Chess

 Pushing wood has got to be one of the things I enjoy most these days. I feel that I would be omitting a huge part of my modern life, if I failed to include the topic of chess. Of greatest relevance to my life include the nature of hierarchy in chess, as well as the concept of a "game". I thus wish to share some of my thoughts on these aspects of the game, as well as ponder upon how these factors have contributed to my attraction, if at all.

Chess is a game, yes. But like any professional sport, it is one that involves many levels, and a distribution of skill levels among players, where few enter the top, and exponentially fewer remain as the quality continues to increase.

And yet, like how the fastest sprinter can nowhere near as fast as a lion, the best chess players are mere amateurs beside the best computers; there simply is no competition; despite this, they are valued not for finding the best move in all situations, but rather for crushing and dominating others that come their way. To amateurs at chess, a grandmaster plays phenomenally well; and still these grandmasters are human. We look up to the grandmasters because of their outperformance of other humans. They are at the top of the dominance hierarchy.

The second aspect of chess is the notion of a "game". A singular game is won, lost, or drawn. The outcome is clear. Although there is a high degree of nuance to the nature of the conclusion of the game, it leaves the contestants unconfused about its conclusion. Within the match, one individual achieves a sense of status, and the other is left humiliated, though often to a small degree. The accumulation of such singular events in the career of a chess player determines that player's position within the rank of the chess society.

Within one's community however, one might be relatively dominant, though they are nowhere near the top (and who's to say that it is only at the top that one can experience a sense of dominance?--a 800 rated player can crush a 400 any day). I have a friend who is rated about 1800, which makes him a strong player in general. But not at our school. At our school, during lunchtime play, he absolutely crushed. Probably because not that many people had such a dedication to the game as him. Second to but one other player, he seemed to rule supreme above all. Yet, if he were at a tournament, he wouldn't be so crushing. The point I'm making is that I feel that the environment in which he plays has a significant impact on his confidence, motivation, and self-perception. Such characteristics, which can be starkly different between two players, even those who have similar strength, may play a role in their future trajectory, just as in real life. I feel that a student brought up in a community to make him feel smart will go to greater lengths than one who feels himself to be inferior.

In such a sense, my position in chess society has many parallels to my position in real society.