Guest Article: Is Playing Chess Good for You?

By

Renzo Verwer

Chess has been the subject to a torrent of publications. Chess is supposed to be popular among young people. Chess helps students do better at school. In particular, the Dutch psychologist Karel van Delft is an enthusiastic proponent of these ideas. Chess, he says, is capable of bestowing not a single benefit but several different ones. It brings people closer together. It promotes concentration, self confidence, and creativity. It is a kind of mental gymnastics and teaches players how to cope with difficult situations. By providing immediate and clearly visible feedback to one’s moves, it can even bring young offenders back to the straight and the narrow.

Speaking for myself, I love the game. More so, perhaps, than some grandmasters do; that is why I went to watch the recent Dutch championship tournament. However, the kind of worship mentioned in the previous paragraph always makes me a little uncomfortable. Is chess really what tea used to be in seventeenth-century Holland (and what cannabis supposedly is today), a cure for any- and everything? Some people, including the Dutch international master Hans Ree, are not so sure. The idea that chess can strengthen the will and develop logical thought, he says, is pure nonsense. To the contrary: authoritarian countries consciously and deliberately use the game in order to prevent people from thinking; this is done by canalizing them into an isolated culture that, separated as it is from ordinary life, has no further consequences for the latter. Chess as the opium of the people, perhaps? He also mentions the cruel joy he experienced as he saw his opponent squirming. Not the best or healthiest of emotions, he says.

This is something I know from my own experience. “What an idiot. He did not dare pursue his advantageous position but tried to husband his miserable pawns instead, with the result that he lost. What I felt was pure contempt. And if that causes you to despise me, that is your good right.

I asked Karel van de Weide, one-time Dutch grand master, to give me his considered view of the game. Here is what he told me:

Advantages? Chess is mental gymnastics. It helps you with your arithmetic and also to postpone the onset of dementia. Whoever is good as chess is someone. That is something I sometimes miss, for by now I am a nobody and will probably never recover my former status. As one of my colleagues, upon being dropped from the FIDE list, exclaimed: ‘I simply ceased to exist!’ (he may have been joking). Others argue that chess plays a useful role by providing some people who cannot easily fit into society with something they are good at. Agreed. And a certain kind of recognition too, of course.

And what are the disadvantages of chess? Chess may promote autism. It keeps you away from women [MvC: men play chess much better than women do, which is why, in tournaments, the sexes are separated] and is sufficiently demanding to keep you away from other, perhaps more useful, forms of training. It may make those who take it up as a career more accident prone, decreases their chances of making good, economically, and can even help turn them into social outcasts. As has been said about former Dutch champion Maarten Solleveld, had it not been for this obsession with chess he could have got his position as a professor of mathematics at Leiden much earlier than he did.
buy cialis pharmacy However, when it comes to drinking, “how much is too much” is a question with an elusive answer. If during sexual activity discomfort in the lower abdominal part, around generic tadalafil uk the bladder area, pubic region or perineal region. If you want to make guaranteed you get the sleep that you want, uncomplicated and uninterrupted, steer viagra sale clear of the following: cocaine, amphetamines, methamphetamines, no matter what kind of herbs, ephedrine, and taurine. After his playing days were finished, he appeared on his own show, Father Murphy and Little House on the Prairie. #12 Joe Namath – Broadway Joe Namath was the American Football League’s face and hero every where. #11 Lawrence Taylor – Among the best linebackers ever, Lawrence Taylor is another of the well-known football players that have gone on http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/1482311037_add_file_10.pdf canadian generic cialis to have a credible performing career.
Another prominent Dutch player and author, Tim Krabbé, told me about the less sympathetic aspects of chess, as experienced and observed by him. Especially in the kind of coffee house where the game is played:

Chess bears a strong resemblance to addiction, the kind you get by taking drugs—though I myself have never been addicted to them. Doing something you cannot resist even though you know that you should stop is very, very bad for your life. None of the prefaces to the books that teach the young how wonderful the game is and how to play it have a word to say about this danger. No, chess is always great, good for the brain and I do not know what else. Truth is, chess can be very dangerous and people should be made aware of that fact.

The psychologist Paul Kirchner criticizes the kind of research that “proves” that chess is good for all kinds of things. Nor is chess the only activity that has been advertised in this way. “Similar claims” he says, “have been made on behalf of other fields of study. Such as learning Latin, geometry, and, today, writing code; it all seems so simple and logical. Truth is, you can learn all kinds of procedures. But a procedure that will enable you to master all procedures does not exist.”

In other words: by learning how to play chess, the most important thing you learn is… how to play chess.

 

* Renzo Verwer (Woerden, the Netherlands, 1972) is an author and a dealer in second hand books. He has published books about love, work, and the chess master Bobby Fischer. His most recent one (in Dutch) is titled Freedom of Thought for Beginners. His website is www.artikelzeven.nu. His books: http://www.amazon.com/Renzo-Verwer/e/B00ITG41ES/chess.

Guest Article: Why we lose so many wars, and how we can win.

By the Editor of the Fabius Maximus website

Summary

As the western nations begin a new round of interventions against insurgencies in the Middle East, let’s look at the record of such conflicts since WWII. They teach a simple lesson that if widely recognized could change our future. But the leaders of our national defense institutions do not want to see it, so we probably will not either. Failure to learn is among the most expensive of weaknesses, one which can offset even the power of even great nations.

churchill-on-failure

Among the dumbest advice ever. Churchill didn’t say it.

Our wars since WWII

The local fighter is therefore often an accidental guerrilla — fighting us because we are in his space, not because he wishes to invade ours. He follows folk-ways of tribal warfare that are mediated by traditional cultural norms, values, and perceptual lenses; he is engaged (from his point of view) in “resistance” rather than “insurgency” and fights principally to be left alone.

— David Kilcullen in The Accidental Guerrilla (2011).

Most of the West’s wars since WWII have been fight insurgencies in foreign lands. Although an ancient form of conflict, the odds shifted when Mao brought non-trinitarian (aka 4th generation) warfare to maturity. Not until the late 1950’s did many realize that war had evolved again.

It took more decades more for the West to understand what they faced. Only after the failure of our occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq did the essential aspect of this new era become known, as described in Chapter 6.2 of Martin van Creveld’s The Changing Face of War (2006).

What is known, though, is that attempts by post-1945 armed forces to suppress guerrillas and terrorists have constituted a long, almost unbroken record of failure … {W}hat changed was the fact that, whereas previously it had been the main Western powers that failed, now the list included other countries as well. Portugal’s expulsion from Africa in 1975 was followed by the failure of the South Africans in Namibia, the Ethiopians in Eritrea, the Indians in Sri Lanka, the Americans in Somalia, and the Israelis in Lebanon. … Even in Denmark {during WWII}, “the model protectorate”, resistance increased as time went on.

Many of these nations used force up to the level of genocide in their failed attempts to defeat local insurgencies. Despite that, foreign forces have an almost uniform record of defeat. Such as the French-Algerian War, which the French waged until their government collapsed.

The two kinds of insurgencies

In January 2007 I gave a more detailed explanation to van Creveld’s conclusion. As a simple dichotomy for analytical purposes, we can sort insurgencies by the degree of involvement of outside armed forces (of course, there are other ways to characterize 4GW).

  1. Violence between two or more local groups, who can form from any combination of clans, governments, ethnicities, religions, gangs, and tribes.
  2. Violence between two or more sides, where at least one is led by foreigners – comprising, as above, any imaginable combination of factions.

Local governments often win conflicts of the first kind, often with valuable foreign assistance — so long as the locals control political strategy, tactics, and the major combat forces. For example, see David Kilcullen’s insightful analysis of the Indonesian government’s defeat of insurgencies in West Java and East Timor. These conflicts are often conflated with those of the second kind, as if victories by the local governments are similar to the defeats by foreign armies.

An intermediate kind of conflict occurs when a colonial power grants independence to the local elites through whom it has ruled, winning by trading away sovereignty for an influence with the newly independent State. Examples are the British wars in Malaysia (1948 – 1960) and Kenya (1952-1960) (in which the British took full credit in the histories they wrote).

Foreign forces almost always lose when they take the lead — as always, with exceptions from unusual circumstances — because the locals have two great advantages. First, they play defense and need only to outlast the foreigners. As Clausewitz said in On War, Book 1, Chapter 1…

“As we shall show, defense is a stronger form of fighting than attack. … I am convinced that the superiority of the defensive (if rightly understood) is very great, far greater than appears at first sight.”

Second, locals have the home court advantage. David Kilcullen unintentionally described this in his famous “Twenty-Eight Articles: Fundamentals of Company-Level Counterinsurgency” (Military Review, May – June 2006). For example, consider article #1…

“Know the people, the topography, economy, history, religion and culture. Know every village, road, field, population group, tribal leader and ancient grievance. Your task is to become the world expert on your district.”

This is delusional advice to an American or British company commander. The world expert on “your” district already lives there and probably was born there. US company commanders on twelve month rotations cannot acquire such deep knowledge in foreign cultures, no matter how thick their briefing books. It might be difficult for some of them to do so in Watts or Harlem.

Time brings insight to those who pay attention

Time made this clear to a widening circle of observers. Chet Richards (Colonel, USAF, retired) expanded this insight in his 2008 magnum opus If We Can Keep It: A National Security Manifesto for the Next Administration. In 2008 RAND came to the same conclusion after examining “Eighty-Nine Insurgencies: Outcomes and Endings” (Appendix A by Martin C. Libicki in War by Other Means – Building Complete and Balanced Capabilities for Counterinsurgency by David Gompert and John Gordon et al). Here is a summary.

Some with experience on the front lines tried to warn us, as in this quote from Doug Sanders “Afghanistan: colonialism or counterinsurgency? Americans bring Afghans their new 60-year plan” (Globe and Mail, 31 May 2008).

One thing this cloak is hiding is the likelihood that once a nation finds itself relying on counterinsurgency for military success in a foreign setting it has already lost. … The insurmountable problem that the COIN Team faces is that expressed by a senior French commander who told journalist Eric Walberg that: “We do not believe in counterinsurgency” because “if you find yourself needing to use counterinsurgency, it means the entire population has become the subject of your war, and you either will have to stay there forever or you have lost”.

In 2010 Andrew Exum referred us to the doctoral dissertation of Erin Marie Simpson in Political Science from Harvard: “The Perils of Third-Party Counterinsurgency Campaigns” (17 June 2010; available through Proquest). Her conclusion was expressed in a DoD-sympathetic fashion…

So immediately rush to your doctor whenever cheap levitra canada you get stressed, you are likely to increase adrenaline in your blood stream. Supreme Court weighed in, rejecting Burbank’s proposal, http://downtownsault.org/downtown/services/black-dragon-martial-arts-and-bumblebee-yoga/ tadalafil 60mg the residents have not given up and continue to combat the worst sex disease. Continue reading to discover how. buy bulk viagra But the local pharmacy can only provide the costly buy online viagra that has done the monopoly of so many years.

Ultimately, I argue that third parties {foreign armies} win when they’re able to overcome these intelligence challenges before public support runs out. This typically requires rather substantial military reforms and complex deal-making with local leaders. Unfortunately, the nature of selection effects in these cases gives rise to a population of insurgencies whereby these conditions are very unlikely to be met.

20120626-coin-logo

Too bad they keep losing.

The core problem.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
— Upton Sinclair in I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked (1935).

This data clearly shows our problem. Why do so few people see this history (e.g., see the near-total refusal to see it at this Small Wars Council comment thread)? Why do our armies — led by the best-educated officers in history — repeat the tactics that have failed in so many similar wars?  This is especially unfortunate, since we face foes that have learned so much from the wars of the post-WWII era.

The most plausible reason, as so many have explained since 9/11, is that the leaders of our national security apparatus run it for the money. They run wars to keep the funds flowing and build the power of the Deep State. Victory is nice but optional.  “War is the health of the state“, as true today as when Randolph Bourne wrote those words in 1918.

How can we win?

“Men and nations behave wisely when they have exhausted all other resources.”
— Abba Ebban (Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs), 19 March 1967. Let’s not wait until then.

The first step is to stop “repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results” (that’s insanity per an ancient insight of Alcoholics Anonymous, who know all about dysfunctionality). Eventually this will go badly for us. Second, admit that we do not have the best military in the world at fighting these “unconventional wars (i.e., most wars of the post-WWII era).  Third, fight only where the stakes are high and we have reason to believe we can win (see this post for details).

Fourth, stop listening to people whose advice has been so wrong. As Martin van Creveld’s said in “On Counterinsurgency: How to triumph in the age of asymmetric warfare“, a speech given at the Henry Jackson Society (26 February 2008).

So when people ask about how we should study counterinsurgency, the first step should be to gather 95% of all the literature on the subject, put it aboard the Titanic and sink it. In fact, there is so much of it that if you put it aboard the Titanic the iceberg becomes unnecessary!

The logical answer for why the materials on counterinsurgency are so inferior is that most of them were written by people who failed to achieve victory. Ninety-five percent of the literature is written by the losers, who in trying to justify their own actions, put the blame for their failure on others. Therefore there is little reason to expect the literature to be any good. Indeed, the best thing to do with it is to put it away.

Last, rely on methods that have worked in the past. For details see Martin van Creveld’s essay “On Counterinsurgency” in Combating Terrorism, edited by Rohan Gunaratna (2005), posted in four parts…

  1. How We Got to Where We Are gives a brief history of insurgency since 1941 and of the repeated failures in dealing with it.
  2. Two Methods describes President Assad’s suppression of the uprising at Hama in 1983 and British operations in Northern Ireland, case studies of opposite ways to win at counterinsurgency.
  3. On Power and Compromises draws the lessons from the methods just presented and goes on to explain how, by vacillating between them, most counterinsurgents have guaranteed their own failure.
  4. Conclusions.

Both the Hama and Northern Ireland solutions are difficult; neither fits how we see war, let alone how we wage it. War often forces harsh choices. We will continue to lose until we confront them. The pressure to do so must come from below the most senior ranks of our defense agencies and from civilians. Neither will happen fast or easily, but time is not our ally.

einstein-on-problems-and-solutions

A fake quote (here are his actual words), but it is good advice.

For More Information

For a deeper analysis of these matters see The Transformation of War: The Most Radical Reinterpretation of Armed Conflict Since Clausewitz by Martin van Creveld and The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World by Rupert Smith.

If you found this post of use, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. Also see the history of COIN (we close our eyes so as not to learn from it):

  1. Max Boot: history suggests we will win in Afghanistan, with better than 50-50 odds. Here’s the real story.
  2. A major discovery! It could change the course of US geopolitical strategy, if we’d only see it.  — About the doctoral dissertation of Erin Marie Simpson in Political Science from Harvard.
  3. A look at the history of victories over insurgents. — A study by RAND.
  4. COINistas point to Kenya as a COIN success. In fact it was an expensive bloody failure.
  5. Return of the COIN-istas (the zombies of military theory).