inception? This is not just a matter of semantics, but of what is accepted as the definition of the game, thus entailing what the game is. If the rules are changed, are we still playing chess?

Cheating is always against the rules.

Well yes, by definition!

Cheating constitutes an unfair advantage. And if it were to be found out that a player was receiving outside help that would be unanimously accepted as cheating. When 2 people challenge each other there is a gentleman's assumption that that is what the match entails. No hidden factors. A face to face match. To have a master whispering in your ear means it's not a 1v1, but a 2v1.

In this example, it is still 1v1 as the person moving the pieces under instruction has no input in the decisions. Also, you mention fairness, which is itself an interesting concept. Would you say that something that is unfair is by definition also cheating?

This speaks to the "hidden factor" aspect of cheating. If you were to tell your opponent you are playing by proxy then that would not be cheating.

In regards to unfair, it depends on the nature of the advantage. Could your opponent realistically have prior knowledge of and access to this source of given advantage?

Fair enough. Go on then ...

I'm hoping for a couple more people to chip in with their answers yet. So far, the one thing I expected more disagreement on has been fairly unanimous, while the one area I thought would be completely without question has, well... been questioned.

And what would those be?
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:00:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 7:53:33 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:31:40 AM, Raisor wrote:
Ontologically subjective- they depend on the existence and consensus of minds

Epistemically objective- there are true facts about chess.

Interesting distinction! I'm not sure I'd agree with the first part though, since it seems to me fairer to say that they're ontologically contingent, not subjective.

The rules of chess only exist in virtue of the subject- if no minds existed the rules of chess would cease to exist.

Ontological contingence is sort of a different issue. Yes the rules of chess are contingent, so are many ontologically objective things. It doesn't get at the question in op. Contingence isn't exclusive to what I said.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:02:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/16/2015 9:36:27 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
A few questions that I"d be interested in hearing a people"s answers to:

1)Are the rules of chess subjective or objective?

Objective

2)How do we recognise a good chess player?

We don't give a shitt

3)I am playing chess against someone and have a chess master telling me which moves to make. Does this mean I am a good chess player?

You aren't as good as a chess master, until you think like a chess master.

4)Is winning a chess tournament in the way described in (3) identical in nature to winning the same tournament without the chess master informing my every move?

No, but the results are equal. If your goal is to win the tournament, good job. If your goal is to be a chess master, you fvcked up.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:19:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 8:46:23 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
So if everyone where to universally agree to a rule change in chess they would no longer objectively be playing chess? Rules to games change overtime. Can we claim to play football when the rules have changed since it's inception? This is not just a matter of semantics, but of what is accepted as the definition of the game, thus entailing what the game is. If the rules are changed, are we still playing chess?

Imagine we define words based on a card system. On each card is a unique pattern and above it the word use to refer to that pattern. If we take two cards and swap the words, the patterns remain the same. We may be using the words differently, but the patterns are still unique and unchanged. So the question is not "is the meaning we assign to the word 'chess' objective?" but "is what 'chess' is currently used to describe objective?". The former - what we understand 'chess' to mean - is subjective, but the latter seems to me necessarily objective; whatever we call that set of rules, it is always that set of rules and no other.

This speaks to the "hidden factor" aspect of cheating. If you were to tell your opponent you are playing by proxy then that would not be cheating.

Agreed.

In regards to unfair, it depends on the nature of the advantage. Could your opponent realistically have prior knowledge of and access to this source of given advantage?

I meant in a more general sense; does 'unfair' equate to 'cheating' and 'fair' to 'not cheating'?

And what would those be?

I thought there might be a couple of 'subjectives' to (1) and I'm very surprised by BossyBurrito's answers to everything other than (1), but particularly (2).
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:21:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 9:02:35 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/16/2015 9:36:27 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
A few questions that I"d be interested in hearing a people"s answers to:

1)Are the rules of chess subjective or objective?

Objective

2)How do we recognise a good chess player?

We don't give a shitt

Would that be the 'royal we'?


3)I am playing chess against someone and have a chess master telling me which moves to make. Does this mean I am a good chess player?

You aren't as good as a chess master, until you think like a chess master.

Why?


4)Is winning a chess tournament in the way described in (3) identical in nature to winning the same tournament without the chess master informing my every move?

No, but the results are equal. If your goal is to win the tournament, good job. If your goal is to be a chess master, you fvcked up.

I agree; a purely consequentialist account actually seems to me to ignore the 'playing chess' aspect of things completely.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:24:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 9:21:11 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:02:35 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/16/2015 9:36:27 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
A few questions that I"d be interested in hearing a people"s answers to:

1)Are the rules of chess subjective or objective?

Objective

2)How do we recognise a good chess player?

We don't give a shitt

Would that be the 'royal we'?


3)I am playing chess against someone and have a chess master telling me which moves to make. Does this mean I am a good chess player?

You aren't as good as a chess master, until you think like a chess master.

Why?

Because "you" is the brain, and the brain of the operations is the chess master advising you what to do.


4)Is winning a chess tournament in the way described in (3) identical in nature to winning the same tournament without the chess master informing my every move?

No, but the results are equal. If your goal is to win the tournament, good job. If your goal is to be a chess master, you fvcked up.

I agree; a purely consequentialist account actually seems to me to ignore the 'playing chess' aspect of things completely.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:27:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 9:19:19 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/17/2015 8:46:23 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
So if everyone where to universally agree to a rule change in chess they would no longer objectively be playing chess? Rules to games change overtime. Can we claim to play football when the rules have changed since it's inception? This is not just a matter of semantics, but of what is accepted as the definition of the game, thus entailing what the game is. If the rules are changed, are we still playing chess?

Imagine we define words based on a card system. On each card is a unique pattern and above it the word use to refer to that pattern. If we take two cards and swap the words, the patterns remain the same. We may be using the words differently, but the patterns are still unique and unchanged. So the question is not "is the meaning we assign to the word 'chess' objective?" but "is what 'chess' is currently used to describe objective?". The former - what we understand 'chess' to mean - is subjective, but the latter seems to me necessarily objective; whatever we call that set of rules, it is always that set of rules and no other.

But we're not just changing the name that corresponds to the pattern, we are changing the pattern itself. That is why, as I said before, it's not just a matter of semantics.

This speaks to the "hidden factor" aspect of cheating. If you were to tell your opponent you are playing by proxy then that would not be cheating.

Agreed.

In regards to unfair, it depends on the nature of the advantage. Could your opponent realistically have prior knowledge of and access to this source of given advantage?

I meant in a more general sense; does 'unfair' equate to 'cheating' and 'fair' to 'not cheating'?

It depends on the source of the disadvantage. If 2 players of unequal skill were to play each other face to face, no hidden factors, that couldn't be called cheating.

And what would those be?

I thought there might be a couple of 'subjectives' to (1) and I'm very surprised by BossyBurrito's answers to everything other than (1), but particularly (2).

Well technically I'm in the subjective camp now; only because you made a strange distinction between objective and universally subjective.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:28:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 9:00:09 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:53:33 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:31:40 AM, Raisor wrote:
Ontologically subjective- they depend on the existence and consensus of minds

Epistemically objective- there are true facts about chess.

Interesting distinction! I'm not sure I'd agree with the first part though, since it seems to me fairer to say that they're ontologically contingent, not subjective.

The rules of chess only exist in virtue of the subject- if no minds existed the rules of chess would cease to exist.

I don't really think that's the same question as to whether they're objectively true unless we're asking from an ontological, Platonic perspective of "do the rules of chess have their own existence?". I am interested in the epistemic question. This presupposes the existence of minds as rule-followers, but that's a presupposition that I'm as happy to defend as I am unlikely to need to.

Ontological contingence is sort of a different issue. Yes the rules of chess are contingent, so are many ontologically objective things. It doesn't get at the question in op. Contingence isn't exclusive to what I said.

My point is that they could be contingent but objective and the fact that they depend on the existence of minds does not necessarily mean they are subjective; they could be contingent and objective.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:51:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 9:27:23 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:19:19 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
But we're not just changing the name that corresponds to the pattern, we are changing the pattern itself. That is why, as I said before, it's not just a matter of semantics.

We're just moving the label to another - very similar, but still unique - pattern. The original pattern still exists unchanged, we just use a different label for it.

It depends on the source of the disadvantage. If 2 players of unequal skill were to play each other face to face, no hidden factors, that couldn't be called cheating.

What if the better of the two players lied about their skill?

Well technically I'm in the subjective camp now; only because you made a strange distinction between objective and universally subjective.

I merely meant to highlight that it isn't objectively true because of consensus opinion. I definitely hold that the rules themselves are objective.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 10:38:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 9:28:50 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:00:09 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:53:33 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:31:40 AM, Raisor wrote:
Ontologically subjective- they depend on the existence and consensus of minds

Epistemically objective- there are true facts about chess.

Interesting distinction! I'm not sure I'd agree with the first part though, since it seems to me fairer to say that they're ontologically contingent, not subjective.

The rules of chess only exist in virtue of the subject- if no minds existed the rules of chess would cease to exist.

I don't really think that's the same question as to whether they're objectively true unless we're asking from an ontological, Platonic perspective of "do the rules of chess have their own existence?". I am interested in the epistemic question. This presupposes the existence of minds as rule-followers, but that's a presupposition that I'm as happy to defend as I am unlikely to need to.

Ontological contingence is sort of a different issue. Yes the rules of chess are contingent, so are many ontologically objective things. It doesn't get at the question in op. Contingence isn't exclusive to what I said.

My point is that they could be contingent but objective and the fact that they depend on the existence of minds does not necessarily mean they are subjective; they could be contingent and objective.

I'm not really sure what we are arguing about. There are objective facts about ontologically subjective things. The statement "I am angry" is a proposition with truth value about an ontologically subjective state of affairs.

Anything not logically necessary is contingent; contingency doesn't speak to the distinction I brought up. It is an additional fact about the rules of
Chess that doesn't bear on whether my original post was accurate.

The rules of chess don't have some out there platonic existence, they exist in the subjective space created by society. Thus they are ontologically subjective. The rules of chess are knowable and there are true and false statements about them, thus they are epistemically objective. The rules of chess are not logically necessary, thus they are ontologically contingent.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 11:25:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 10:38:56 AM, Raisor wrote:
I'm not really sure what we are arguing about. There are objective facts about ontologically subjective things. The statement "I am angry" is a proposition with truth value about an ontologically subjective state of affairs.

If someone is angry, it is not subjectively true that they are angry, but objectively so. For them to be subjectively angry, it would have to be true for someone else to say "he is not angry" at the same time as the person they're talking about can truthfully say "I am angry". There is nothing subjective about the exclamation "I am angry". Even if the experience itself is a subjective one, the truth of it is objective. A subjective truth would be "he seems angry"; it may be equally true for to two onlookers, I may seem angry and not angry.

Anything not logically necessary is contingent; contingency doesn't speak to the distinction I brought up. It is an additional fact about the rules of
Chess that doesn't bear on whether my original post was accurate.

I think perhaps this may get bogged down in a discussion surrounding the idea of necessity, which is a huge tangent so I'll not go into detail. Essentially, I don't buy into the concept of ontological necessity in the way most commonly used. To me, something is necessary only within a context. Something that is 'just necessary' is not something I believe to be meaningful in the sense used in conjunction with ontology.

Anyway, the question is only really interested in the epistemic sense of the question.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 12:19:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 11:25:25 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/17/2015 10:38:56 AM, Raisor wrote:
I'm not really sure what we are arguing about. There are objective facts about ontologically subjective things. The statement "I am angry" is a proposition with truth value about an ontologically subjective state of affairs.

If someone is angry, it is not subjectively true that they are angry, but objectively so. For them to be subjectively angry, it would have to be true for someone else to say "he is not angry" at the same time as the person they're talking about can truthfully say "I am angry". There is nothing subjective about the exclamation "I am angry". Even if the experience itself is a subjective one, the truth of it is objective. A subjective truth would be "he seems angry"; it may be equally true for to two onlookers, I may seem angry and not angry.

Anything not logically necessary is contingent; contingency doesn't speak to the distinction I brought up. It is an additional fact about the rules of
Chess that doesn't bear on whether my original post was accurate.

I think perhaps this may get bogged down in a discussion surrounding the idea of necessity, which is a huge tangent so I'll not go into detail. Essentially, I don't buy into the concept of ontological necessity in the way most commonly used. To me, something is necessary only within a context. Something that is 'just necessary' is not something I believe to be meaningful in the sense used in conjunction with ontology.

Anyway, the question is only really interested in the epistemic sense of the question.

You don't understand what I am saying, you are imposing your vague and poorly defined sense of "subjective" on terms I used to clarify this initial ambiguity.

I have not said the statement "I am angry" is "subjectively true." I said it was epistemically objective, thus the statement has objective truth content. The content of the proposition depends on a subjective state of affairs, so the proposition concerns an aspect of the world which is ontologically subjective.

Necessity and contingency have literally nothing to do with the distinction I made.