The more you look, the less you see.

A.K.A., let’s see Ayn Rand misunderstand both chess and her own philosophy.

So Ayn Rand wrote an open letter to Boris Spassky. We’ll get to that in a minute, but first, let’s look at a quote from her essay “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made “.

Man’s faculty of volition as such is not a contradiction of nature, but it opens the way for a host of contradictions—when and if men do not grasp the crucial difference between the metaphysically given and any object, institution, procedure, or rule of conduct made by man.

It is the metaphysically given that must be accepted: it cannot be changed. It is the man-made that must never be accepted uncritically: it must be judged, then accepted or rejected and changed when necessary. Man is not omniscient or infallible: he can make innocent errors through lack of knowledge, or he can lie, cheat and fake. The man-made may be a product of genius, perceptiveness, ingenuity—or it may be a product of stupidity, deception, malice, evil. One man may be right and everyone else wrong, or vice versa (or any numerical division in between). Nature does not give man any automatic guarantee of the truth of his judgments (and this is a metaphysically given fact, which must be accepted). Who, then, is to judge? Each man, to the best of his ability and honesty. What is his standard of judgment? The metaphysically given.

The metaphysically given cannot be true or false, it simply is—and man determines the truth or falsehood of his judgments by whether they correspond to or contradict the facts of reality. The metaphysically given cannot be right or wrong—it is the standard of right or wrong, by which a (rational) man judges his goals, his values, his choices. The metaphysically given is, was, will be, and had to be. Nothing made by man had to be: it was made by choice.

Now let’s move on to her open letter, cleverly titled, “An Open Letter To Boris Spassky”. She opens by calling him “comrade Spassky”, but let’s assume this was just what she assumed had to be done, if the evil commies were ever going to allow him to read it. After explaining that she only vaguely understands chess, because she’s “a novelist-philosopher by profession”, she talks about how they clearly put forth all of this mental effort, and then says:

Then I was struck by the realization that the game itself and the players’ exercise of mental virtuosity are made possible by the metaphysical absolutism of the reality with which they deal. The game is ruled by the Law of Identity and its corollary, the Law of Causality. Each piece is what it is: a queen is a queen, a bishop is a bishop—and the actions each can perform are determined by its nature: a queen can move any distance in any open line, straight or diagonal, a bishop cannot; a rook can move from one side of the board to the other, a pawn cannot; etc. Their identities and the rules of their movements are immutable—and this enables the player’s mind to devise a complex, long-range strategy, so that the game depends on nothing but the power of his (and his opponent’s) ingenuity.

In case you don’t see the problem here, you’ll note in the earlier quote that she says everything man comes up with has to be judged, and it is most definitely NOT metaphysically given. So no, a queen is NOT a queen because it has some sort of queen nature determining its actions, as water has a nature which causes flooding under the proper conditions. That’s one of her examples in the other essay BTW, flooding in a place where there are no humans is metaphysically given, the dam to try to control it is man-made. Now it is certainly the case that if we set rules, and follow them, then a queen can only move in certain ways. But there is nothing whatsoever that makes those rules immutable and gives identity and causality to chess pieces. Speaking of rules:

1. Would you be able to play if, at a crucial moment—when, after hours of brain-wrenching effort, you had succeeded in cornering your opponent—an unknown, arbitrary power suddenly changed the rules of the game in his favor, allowing, say, his bishops to move like queens? You would not be able to continue? Yet out in the living world, this is the law of your country—and this is the condition in which your countrymen are expected, not to play, but to live.

2. Would you be able to play if the rules of chess were updated to conform to a dialectic reality, in which opposites merge—so that, at a crucial moment, your queen turned suddenly from White to Black, becoming the queen of your opponent, and then turned Gray, belonging to both of you? You would not be able to continue? Yet in the living world, this is the view of reality your countrymen are taught to accept, to absorb, and to live by.

3. Would you be able to play if you had to play by teamwork—i.e., if you were forbidden to think or act alone and had to play not with a group of advisers, but with a team that determined your every move by vote? Since, as champion, you would be the best mind among them, how much time and effort would you have to spend persuading the team that your strategy is the best? Would you be likely to succeed? And what would you do if some pragmatist, range-of-the-moment mentalities voted to grab an opponent’s knight at the price of a checkmate to you three moves later? You would not be able to continue? Yet in the living world, this is the theoretical ideal of your country, and this is the method by which it proposes to deal (someday) with scientific research, industrial production, and every other kind of activity required for man’s survival.

4. Would you be able to play if the cumbersome mechanism of teamwork were streamlined, and your moves were dictated simply by a man standing behind you, with a gun pressed to your back—a man who would not explain or argue, his gun being his only argument and sole qualification? You would not be able to start, let alone continue, playing? Yet in the living world, this is the practical policy under which men live—and die—in your country.

5. Would you be able to play—or to enjoy the professional understanding, interest and acclaim of an international Chess Federation—if the rules of the game were splintered, and you played by “proletarian” rules while your opponent played by “bourgeois” rules? Would you say that such “polyrulism” is more preposterous than polylogism? Yet in the living world, your country professes to seek global harmony and understanding, while proclaiming that she follows “proletarian” logic and that others follow “bourgeois” logic, or “Aryan” logic, or “third-world” logic, etc.

6. Would you be able to play if the rules of the game remained as they are at present, with one exception: that the pawns were declared to be the most valuable and non-expendable pieces (since they may symbolize the masses) which had to be protected at the price of sacrificing the more efficacious pieces (the individuals)? You might claim a draw on the answer to this one—since it is not only your country, but the whole living world that accepts this sort of rule in morality.

7. Would you care to play, if the rules of the game remained unchanged, but the distribution of rewards were altered in accordance with egalitarian principles: if the prizes, the honors, the fame were given not to the winner, but to the loser—if winning were regarded as a symptom of selfishness, and the winner were penalized for the crime of possessing a superior intelligence, the penalty consisting in suspension for a year, in order to give others a chance? Would you and your opponent try playing not to win, but to lose? What would this do to your mind?

After this, Rand claims Spassky would be unable to even think of these questions, being disallowed by his government, let alone answer them. But she knows the answers, and they’re all no, no he couldn’t play, and that’s why he fled into the world of chess, to escape the horrors. Let’s dispense with one thing right here and now. Yes, he most certainly COULD play, with the possible exception of point 5. In fact, there is a game pretty much based on question 6, here’s a link to it.

I am thinking here in particular of fox and geese, where the whole point for one player is to protect as many geese, “the masses”, from the fox as possible. No doubt, Rand would have been horrified by this game. Or maybe she would have loved it, since the individual fox devours the masses of geese, if it wins. Now Rand isn’t against games, she says so, and she even proclaims that chess might be a respite for a man who is working really hard. Keep that in mind as you read our final gem.

You, the chess professionals, live in a special world—a safe, protected, orderly world, in which all the great, fundamental principles of existence are so firmly established and obeyed that you do not even have to be aware of them. (They are the principles involved in my seven questions.) You do not know that these principles are the preconditions of your game—and you do not have to recognize them when you encounter them, or their breach, in reality. In your world, you do not have to be concerned with them: all you have to do is think.

The process of thinking is man’s basic means of survival. The pleasure of performing this process successfully—of experiencing the efficacy of one’s own mind—is the most profound pleasure possible to men, and it is their deepest need, on any level of intelligence, great or small. So one can understand what attracts you to chess: you believe that you have found a world in which all irrelevant obstacles have been eliminated, and nothing matters, but the pure, triumphant exercise of your mind’s powers. But have you, Comrade?

Unlike algebra, chess does not represent the abstraction—the basic pattern—of mental effort; it represents the opposite: it focuses mental effort on a set of concretes, and demands such complex calculations that a mind has no room for anything else. By creating an illusion of action and struggle, chess reduces the professional player’s mind to an uncritical, unvaluing passivity toward life. Chess removes the motor of intellectual effort—the question “What for?”—and leaves a somewhat frightening phenomenon: intellectual effort devoid of purpose.

If—for any number of reasons, psychological or existential—a man comes to believe that the living world is closed to him, that he has nothing to seek or to achieve, that no action is possible, then chess becomes his antidote, the means of drugging his own rebellious mind that refuses fully to believe it and to stand still. This, Comrade, is the reason why chess has always been so popular in your country, before and since its present regime—and why there have not been many American masters. You see, in this country, men are still free to act.

So let’s see, apparently unless you’re out punching a bear to death, I’m sorry, that’s way too much nature for Rand, let me try again. Unless you’re out quarrying stone or milling some steel or taking train trips across the country, or maybe doing science, that might be OK, you’re probably a dolt who just wants the scary scary world to go away. And by the gods, you’ve found your 64 squares of heroin baby! Seriously, I simply do not get this. First she proclaims that chess pieces have a sort of inherent nature, they are what they are and this makes the game possible. Then she makes up a bunch of weird scenarios and proclaims nobody could play under them. This is patently false. Those games wouldn’t be chess as currently defined, but they ARE in fact playable games.

Take, for example, question two. I would set up the rule as follows: For X moves, your queen is yours, then for Y moves it becomes your opponents. Finally, for the rest of the game, it becomes a piece belonging to both players”. It seems pretty clear to me that the queen would still work the same way in all other respects. So say we’ve reached the point where it belongs to both players. This doesn’t make the game unwinnable. Since it’s impossible for both players to move the same piece at the same time, each player would have to take turns. A clever player, particularly if matched against a careless one, could still move the queen in such a way that it could capture their opponent’s pieces. Would this be an interesting game? No, I would assume if you had players of decent intelligence it would result in a stalemate. However, there are plenty of games which can result in stalemates, and we play them, for all of that.

Finally, Rand, who isn’t against games at all or even chess you’ll recall, goes on a tirade about how chess is an escape from the world. Earlier she compares chess players and athletes, athletes BTW are building the body’s capabilities to perfection. Here’s one of the stunningly insightful questions she puts to the chess players of the world. “But what would you think of a world champion runner who, in real life, moved about in a wheelchair?” Apparently chess players are just stunting the hell out of their minds because, see above, chess has nothing whatsoever to do with reality … Oh except for when Rand wants to make her point about how awesome Aristotle and her are, then chess players can play because chess exemplifies the laws of identity and causality.

However, it’s evil if you’re a professional at it, and the only reason you do that is because you’re scared of reality. Because of course you are. I mean, you wouldn’t do it because you find chess, I don’t know, actually interesting or something, gods no. The ONLY reason you’d do that is because you’re frightened of reality, and chess provides an ordered place that gives you the illusion that all questions are settled. That’s why, according to Rand, Bobby Fischer threw temper tantrums and stuff, because he was incapable of dealing with messy people and their messy irrationality, which is the REAL enemy he and Boris Spassky should have been fighting, instead of each other on a dumb chessboard. Yes, she actually says that, though she doesn’t name Fischer. She just mentions a youth bewildered by the world.

So there you go. Not only does Rand completely and utterly misunderstand chess, and her own philosophy while she’s at it, she also completely misunderstands people too, there’s a huge shock. So if you ever wonder why I’m not that worried about people who mostly read or mostly garden or whatever the hell they mostly get obsessed with as long as it’s not harming anybody? This is why, right here. Because worrying about that shit leads to craziness like this here. Hey, I think horse racing is really dumb. Every year it happens, people insist on telling everybody which horse with a stupid stupid name won the Kentucky Derby. I have no idea why, because they don’t give a shit about it. You know how I know that? Because NONE of them talk about horses or horse racing at ANY other point in their lives. You just have to have all the news reports about which dumb horse won though, because … I have no idea, but people sure are determined that you find out about that shit.

But you know what? If people want to race horses, go for it. Sure I think it’s dumb, but then, they probably think playing an instrument that hasn’t existed for at least a thousand years and has no known music is dumb too. That’s fine. I’ll play my six-string Anglo-Saxon lyre, and they’ll race their horses with the dumbest names ever conceived of by the mind of man. Somebody else will pretend Sherlock Holmes was a real person and try to reconcile all the weird issues of chronology and such that pop up in the stories, somebody else will totally own gardening, somebody else will know about all the birds ever, somebody else will do puzzles, you get the idea here. Some of them might even get payed for some of that stuff, and you know what? More power to them, I say.

As a final note, yes, I know those were long quotes. I did that for a reason. You can see the full arguments, save for me simply quoting the entire letter of course. Did I get something wrong? The proof should be right there. Did I mischaracterize what Rand said? Again, ample evidence should be right in this post. I don’t think I did though, and you can see her actual words for yourself. For anybody who’s bored to death with my periodic forays into Ayn Rand, don’t worry, I’m pretty much done I think. I mean, if she gets this much stuff so fundamentally wrong about a game and the people who play it, really, what more can you say? Well there is ONE more thing, but it’s pretty short. It’s also pretty important though. So I might do that one at some point, but then that’s about it.

Reading Rand reminds me of a saying. With all this horse shit, there’s got to be a pony around here somewhere! I’m pretty sure I’ve read enough, and I think it’s clearly demonstrated in my posts quoting her, that there is in fact no pony to be found in her philosophy. I’ve given her a fair shot, though doubtless her followers would strenuously disagree. You can, as with her quotes, judge for yourself, if you’re of a mind. I’ve given my understanding, and I think I’ve given enough quotations so that you can easily see where my understanding is coming from, whether you agree with it or no. I have to say, I just don’t get what people see in her. She was big again back around 2008, when some conservatives were proclaiming that her novel “Atlas shrugged” was indeed prophetic, and yea verily what “Ms. Rand” hath spoken is fast coming to pass. “Harken to her words”, they said, “lest ye surely die”. Well, we’re all still here, and you’ve had quite a sample of her words right here. Pay attention to them if you like. Me? I’m finding something that’s actually interesting and useful to read, as opposed to inspiring morbid curiosity.


4 thoughts on “The more you look, the less you see.

    1. To my knowledge, I haven’t deleted any comments. If I did it was an accident. I got one a few weeks ago I approved but it’s possible I hit the wrong thing. If you posted something diffrent than the thing I’m going to respond to, please comment again and I’ll try not to screw it up this time.

      If you’re the one who said, essentially, that chess is a cultural construct, I agree. But the point I was making in the post is that she talks about it like it’s a metaphysical given, as though once those rules are in place, they have the same immutable status as the river in her example of a metaphysical given. That’s not true.

      It’s not the same case of A is A. A rock may be a rock, and her whole point with the A is A fetishization is that the rock is a rock, no matter how much we might wish it to be something else. Chess quite simply doesn’t work like that. We could say every pawn works like a king and if we call that chess, or a chess variant, well there you go, that’s what that is. There’s no immutable what’sit in play.

      However, if we say a rock works like a sponge, we’ll find out differently when our friend throws one at our head, Objectivists really seem to like violent examples so I’m playing to their tastes here. Or if you like, we’ll find out it’s not the same at all when we try to get one wet to clean our sink. We can argue then over what makes chess chess, i.e. how far does it have to change until it’s not chess anymore, but just because we can reach a point where we might all agree that X isn’t chess, that’s still not the same kind of immutability as a rock not being a sponge.

      So basically, she’s treating this set of rules we came up with as a metaphysical given, and that’s just not so. Even today there are chess variants, e.g. as played by different cultures. It just doesn’t have the same metaphysical status as a rock or a river. While it may be so that you can’t combine variants, say they’d cancel each other out or there’s just not enough difference between A and B so that if you combine them you’ll just make variant B, the variants exist. The fact that you have to decide on one and stick to it doesn’t make it a metaphysical given.

      Similarly with her game examples which she considers unplayable, that’s just not so. I doubt many people would want to play chess as an execution machine, i.e. the dude with the gun to your head gives you moves and you simply execute them, but the most that you can say is that the guy with the gun is really playing chess, not the person moving the pieces. SOMEBODY is still playing chess, the fact that there’s a dude forcing another dude to do something at gunpoint really doesn’t change the fact that we’re dealing with chess and it’s being played.

      I’ve linked to a whole class of games where the masses in fact ARE more important than the individual, in other words it’s the masses you’re trying to save, assuming you’re playing geese and not the fox. It’s true that’s not chess, but then it never claimed to be. My point is, she’s saying this would be an unplayable game and that’s just not so. Checkers is another game where you’re dealing with masses and not individuals, in spite of the creation of kings. So she’s wrong that the rules of chess are, or act like, a metaphysical given, and she’s wrong about most or all of her unplayable game examples.

      Interestingly, she’s not the first one to come up with this argument against chess. But it’s way better and potentially more useful here. Mind you still kind of crazy too IMO, but you can’t have everything.

      View at

  1. really dumb post lol, half of it is spent trying to refute individual cases of rand’s 7 questions, as if nitpicking whether they are still playable games or not has any fucking relevance to what she’s saying

    >I mean, you wouldn’t do it because you find chess, I don’t know, actually interesting or something, gods no. The ONLY reason you’d do that is because you’re frightened of reality, and chess provides an ordered place that gives you the illusion that all questions are settled.

    literally completely missing the point, do you really think she’s saying that the players don’t think the game is interesting

    please re-evaluate whether you should be blogging

  2. 1. Figuring out whether they’re playable games or not is absolutely relevant to her argument. What she’s saying is that chess has to be chess, because if you start altering it you break it and make an unplayable mess. But she’s wrong. Take, for instance, her game where the pawns, i.e. the masses, are suddenly the most important pieces. She claims it’s unplayable, but there’s actually an entire class of games like this, they’re called fox and geese usually, and I’m pretty sure I linked to them. This is obviously her stand-in for communism, or perhaps any sort of collectivism, and while we can’t extrapolate that because such a game exists that means such a system is a workable form of government, I’m not the one who set up the dumb comparison in the first place. Also, her entire argument kind of hinges on these new games being unplayable, so yeah, once again, sort of relevant.

    2. I’m not saying they’re not interested in chess, she says they’re not interested in chess. Her claim is that their interest in chess is due to an underlying motive, they want to both use their minds and distract themselves from what is, to them, the incomprehensible mess of reality. That’s why she says they’re playing because they think they’re using their minds and establishing order and such, but they’re wrong because it’s just a big giant distraction from the world and their inability to deal with it. In other words, it’s not really an interest in chess that motivates them, but a desire to escape from reality into a haven of order. In contrast, what I’m saying is that they can be interested in chess because it’s chess.

    Please re-evaluate whether you should actually read posts before commenting on them.

Leave a Reply to hahahahahaha Cancel reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s