i don't have a english tounge i hope you understand, disregared my grammar:

   In your first question regarding moral if that would be the case then Christ would be the grandmaster, but there is no record He play the game... and we can't tell that all grandmaster today is moral... so if your asking if it is true that those pople with high moral standard play better... it is not the whole truth there is a lot of factor why someone is beter than the other in playing chess. 

  on the other hand , i stronglly agree to you that there is a Good GOD which is the creator of heavens and earth, and the bad god whitch is satan the god of this world. your asking whose the better player(not playing chess but the real battle of life and death)? OF COURSE THE GOOD GOD!!! and on what degree? Uncomparable direct opposite, bad god are hopeless he will not win no matter what!

  And there is a ongoing battle between them... you must take your side and it is safe to join to the SURE WIN, and that is my GOD. 

Well, how i said, to express myself in english is a bit dificult, and i agree with you that is a mistake to say that there is no external influence, but i still think that luck ( dices, or something that does not depend on your judgement ) is not involved. When i say brain, i mean our "beeing", with heart, skin, lambs, eyes,  etc...with ashes and heaven. cosmos ashes they say.

 

 

"there is no luck involved on it. No external influence, only your brain."

This GAME is full of possibilities and luck as well. Anything can influence your choice. As for the brain, I am sure it's just a transmittor, or a kind of a connector to  a substance (call it what you like) that let's US THINK or make our choice. People are multilevel creatures made of dirt and heaven, so the more/less moral one is the more s/he is closer to heaven/ashes. As for chess, it's important just to be a good sport.  

 

Well, that's a issue with endless points of view. and in my point of view, first of all, i don't see chess as a game. there is no luck involved on it. No external influence, only your brain. And going to the subject itself, i have this same doubts in music. We have in all music history ( any kind, style, whatever..) genius with so "odd" moral ( who am i to judge a somebody's else moral? ) that i wonder how this composers could create so amazing musics ( musics that transport you to heaven in earth ) and at the same time act like "beasts" in there ordinary lifes. And at the same time, we have genius that had lived there lifes without this "evil" behavior. Both sides, had created amazing musics. I can not understand it.for me, i play music and i play chess with my brain and with my heart. Well, i could spend a whole night talking about chess and music ( drinking a good wine) and express myself  writing in english is very dificult. I will be back here for sure, because it is a very interesting issue.

The last comment was about life as it is, i.e. it's a dog eat dog's world in 90 per cent of cases. So that very comment above leads to another conclusion - a good man has to be at least impolite and a little bit cunning to gain whatever he wants. So it's obvious that to be moral is bad, as far as it doesn't pay.

We all know that chess is a game, but it's not an ordinary game. It has nobility and requires more than any other games do - mind. I'm still sure that  the more moral you are, the clearer you can see and calculate your winning moves!

Chess is a game. One should not link it with morality at all. A good chess player has to be at least impolite and a little bit cunning to defeat the opponent.

Historically, chess is a game where players respect each other. They follow rules and protocols - written and unwritten. There's a difference between a chessplayer and a woodpusher. In the same manner, there's a difference between a warrior and a barbarian. Even in war, there are rules to follow. Unlike in other games (Games of the Generals, for example), chess is very transparent from and to both ends of the board. These, and other experiences in chess playing, may have influenced the notion that chess players occupy higher moral ground.

Let's advocate, then, that politicians play chess ...

I agree that the question is a bit pointless as everything we do in this life is either moral or immoral and everyone could ask the same in connection practically to anything.  Of course there are men, who  could say that they are really bad, but play any game brilliantly. One may say there are things beyond morality, i.e. material things. But still they aquire some when we use them. So I believe it's beter to reshape the question to this - Does it pay to be moral when playing chess? I know it does, because its about respect to myself. 

I miss the point totally.  Morality and chess!  People who are good at chess somehow seem to see more of the board than those who are not.  Its a great game.  That's all I can say.  One thinks with one's brain but one also needs to play over the board a lot to get a feel for the game.  Without practice and by just thinking it is very difficult to improve one's game.  Play and reflection are both necessary I feel.

I think that the simple answer may well be that some people are just not as competitive as others. I'm with you... if I'm no good I won't take part. I'm rather envious of the people that don't care... what an easy life they must lead!

Why do people do something they are rubbish at?

ya

Technically morality doesn't play any role in chess simply because it's immaterial. So for materialistic individuals it's a zero, when in case you are a believer, it matters a lot.

A Thought provoking issue Hutter.

To my mind, morality has nothing to do with the prowess required in the game of chess to become a dashing and successful player. In order to be an aggressive and highly effective player, it needs an out of box thinking in every new game keeping some of the basics needed in the game. So long as the moves are permissible as per the rules of the game, nothing is moral or immoral. Every player's endeavour should be to capture the opponent's king with least of his/ her own's loss and time. Both an otherwise moral or immoral person can be equally effective given other qualities constant. 

Thank you for very interesting comment, Batgirl. But I still believe that both A.Alekhine and Bobby Fischer could play better if... And this leads to another side of the question: what do we think with? I don't like the idea that we use for this only our brain as it is commonly accepted.

That's an interesting subject, Hutter.

Historically, chess had been banned by several religions, partly for the gambling aspect that used to be associated with it and partly because of the pieces, seen as icons.  But that doesn't really speak for morality in relationship to chess itself. Benjamin Franklin, one of the founders of the United States, wrote a piece called  the Morales of Chess, in which he asserted the inverse - that chess has much to teach us about morality and that playing chess encourages us to practice certain virtuous behaviors.

So, there's always been some connection with chess and morality (or virtue). But I don't think good conquers evil just because it seems like it should. Maybe if there is some divine retribution, then that may be the case, but in chess, just as in real life, those who "play hardball," often succeed, at least superficially, over those who "play nice."  A bad person may have more killer-instinct than a good person and may be more willing to take chances or to do what the feel as necessary to win. One might argue that possibly A. Alekhine was a less-than-nice person (see the Nazi articles) and the same with Bobby Fischer (see the 9-11 tapes), yet both were tremendous chess-players.