Difference between revisions of "Chess-Opening Problem"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{stub}} | |||
There are a limited number of actually viable chess openings. Highly skilled chess players will almost always play the same opening moves, which have specific names. It could be said that starting the chess board from its initial position is a waste of time. The players could just as easily name the opening they will be playing and start from that position. | There are a limited number of actually viable chess openings. Highly skilled chess players will almost always play the same opening moves, which have specific names. It could be said that starting the chess board from its initial position is a waste of time. The players could just as easily name the opening they will be playing and start from that position. | ||
Line 5: | Line 6: | ||
A possible solution may be to acknowledge all the common arguments and proceed with the assumption everyone is aware of the basics. | A possible solution may be to acknowledge all the common arguments and proceed with the assumption everyone is aware of the basics. | ||
== Common Arguments that Never Get Resolved == | |||
* [[Free Will vs. Determinism Debate]] | |||
* [[Socialism vs. Capitalism Debate]] | |||
== See Also == | |||
* [[Snap to Grid Intellectualism]] | |||
[[Category:Ericisms]] | |||
[[Category:Discourse]] |
Latest revision as of 16:16, 15 September 2021
There are a limited number of actually viable chess openings. Highly skilled chess players will almost always play the same opening moves, which have specific names. It could be said that starting the chess board from its initial position is a waste of time. The players could just as easily name the opening they will be playing and start from that position.
Many conversations in our public discourse are similar. There are often two sides with known positions and arguments. Discussions get bogged down by rehashing well worn intellectual paths without making any sort of progress.
A possible solution may be to acknowledge all the common arguments and proceed with the assumption everyone is aware of the basics.