infallible principles vs rules of thumb

[jts]

A single example to the contrary will refute a generalization that is intended to have no exceptions, such as a theorem in geometry or a law in physics or a principle in Objectivism. But there are 'principles' so-called that are really rules of thumb.

For example the game of chess abounds in 'principles of strategy' which are not absolute but are really rules of thumb. They mean this is what you do unless you have good reason to do otherwise.

One such is:

Do not move any piece twice until you have moved every piece once. Or in other words, develop your pieces as quickly as possible.

Another is:

Do not attack until you have completed your development. Or in other words, attack with your whole army, not with only part of your army.

In Paul Morphy's famous Barber of Seville game, he violated both of these 2 'principles'. This not a criticism. Morphy probably more than anyone else was responsible for teaching the world these 2 principles. But geniuses know how to violate principles.

On move 7, Morphy moved his queen a 2nd time and he had not yet moved a knight and a bishop and 2 rooks. But he makes 2 threats, threat of checkmate in 2 moves and threat to a pawn.

On move 8, Morphy had an opportunity to grab a pawn (8. QxP ... Q-b4ch saving the R) but he thumbed his nose at it because he was after bigger game. Bobby Fischer said if you have opportunity to go for material you should unless you have good reason not to. This move also could be regarded as a violation of a principle.

On move 10, Morphy launched an attack even tho he had not yet completed his development. His rooks are not yet developed. But watch how quickly his rooks get developed during the attack.

The rule of logic that a single example to the contrary refutes a generalization does not apply to rules of thumb, even when they are traditionally called 'principles'.

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks for the chess reference. If I can find the game with the old fashioned annotation I'll get out my chess board. Unlike chess we cannot know enough in most important matters except to proceed with what can be called "calculated risk." The way the computer beat Kasparov was by being programed with how his difficult opponents and games dealt with him. It knew virtually everything. If the size of the chessboard had been increased by one row and one column of squares--64 to 81 I think--and some additional pieces put up--the computer would have gone completely stupid and it would take years and years of new programing before it could even play a complete game. It wasn't a computer against a human but many humans against one human with the computer spiting out result after result.

--Brant

lousy chess player who read Botvinnik so he could beat his brother who once opened P to R4 and closed by throwing up the board (we never played again, but it took years for me to understand it didn't mean I was smarter as I was blinded by sibling rivalry)

[jts]

Thanks for the chess reference. If I can find the game with the old fashioned annotation I'll get out my chess board.

Click on the game.

Morphy Barber of Seville game

If it does not start with the chess viewer deluxe, scroll down a bit and set it to the chess viewer deluxe. Then you can make moves on the diagram and you don't need a chess board.

The chessgames.com website has thousands of chess games.

The most thorough annotation of this game I ever saw is here. With diagrams. The annotator is a major fan of Morphy and he thinks Morphy is the greatest chess player of all time, with Bobby Fischer second, and Kasparov third, and no others need apply. That assessment might need to be brought up to date with Magnus Carlsen.

Quotes by and about Morphy. What a wonderful genius he was.

[Brant Gaede]

No Capablanca?

--Brant

[jts]

No Capablanca?

--Brant

Shortly before his death, Fischer was asked who he thinks is the greatest chess player of all time. He said you can't ask that because so much depends on knowledge of openings. But he said you can ask who is the most talented. He gave Morphy and Capablanca as the most talented chess players of all time.

[BaalChatzaf]

The rule of logic that a single example to the contrary refutes a generalization does not apply to rules of thumb, even when they are traditionally called 'principles'.

That is because "rules of thumb" are heuristics, not absolute logical posits.

All heuristics have exceptions and limitations.

[Jules Troy]

Should have used the rule of wrist!

[BaalChatzaf]

Should have used the rule of wrist!

Five against one??? No fair.