Just now I’ve emailed to Peter an article entitled, “On the Philosophical Dimensions of Chess”, published in Inquiry. I sent it to him as I don’t have your email addy. Anyway, hope you enjoy reading it.

Cheers.

- TCG

I think a brief look at the field of mathematics might help clarify the discussion on the role of ethnicity (which encompasses race and culture), since I believe that chess shares many similarities with mathematics in terms of its abstraction and the creative process. Much has been written about it. I would like to know if Tommy Curry had studied that literature.

We should first ask the question of why one should care to consider the interaction between chess (or mathematics) and ethnicity. It is important for the study and evaluation of the historical development of the field. For example, much of the historical contributions in mathematics have been erroneously attributed to Greeks (i.e. as sole contributions) ignoring the influences of Egyptian, Babylonian, and Indian mathematicians. Cultural and/or racial considerations might also be important for the teaching of aspiring minds, in terms of bringing out their best at least during the developmental stages. However, such considerations would be irrelevant at the deepest level, where only objectivity must matter. For example, in terms of making seminal contributions to number theory, it did not matter that Ramanujan came from a poor, Brahmin background in rural India, but yet was able to communicate and collaborate perfectly well with GH Hardy and J Liitlewood, who were the beacons of number theory in the European world. However, I would argue that his approach to the field, and the source of his creativity had deep cultural underpinnings.

You say, for instance, ‘Black players take chess to a whole new level’ (ALL black players? anyway, the ‘level’ you describe is anything but new in chess), ‘hip-hop structures the way people of African descent frame chess’ (doesn’t everyone have an ‘African descent’ anyway?) and ‘Hip-hop artists like Jay Z and GZA have made chess a demonstrable aesthetic that maps itself onto the Black experience of the racist American society’ (What about black people outside American society? Is it possible for White people to experience this aesthetic?) . These are not my interpretations, but literal quotes from your article. On top of that, your chess analysis is very sloppy or plain incorrect. This is why I wrote that I disagreed with almost everything in your article.

If there are more convincing arguments or explanations to be found, I think you should have mentioned them in your article, rather than throw them at people after they have read it.

By the way, you apparently haven’t noticed that in my review, I said that while I do not agree with most of what you say (I have that right, don’t I?), I still liked your article. I was trying to give you a compliment. Instead, you accuse me of being a ‘typical white theorist’ who should not speak his mind.
Best regards, Arne

First, my article does not say that “skin color” absolutely determines one’s style of chess. If you took the time to read the footnotes, you would see in footnote 9 (pp.153-154) that I in fact argue against essentialism–the idea that skin color determines values, perspectives, etc. In fact, I say “my chapter is not to be seen as an essentialist piece claiming innate chess ability, but rather a discussion of learning styles and worldview analyses that are becoming the centerpiece of multicultural education and African centered psychology” (p.154).

I would continue with your arguments against GM Ashley and the “debate between white and Black chess players,” but it seems that your perspective is already dedicated to a specific viewing of this issue.

What is so amazing to me is not only are you willing to dismiss the statements of Rza, the Hip-Hop chess community, GM Ashley, and myself as “ridiculous” statements, but you propose an analysis that is superficial at best to what is actually said in my article. You seem to believe that your 50 word summation has comprehensively spoken for the Black community and their description of how and why they play chess. It must be amazing to have such intellectual insight into different cultures without any knowledge of them. If you perhaps engaged the hip-hop and chess community, which holds its own tournaments and has its own website, then you could have explained why my account does not accurately portray this communities sentiment. But given your ignorance on this matter, I find it troubling you wish to continue defending your position.

I’m not denying a possible ‘recent intersection’ between hip-hop and chess – I just think playing chess or thinking about it has absolutely nothing to do with being black, African-American, or whatever.
First of all, Ashley’s comparison of creative hip-hop artists and creative chess players, to which you attach high importance, is both flawed and preposterous, for at least two reasons. It first of all implies black hip-hop artists are somehow ‘more’ creative than, say, white country & western artists, and secondly it supposes the levels of creativity between, say, Kasparov and Ice Cube could in any way be comparable. Well, Kasparov has been creative throughout his entire chess career – over 25 years and has played thousands of games, whereas Cube has recorded only a few albums and his last good record dates from at least a decade ago. I’m sure you’ll agree that we’re not even talking about the same sport – it’s a whole different ball game.

More to the point, ‘White’ chess players like Shirov and Morozevich have every bit as much ‘hip-hop’ in their chess, if not more, as the ‘Black players on the south side of Chicago’, Maurice Ashley or the hip-hop artist Eminem (who is white, by the way.). As for psychological warfare or the feeling of a ‘dynamic momentum on the board’ or whatever: I’m sure every chessplayer – black or white – has experienced it. At least I know I have. It has absolutely nothing to do with the colour of your skin or your roots, but with the nature of the game.

I also found many of your chess analysis unconvincing or even sloppy, which gave me the idea that you don’t really care for facts or correctness of your theories. For instance, in your game against ‘An A player from Chicago’ you mention ‘dynamic compensation’ after 13…exf5 14.Qd5 whereas in that line White simply wins material. There’s nothing ‘dynamic’ about it – it’s totally ’solid’ and ‘materialistic’. (This is also the only justification for hanging a piece and playing 13.Nf5 – after all, if you so desperately wanted to prevent d6-d5, you could also have played 13.Nd5 which I’m sure would also have giving very interesting ‘dynamic compensation’). The fact that you didn’t, proves in my opinion that you simply saw that after Qd5 you would win the exchange (or at least your piece back), and you were in fact thinking ‘traditional’ and ‘materialistic’ after all. (And even if you did manage to find a move like Nf5 on ‘dynamic thinking’ only, it would still be nothing special. Such cases happen in almost every game, by every player, of any descent.)
Also, calling 25.Qxa6 a ‘blunder’ (in your game against ‘Zukertort’) is very sloppy since White is lost anyway and indeed, if White recaptures on c3 he loses not just a piece, but his queen. This makes Qxa6 in fact White’s relatively best move. Hence, there is also no ‘narrative triumph’.

Perhaps my answer has not satisfied you, but I hope that you can at least appreciate why I chose to ‘dismiss’ your article. Best regards, Arne

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with some other aspects of the game before writing such opinions. (http://hiphopchessfederation.org/)

That depends entirely on what exactly is said about (the work of) the people mentioned. I still do not see how the mere mentioning of names could be a viable indication of the merits of a particular book without actually reading the thing