tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12844144.post6697020640421256391..comments2024-02-18T10:25:18.117-05:00Comments on The Kenilworthian: Chess and Evolutionary TheoryMichael Goellerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14512012158305281566noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12844144.post-30403899100654911552018-09-02T10:40:00.058-04:002018-09-02T10:40:00.058-04:00I am reading David Quammen's new book The Tang...I am reading David Quammen's new book The Tangled Tree: A Radical New History of Life. It presents many of the ideas you cover in your essay on chess and evolutionary theory. You were really ahead of him in many ways, especially considering that he does not consider the way HGT happens in culture as well as nature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12844144.post-14611149914396337412016-01-18T01:51:06.754-05:002016-01-18T01:51:06.754-05:00The use of the term "evolution" to descr...The use of the term "evolution" to describe the development of opening theory in chess goes pretty far back. Consider, for example, William Cook's "The Evolution of the Chess Openings" from 1906 (!):<br /><a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Evolution_of_the_Chess_Openings.html?id=fbA7nQEACAAJ" rel="nofollow">https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Evolution_of_the_Chess_Openings.html?id=fbA7nQEACAAJ</a><br /><br />More currently, there is "Chess Evolution" opening theory. Meanwhile, in the "ontogenic" realm of evolution, there is Arthur Yusupov's training course from Quality Chess:<br /><a href="http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/docs/14/artur_yusupovs_awardwinning_training_course/" rel="nofollow">http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/docs/14/artur_yusupovs_awardwinning_training_course/</a><br />Michael Goellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14512012158305281566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12844144.post-54714092675120344162015-09-25T08:03:19.316-04:002015-09-25T08:03:19.316-04:00This article of yours introduced me to "horiz...This article of yours introduced me to "horizontal gene transfer," and now I hear about that in the New York Times today:<br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/science/that-stinky-cheese-is-a-result-of-evolutionary-overdrive.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/science/that-stinky-cheese-is-a-result-of-evolutionary-overdrive.html</a><br /><br />Missing your blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12844144.post-88640665814880294872007-03-19T15:30:00.000-04:002007-03-19T15:30:00.000-04:00My Revolutionary Opening Theory is set-up at:- sho...My Revolutionary Opening Theory is set-up at:-<BR/> shop-hop.com/chessrot<BR/>You can create a link to it on your<BR/>site if you want.<BR/> Mike Surtees (Alias Snafflevich)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01179953759701997901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12844144.post-37170335857960444572007-02-16T00:38:00.000-05:002007-02-16T00:38:00.000-05:00Very interesting idea, that opening development sh...Very interesting idea, that opening development shares characteristics with horizontal gene transfer. Also interesting is the symbiosis such a transfer may cause in the chess world; I would think that players that import an idea from one opening to other are likely to encourage the use of both openings.<BR/><BR/>Of course, it is all moot, since the theory of intelligent design dictates that Cassia helped to create the openings. :-PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12844144.post-38924295140304758632007-02-15T16:18:00.000-05:002007-02-15T16:18:00.000-05:00Michael, I checked the book out at home, and what ...Michael, I checked the book out at home, and what I was refering to was <I> The Dynamics of Chess Psychology </I>, another study of the "evolution" of chess. The author is Cary Utterberg (1994).<BR/><BR/>Howard GoldowskyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12844144.post-7548790497842629602007-02-15T08:56:00.000-05:002007-02-15T08:56:00.000-05:00Michael: I hadn't noticed that meme reference in y...Michael: I hadn't noticed that meme reference in your piece: excellent. I will check it out. (Note, officially I am suspicious of evolutionary biology being imported into the social sciences, but I find the meme idea fun at the very least, if not a bit fuzzy headed).Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12844144.post-13556102289396972842007-02-14T22:17:00.000-05:002007-02-14T22:17:00.000-05:00One additional point, Blue Devil: you are right to...One additional point, Blue Devil: you are right to observe that "I think that many who use the term 'evolution of X' really mean to give a historical account of progress in the field." But the use of the term "evolution" in historical accounts of chess theory is very consciously referencing the biological model, as I hope my analysis makes clear. Certainly Kasparov is very conscious in his use of the term, as his essay title alone announces. Others, especially Saidy, are fully explicit in their references to the post-Darwinian meaning.Michael Goellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14512012158305281566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12844144.post-35122307329665439682007-02-14T22:11:00.000-05:002007-02-14T22:11:00.000-05:00Howard: Thanks for the note -- especially the head...Howard: Thanks for the note -- especially the heads up regarding Kasparov's "Revolution in the 70s," of which I had not yet heard. It sounds like something I'd like to read. As for the "Dynamic Chess" reference: I assume you mean Beim's "How to play dynamic chess"? Or maybe RN Coles's "<A HREF="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1008456" REL="nofollow">Dynamic chess</A>." Both excellent and related to my topic.<BR/><BR/>Eric (Blue Devil): Concerning "memes": yes, that is basically what I am talking about, but I did not feel like setting forth the theory, especially since I was trying to discuss the evolutionary model directly. The works I cite (such as Kasparov) mainly work directly with evolutionary theory by analogy, so it didn't make sense to dwell on memes, though I make reference to the theory several times. There actually is a pretty good piece online that presents a meme theory of chess, as I mention in the piece, titled <A HREF="http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2002/vol6/de_sousa_jd.html" REL="nofollow">Chess moves and their memomics: a framework for the evolutionary processes of chess openings</A>. You should read it. My main criticism is that he does not break from the limited model of Koenig and others which only considers opening memes as functioning vertically, across generations, rather than horizontally or laterally, across openings, which is the most powerful method of meme propogation, as ideas from one opening influence another. I have read some things by <A HREF="http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/" REL="nofollow">Susan Blackmore</A> on memes, which I recommend. She's a good writer.Michael Goellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14512012158305281566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12844144.post-23688841570114838982007-02-14T15:44:00.000-05:002007-02-14T15:44:00.000-05:00A great post. I think that many who use the term '...A great post. I think that many who use the term 'evolution of X' really mean to give a historical account of progress in the field (e.g., the evolution of mathematical thought).<BR/><BR/>One bit that you might consider is the recent obsession with <I>memes</I> (Dennett, Dawkins). That is, units of cultural selection: little behaviors, habits, and customs that are passed on culturally (e.g., saying 'God bless you' when someone sneezes). They do not follow the same rules of biological inheritance, but work much more rapidly, and can 'reproduce' across people very quickly, even within a single generation. It would be interesting to see a meme analysis of chess ideas, fashions, and the like.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12844144.post-49090696897165837652007-02-13T14:32:00.000-05:002007-02-13T14:32:00.000-05:00Another exceptional article. Michael, I truly enjo...Another exceptional article. Michael, I truly enjoy your long posts.<BR/><BR/>Kasparov's Amazon short "An Evolutionary Theory of Chess," didn't strike me as a very scholarly work. Everything in his article that could masquerade as an insight came <I>ex post facto</I>. What has he predicted?<BR/><BR/>Taken as a whole, the books you mentioned on "chess evolution" are an interesting bunch. I once had the opportuniy to purchase Koenig's work for $5 -- an opportuniy lost. There is another book in this genre, I forget the author, but the title is <I> Dynamic Chess Psychology </I>. Kasparov's new book on the openings of the 70's should also add some interesting material.<BR/><BR/>Howard goldowskyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12844144.post-71011710592432123062007-02-13T12:05:00.000-05:002007-02-13T12:05:00.000-05:00I sometimes attempt to analogize chess history and...I sometimes attempt to analogize chess history and chess developmental psychology with the development of mathematical concepts, which I studied at university as a mathematics degree. I've never managed to work it up into a coherent theory though.Tom Chivershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12844144.post-83840893425261004112007-02-12T22:32:00.000-05:002007-02-12T22:32:00.000-05:00Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, the "red meat Repu...Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, the "red meat Republicans" remark probably goes too far.... Glad that even those who do not share my politics can still enjoy my posts!<BR/><BR/>There is no question, however, that the tide of public opinion on global warming has shifted dramatically in recent weeks. The science there has been extremely convincing for at least the past decade. Any disagreement is completely unsupported by objective science. Now we can finally have a debate about what actually to do about it!Michael Goellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14512012158305281566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12844144.post-73803147159376787522007-02-12T20:27:00.000-05:002007-02-12T20:27:00.000-05:00A wonderful, wide-ranging post, Michael. Two poin...A wonderful, wide-ranging post, Michael. Two points that I must disagree with you on, though. I'm pretty familiar with Republicans, and I don't think there are really that many today who would would qualify for the 'Social Darwinist' label--whether 'red-meat' or other variety. I haven't heard much talk of letting the poor starve to death as being good for the species around the old campaign headquarters, lately.<BR/><BR/>Also:<BR/><BR/><I>In the U.S. currently, you will find less consensus on Evolution than you will on Global Warming--and that is only because of a sudden shift in our collective thinking about the latter due to incontrovertible evidence.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't believe in collective thinking, but you could be right on the numbers; I must call you on the use of 'incontrovertible evidence,' though. I don't think that in science there is such a thing.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I agree with just about all of your observations on evolution, and chess. Thanks for such a thoughtful, thorough and stimulating essay.Robert Pearsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01357942424904415208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12844144.post-56019885986110458592007-02-12T13:38:00.000-05:002007-02-12T13:38:00.000-05:00Great analysis Michael! I liked Kasparov's "An Evo...Great analysis Michael! I liked Kasparov's "An Evolutionary Theory of Chess" as well - <BR/>http://chess4you.blogspot.com/2007/01/amazon-short-evolutionary-theory-of.htmlAshik Uzzamanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18157792198398550327noreply@blogger.com