Chess-Opening Problem: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{stub}} | |||
There are a limited number of actually viable chess openings. Highly skilled chess players will almost always play the same opening moves, which have specific names. It could be said that starting the chess board from its initial position is a waste of time. The players could just as easily name the opening they will be playing and start from that position. | There are a limited number of actually viable chess openings. Highly skilled chess players will almost always play the same opening moves, which have specific names. It could be said that starting the chess board from its initial position is a waste of time. The players could just as easily name the opening they will be playing and start from that position. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 8: | ||
== Common Arguments that Never Get Resolved == | == Common Arguments that Never Get Resolved == | ||
* [[Free Will vs. Determinism Debate]] | * [[Free Will vs. Determinism Debate]] | ||
Revision as of 19:14, 23 October 2020
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.There are a limited number of actually viable chess openings. Highly skilled chess players will almost always play the same opening moves, which have specific names. It could be said that starting the chess board from its initial position is a waste of time. The players could just as easily name the opening they will be playing and start from that position.
Many conversations in our public discourse are similar. There are often two sides with known positions and arguments. Discussions get bogged down by rehashing well worn intellectual paths without making any sort of progress.
A possible solution may be to acknowledge all the common arguments and proceed with the assumption everyone is aware of the basics.