"all things in existence are physiologically connected"

Chess is Outdated

Chess in all of its perceived complexities is in essence a primitive game of cynicism and war translation, relative to the technology age’s potential of integration and exponential growth. The idea of participant [human, pawn, etc.] sacrifice in order to win at the war game of chess as an analogy for real world quarrel lacks innovation and real world or rather new world strategy. In an age where resource abundance is a buy product technological abundance, I have become infinitely board with the war game of win-lose economics as it translates with Chess.

I’m a believer that, in the 21st century political, economic, socio-cultural, and especially technological advancements can revitalize our collective value for human kind. A sort of networked individualism. How do you think that we can leverage technology to curb our collective losses and increase our win-wins?



  Adam Lowe Martin wrote @

Why pick on chess? Aren’t most, if not all games, metaphors for war? “The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton.” It’s not the games that constitute the problem; its the goals.
Currently, the world’s priorities that are those of multi-national corporations. These amoral golems are given all the rights of human beings and none of the responsibilities. They are allowed to grow to super-human size and wreak havoc in the name of “share holder equity” and “free markets”, while they actively work to undermine both. Until we clarify what it is we are “playing” for, the game is pretty much irrelevant.

  JFKII wrote @

Thanks for the commentary, I think that I’d echo lots of this language if this post were longer. But…Regarding the choice of the game, I think that it is important to touch the way that we initiate strategy building. I started playing chess at age 5 and unknowingly I was taught about economic scarcity. two sides fighting to control a limited resource. The ideals on optimal offensive and defensive strategy in chess mirror those of protectionist political philosophy across the globe.

The social sentiments that are aligned with Chess as the intellectuals game is dangerous. As most people understand interaction is of diverse groups (or the light and dark pieces) it is necessary to have some tug of war that results in one party (even a greatly diminished) dominating the other group in a setting where there is some relative abundance in space. My writing on the rationale of abundance suggest that the tug of war is a result of our understanding that we are fundamentally different than our “diversity” groups, and that it is necessary for there to exist an economically dominant group.

This type of thinking was actually necessary in a more primitive existence, 200,000 years ago to current…But our technologies and access to abundance actually allow for a new type of civil engagement (some of what I talk about in the last book). People don’t need to learn how to kill each other for abundant resources today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: