Math and Chess
Submitted by
darkveggie on Mon, 05/12/2008 at 11:56am.
This is a work in progress.
First of all, anything inscribable in numbers can be subjected to the rigors of pure mathematics.
Second, read Godel's incompleteness theorem before you say anything about self-consistency. I'm acquainted with his work.
Third, if you really want to treat everything as an extensive form or a giant field extension on weakly defined operators, then go ahead. But I'll play chess with position, tactics and strategy, while you can go exhaust the search tree on your own time/money/processor.
Fourth, try reading correspondence notation sometime. It's rather silly.
And chess ...? Here's a game I just played. It was part of a random best of 3, and it goes back and forth. Kind of exciting, if you're intermediate level. Probably rife with inaccuracy that I'm not going to analyze today.