I Hate Chess

My entire Chess Blog has been leading up to this riveting conclusion: I don’t like Chess and I don’t want to learn more about chess. It sounds counterintuitive; tell people I love chess and teach them to play, just when they’re excited to learn for themselves explain everything you hate about chess. And yet as if the title wasn’t confusing enough, take a look at this Rubik’s Cube of chess pieces! There is a reason, I promise.

(Image made by Michael Magnotti)

Before I start with my comparison, it might help to know where the cube came from. I don’t mean to sound pretentious or braggy, but I taught myself to solve a Rubik’s cube. Anyone that can read algorithms (pattern of moves) can solve the cube, which is why I don’t think it’s impressive to be able to solve it. The people that hold records for the fastest solving time accomplish it by creating their own algorithms. For example, one of the algorithms I know uses 9 moves to complete; however, a new algorithm was found that uses 11 moves but it is faster because of how easily a human hand can move the cube.

I often compare Chess to a Rubik’s Cube in order to explain this metaphor. As mentioned in previous posts, there are some famous games that are studied, and famous moves that are repeated. Similar to the algorithms of a Rubik’s Cube, Chess has openings and mating nets (an algorithm of which pieces to move and where). Here are some examples:

(Figure 1: Queens Gambit Opening)

(Figure 2: Anastasia’s Mating Net)

As you can see, there are specific patterns that one can use given the opportunity. You don’t need to worry about having spacial awareness (similar to a Rubik’s Cube), you only need to be able to recognize the positions and apply the correct pattern.

I wasn’t aware of this until I had a conversation with some people from a local chess club. One of the members beat me every time, destroyed me. I couldn’t figure out how to fight him better yet try to win! I asked a friend of his why he was beating me and his friend told me “he uses the London System. It’s hard to beat unless you use a [insert superior algorithm here]”. He didn’t tell me what I was doing wrong, he told me I was using the wrong patterns.

Maybe this fact rips away the romantic view of Chess that I want to maintain, maybe I don’t like thinking I can lose because I don’t know the algorithm. Either way, I don’t want to think of Chess as a game of memorization, I want to think of it as a game of wit. To bring back the metaphor, do you remember how the fastest solvers got to that level? They came up with new algorithms to help them. The greatest players in the game got there, not because they remembered the patterns, but because they found a way to beat the ones they were faced with.

Of course, these new moves became patterns, but it happened because the player was smart enough to find a weakness and attack it. That’s what I want Chess to be, and why I don’t like how chess is taught now.  In my opinion, Chess shouldn’t be a game anyone can win if they know how to read an opening or mating net. Chess should be a game anyone can win if they take the time to learn the board and hone their spatial awareness to recognize the better move, not the better pattern.

____________________________________________

Remember to Say It With Your Chess!

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!

____________________________________________

Resources:

1. Queen’s Gambit – Simplifyingchess.com

2. Mating Patterns #5: Anastasia’s Mate Part1 – Chess.com

So Close, You Can Taste It: Skewers, Forks, And More!

Albeit the title is a little misleading, no food will be given out after reading this blog but it will cover chess strategies such as skewers, forks, and more! These strategies help to gain material (opponent pieces) and improve a player’s position. Before one can utilize these strategies, he or she must put their pieces in a place to do that. By the end of this post, readers will be able to start playing and start playing well!

(“Chess Skewer” made by Michael Magnotti)

Previous blogs mentioned some famous games and explained how each piece moves, but what’s the point? Where do you move them to? What pieces do you move? It all boils down to one idea; development. Developing pieces means to navigate the board and maximize the potential of each piece. The main goal of developing is to control the center of the board, where there are more opportunities to attack.

Fortunately, some pieces like the pawns can move many spaces forward at a time, making it easier to get to reach the center before your opponent. After control of the center has been taken, pieces can start to capture or take the opponent’s pieces. If you remember anything from this blog, remember this: The number one rule when developing your pieces is to never move a piece twice. If you continue to develop multiple pieces, you can gain better control than if you move one piece again and again. The more pieces you have to work with the better off you will be! Chess is not won by trading material but by forcing the opponent to make choices. Luckily, many different strategies exist to aid us in our fight.

First and foremost, the skewer or pin; they both describe the same strategy of being able to attack a piece if the piece in front of it moves. This strategy literally pins the material for fear of losing a more or less valuable piece. In this example, the King is in check and therefor must move out of the way, allowing the Rook to take the Queen.  Queens, Bishops, and Rooks can execute skewers or pins.

We also have the fork or double attack. It attacks two pieces at once, forcing the opponent to make a decision of which piece to lose and where to move the other.

Although a very stylistic image, the Knight demonstrates a fork by being able to attack both the King and the Queen. Specifically, a fork where the King is put in check adds quite a bit of pressure to the opponent as they have no choice but to move the King to safety, losing the other piece. Forks can even be executed pawns, as they are able to attack from both of their diagonals. Forks are a great strategy and usually easier to recognize for beginning players.

Start playing and playing with purpose by making it a goal to maintain control of the center, or at least try. If you can’t, then develop your pieces in a different way and attempt to set yourself up for some attacks like a fork or a skewer. Putting all of this together, your chess game will improve tenfold (if you haven’t learned how to play yet).

____________________________________________

Remember to Say It With Your Chess!

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!

____________________________________________

Special Thank You:

I would like to thank YouTuber Tarun Kanyamarala for an example of a skewer. I am unsure if he makes money off of ads, but I am not sponsored by or affiliated with him in any way.

Right, But How Do You Play?

Unfortunately, people don’t want to learn a game that they think is outside of their wheelhouse or if it will take a while to learn. Chess is one of those games that if you’re not already interested, few people can change your mind. I know, because I was the same way. I learned to play because I wanted to be part of it, I wanted to feel the competition. I found a passion for it, not because it is an intellect’s game, but because it can be anyone’s game.

(Chess Basics: Lesson For Kids)

Some of you may be here because you want to be, some may be here because you have to be. Either way, you’re here! While I have you, I want to teach you to play Chess by showing you why I fell in love with it, not by reciting the rulebook.

For some terminology, the object of the game is to put your opponent’s King in danger (called check). If you continue this and trap the opponent’s King so he cannot move without putting himself in danger, you have won (known as checkmate). You can do this with your different pieces. There are 6 pieces to cover: The Pawn, Knight, Bishop, Rook, Queen, and King. (If my descriptions are confusing, reference the diagram above to see how the pieces move).

 

The Pawn is a very interesting piece, because of how broad its move set it. In general, they only move forward one space at a time. However, they can choose to move two spaces forward on their first move of the game (which can be done for all 8 pawns on the board).  Moving two spaces can speed up the game and make for some tricky maneuvers. In Chess, you take the other player’s piece rather than hopping over it like in checkers. The pawn ‘attacks’ on a diagonal, while most pieces attack based off of how they move forward. Also, If given the chance for a pawn to move from one end of the board all the way to the other, it can become any piece it wants (including her majesty the Queen).

 

Besides the Pawn, the Knight is the only other piece that can change the way it moves. A Knight is restricted to galloping in an L shaped pattern. It moves two spaces forward and one space to the left or the right (creating an L). Because the Knight is on horseback, it is also the only piece that can hop over other pieces. I personally enjoy using the knight, because they can be very unexpected and always throws the opponent off guard. You don’t have to use this trick, but when I play my Knight I always remind myself that “The Horsies Raid The Castle”.

 

The next piece is the righteous and holy Bishop. The bishop only moves diagonally but can move as far as they want. Each player has two bishops, one for each colored square. Therefore, Bishops can be very long-ranged players, which allows them to execute attacks such as pins or forks (I will explain those in a later blog). Beware though, the bishop’s cemetery has a casket with your king’s name on it.

 

The Rook is a very intriguing player. Speculation claims in the early versions of the game, the Rook resembled a chariot: heavily armored, equipped with a long-range passenger such as an archer. It makes sense, then, the Rook is a long-range piece that moves horizontally or vertically as far as they please. Each player has two Rooks, one on each side of the board. The Rook can also execute pins but don’t ask it to sew anything, it might prick you when you least expect it.

 

All rise for her majesty, The Queen; she definitely wears the pants in this relationship. The Queen can move any way she wants, vertically, horizontally, or diagonally. Not only that, but she can also move as far as she wants in any of these directions. She still can’t hop over pieces, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t capable of jumping your king.

 

Alas, we arrive at The King. He can only move one square at a time but in any direction. As I said before, the objective of each player is to attack the King so he cannot move. This happens because the King is not allowed to put himself in danger, which can make it especially difficult to move himself out of it. Even though he has the ability to execute forks, don’t let his short range fool you, he can still cut like a knife.

____________________________________________

Remember to Say It With Your Chess!

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!

____________________________________________

Special Thank You:

I would like to thank VectorStock for allowing the use of their royalty-free content. I am not sure if they make money off of ads, but I am not sponsored by or affiliated with them in any way.

 

Martha Stewart Weighs The Same As A Duck

Fans of Monty Python may remember the witch scene from The Holy Grail. Concerned citizens discussed things about a girl that had no relevance, for example, whether she weighs the same as a duck or not, to decide if she was a witch. Although a humorous reference, it gets the ball rolling for understanding the witch hunt we are all part of due to this new wave of technology. Technology allows us to communicate with many people, but it also allows many people to see what we say and sometimes limit our freedom of it. Many celebrities fell victim to the trap of free speech such as Martha Stewart and Kevin Hart.

Picture courtesy of Sheknows.com

Technology enables anyone, anywhere, to reach an audience of sizes never before seen (the world). There are always pros and cons to something this powerful: Mass communication and publicity. The way in which technology, specifically social media, shares information so quickly is through making a tweet, announcement, or post publicly accessible.

Many Kickstarters or crowdfunding projects have successfully made the world a better place, and some projects such as “Potato Salad” raised $55,492 to help Zack Brown in “just making a potato salad” [1]. Not to beat a dead horse, but because Brown’s idea was made public, 6,911 people saw this and gave monetary donations towards his cause.

It’s fun to read about heartwarming stories and those stories that make us laugh like the one above, but more often than not the public eye is not always receptive of what others have to say. This is especially true for celebrities who have a spotlight trained on their every public action.

Martha Stewart was chastised for using the n-word on television and Kevin Hart would have missed out on his goal of hosting the Oscars – had he not quit – because of comments he made towards the LGBTQ+ community years prior.

There is a fine line between free speech and hate speech, but I believe technology gives the public an opportunity to blur the line with one word; Offended. If someone is offended by what another has to say, it must immediately be taken seriosuly to forestall any further hate speech if it has occurred.

According to WBGH, Stewart responded to Snoop Dog’s comment about the cover art for the infamous rapper, Lil Yachty, being “n****r s**t” on VH1. Stweart asked Yachty how he felt about Snoop using “n****r s**t” [2]. The question did not appear to be meant as offensive and was quoting Snoop Dog who most viewers would not have condemned for using it.

Professors and journalists argue about whether certain cultures maintain the rights to different words such as African Americans being the only culture allowed to use the n-word. If people, Martha Stewart for example, disagree that their language should not be limited because of their culture, who’s job is it to correct or agree with them?

Because of technology’s increasingly high level of publicity, it seems as though society views it as their own obligation to do so. It encourages viewers, who were not involved in the conversation, to be part of the solution or resolution.

As an added example, Kevin Hart commented on twitter about his predisposition against LGBTQ+ tendencies or associations in his home. In one of the tweets, he said that if he finds his son playing with a dollhouse he would ‘break it over his head and say… ‘stop that’s gay’ [3]. Hart later apologized saying he is “evolving and want[s] to continue to do so. [His] goal is to bring people together not tear us apart”. Although the tweets were offensive, had the exchanges been made in person to one or two other people, the stakes would have been much lower and he would have offended fewer people.

Technology gives everyone a voice to which they can use to inspire and reach others. Martha Stewart and Kevin Hart both used this ability with appearances in movies and tv shows as well as being active on different social media. However, if an online message insights hate or anger, it affects a much larger amount of people than if spoken verbally.

I believe that everyone should be able to exercise their freedom of speech and their freedom of religion. Many consider Christianity to include hateful themes such as their disapproval of homophobia and other similar LGBTQ+ identities. The backlash for Stewart’s quoting of Snoop Dog and Kevin Hart’s extension of his Christian beliefs can be traced to the introduction of mass social media and technology, but can also stand as examples for how technology can limit an individual’s constitutional rights.

Aside:

I understand the topics I covered are controversial in their own rights. I do not accept ‘hate speech’ as something to be allowed under ‘free speech’. That being said this blog post is about technology’s effect on society, freedom, and rhetoric, not whether or not these examples are in fact hate speech or free speech.

____________________________________________

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!

____________________________________________

Resources:

  1. Potato Salad by Zack Danger Brown – Kickstarter
  2. All Revved Up: What To Make Of Martha Stewart Using The N-Word
  3. Kevin Hart says he won’t host Oscars after furor over homophobic tweets

Chess Slaps Not Gonna Lie … Here’s Why

Before I get into how to play chess (in the next blog), I want to answer the age-old question of “Why should I learn to play Chess?”.  There are many reasons to learn the game and many of them revolve around academics. Academia tends to be fond of chess, but it is also beneficial to look at some social and practical reasons for learning as well.

(Picture by Michael Magnotti)

I learned to play Chess because a couple of my family members were playing and I was honestly upset I couldn’t play. I saw the two people I respect the most go head to head in a battle of the wits at the dining room table. They were glaring at each other until there was a winner. They shook hands and went their ways, one with their tail between their legs.

The dramatic scene unfolded as I watched. When it was over I asked my grandfather to teach me (mainly to give him an ego boost after losing to my uncle). We played for the rest of the night while everyone else partied away. I got sucked into it and could not leave until my parents said it was time to go, even then I didn’t want to.

The point of the story is this: Chess has always been a way to connect with people, and it still is today. My grandfather continues to meet people through Chess and he even got to meet a Chess Master. I got to play him even though he beat me faster than I could figure out what his plan was. I still had some great conversations and it exercised a part of my brain that I haven’t really used; critical thinking.

I don’t mean the critical thinking you learn in school or when you try to solve a math problem. I am talking about the type of critical thinking used when you analyze a situation and understand what is truly happening on both sides. In a way, Chess is almost rhetorical.

In most rhetoric courses, they will probably teach rhetoric as communication and ‘seeing’ how you affect someone else through your semantics. San Diego State University defines rhetoric as investigating “how language is used to organize and maintain social groups, construct meanings and identities, coordinate behavior, mediate power, produce change, and create knowledge”.

Chess is most definitely a player versus player sport, which forces opponents to coordinate the behavior of the other sides and take power over a given situation. Recognizing how your opponent is thinking and understanding how to fight it, defend it, or sometimes bypass it all together is a critical thinking skill far too common in society today.

Some people have recognized this lack of social communication and cognitive development like Greg Lukianoff. He felt so strongly about this topic, he dedicated an entire chapter or two in his book “The Coddling of the American Mind” to showing the consequences of limiting this type of interaction.

Chess as a game and as a sport inspires me to continue learning and continue interacting with the people I care about and learning more about the people I don’t know. It also inspires me to keep my mind sharp and think critically about the situation I am in.

Not everyone thinks the same as me, but if learning Chess for the academic benefits doesn’t interest you hopefully learning tp play as a way to connect with others does!

____________________________________________

Remember to Say It With Your Chess!

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy to read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!

____________________________________________

Resources:

  1. What is Rhetoric? | Department of Rhetoric and Writing Studies

Royalty Who?

Chess comes with quite a bit of lingo and jargon with their own separate connotations, but one reigns supreme; excellency or royalty. Titles get thrown around like International Master and Grandmaster, and they all seem to apply to elite members of the community. This language comes from an older time when the connotations matched the players, but it is not so anymore.

Throughout history, Chess had been played by royals and intellectuals who trained with other players. Now, you can walk through Washington Square in New York and find Chess Hustlers playing people on their lunch breaks. The game itself has changed the demographics, but it still has a ways to go.

One of the greatest games was played in 1956 by Bobby Fischer, which they later called the game of the century. Similar to the Immortal Game with Anderssen, Fischer won after sacrificing his queen. What makes the match so historical, Fischer was only 13 years old at the time playing against 26-year-old chess master Donald Byrne. Fischer went on to become the youngest Grandmaster at 15 years old until very recently.

On top of the major exhibition of genius, Fischer came from a rough childhood. His father filed for divorce and left when he was 2 years old. He started playing when his older sister bought him a chess set, and the rest is history. Of course, Bobby Fischer paved the way for a lot of American chess masters, but the history is still being written.

As it stands today, there have only been 3 African Grandmasters. A Grandmaster is someone with a rating of 2500 or greater, assuming the rating comes from International Chess Federation (FIDE) sponsored events. These events are far and few in countries such as Zambia and areas like the Bahamas. The first black Grandmaster was Maurice Ashley, a Jamaican-American, in 1999.

The game tries to reach as many players as possible, but the main concern is a lack of funding and accessibility for many who want to join the game. Some participants raised thousands of dollars to attend just one event in hopes of rising through the ranks with enough money to keep them afloat. Yes, some players have been paid over $5 million for one match, but they had to play a lot more than one match to get there.

The United States had a select few who participated in Chess tournaments, but it took Bobby Fischer to ‘open the floodgates’ for Americans to see what can come of it. Players like Maurice Ashley and Pontus Carlsson are starting a new wave of inspiration based on love for a game that goes back more than a century (pun intended… from the game of the century… ). Either way, chess is a game of wit and strategy and triumph. It has a history of shinning the spotlight on the underdogs who shine out of nowhere. It is no longer dominated by experienced royalty with training and is instead a game anyone can win no matter where you’re from, or how much money you have, or what the color of your skin is.

____________________________________________

Remember to Say It With Your Chess!

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!

____________________________________________

Resources:

  1. Bobby Fischer, Troubled Genius of Chess

Personalized Versus Privatized: A White Christmas For All

“Bringing the best user experience to its customers through its innovative hardware, software, and services” – Apple Mission Statement

Corporations such as Apple and Google focus on ‘user experience’ when designing their products, and with good reason. People don’t buy iPhones and Google Homes because they have to, they buy them because they want the experience. Everything an iPhone can do necessary for everyday life, a $15 Tracphone can do for a mere fraction of the price. These major companies try to attract as much of your time as possible, it’s their business.

They have a moral dilemma to make, however: Personalized experience at the cost of user privacy or user privacy at the cost of business.

For years, scholars have debated the importance of personalization such as preferences, suggested, or ‘recommended for you’ aspects of technology. Some argue that this mass amount of information is going to be the future of technology, while others argue the dangers of personalized features leading to a dystopian world without privacy. The Netflix Original Black Mirror takes this idea to the extreme with their episode White Christmas.

In the episode, a cookie, or a neural code, of a person can be made and put into a device similar to a Google Home. The cookie, being a copy of the user, knows the user’s preferences and behaviors which it then uses to run the smart home personalized for the user. It sounds all good and well until you find out the cookie thinks just like the user – a human- and feels trapped inside the device with nothing to do but serve. (As you may be able to tell, I enjoyed the episode and I recommend it to anyone interested in questioning technology).

Technology as a topic can be very broad and lend itself to many ambiguous controversies; privacy being one of them. Because of this versatility as a topic, it becomes hard to be pro-tech when you also value privacy.

For example, companies like Google, Facebook, and the like all contain similar messages in their Mission statements. Google strives to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”  with Instagram following suit by stating they “bring you closer to the people and things you love”[1][2]. Facebook goes so far as to say people use the app to “stay connected with friends and family, to discover what’s going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them”[3]. 

On the surface, all of these missions or core values appear to be user-oriented (and they are).  A good customer experience keeps the population happier, less stressed, and overall in a better place. Without revolving around the customer, companies wouldn’t be doing their jobs. Although they revolve around the user, it begs the question – Is it doing good for the user?

The problem with personalization on the scale of mass social media, personalization requires details about the person in question: what do they like? What do they believe in? Who do they talk to? Where are they from?

Most people either don’t know about the Terms of Service or don’t care to read them. The reason I say most people don’t know, Google has been quoted saying the users agree to the Terms of Service when they use the google search engine. Imagine signing a contract you didn’t know existed. In order to “serve you relevant ads”, they collect data on your activity and use it to personalize your experience. That being said, NBC News contributes to the debate with the shocking fact that “Google has more data than Facebook”[4]. A website created for users to look up information has more data than a social media app that requires a confirmed email, phone number, security question, and has access to your entire social network.

I have brought this topic up to many people, and there are a few skeptics (my father included) who do not believe a word of what I have mentioned.  However, a TEDx talk by Eli Pariser provides all the proof needed. In his talk, he asked a couple friends to search for a simple, objective topic, ‘Egypt’. What came back were two different search results, one of which never mentioned the political protests in Egypt at the time[5]. This finding strikes many like Eli as concerning because these websites show the user what it thinks they want to see, not what they should see. If that isn’t scary enough, Mark Zuckerberg being the CEO of Facebook might do the trick.

Zuckerberg is in charge of the user interface for Facebook. A user interface is the visual part of an app or website ( what the user sees). The CEO was quoted saying that “a squirrel dying in front of your house may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa”[5]. Let’s go back to Facebook’s mission statement.

“stay connected with friends and family, to discover what’s going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them”

If the program that decides what “matters” to us might choose to show us a video of a squirrel over the crisis in Africa, can it be trusted with the private and personal data the users allow it to access?

____________________________________________

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know as there!

____________________________________________

  1. Google – About Google, Our Culture & Company News
  2. Instagram | About Us | Official Site
  3. Facebook – Resources
  4. Google Sells the Future, Powered By Your Personal Data
  5. TEDx Talk “Beware Online ‘Filter Bubbles’ | Eli Pariser

W3LC0M3 T0 TH3 D1G1TAL AG3 0F C0MMUN1CAT10N

Throughout history, technology changes and implements itself in our daily lives faster than past generations can keep up. For example, people born after 2000 won’t know what it’s like to live without commercialized WiFi­­ [1]. Because an average person’s day includes some type of communication, it is no far stretch to say that technology affects how humans interact with themselves and the outside world. But is the change for the better or the worse?

( Pexels | Pixabay )

Technology has been debated for years and continues to be a staple for scholarly deliberation. In general, a list of debate topics will include at least one related to technology in the top ten and in some cases, even the top 6 when linked with privacy rights[3][4].

Unfortunately, observations are made in an attempt to link technology with the decline in verbal communication during an age of digital mass networking. Excluding Facebook, Instagram, or any other social media, the internet can be generalized as a way to articulate one’s ideas to a larger audience, whether it be facetime, texting, email, or even online publishing sites. The problem skeptics are quick to point out is that with a device on your person, verbal and human interaction is limited.

A similar idea exists in economics known as a Production Possibility Frontier (PPF). These PPF’s graphically show tradeoffs between two related products our outcomes such as verbal or digital communication similar to the one below:


(Production Possibility Frontier | Policonomics)

Essentially, the PPF can vaguely represent two different types of communication. If we want to maximize verbal communication (Y) we have to sacrifice some online communication (X), and vice versa. Thus, the idea of technology limiting traditional communication is a widely accepted position with a plethora of support ranging from teenage tech habits to studies on employees in the workforce, all of which builds a case for technology’s negative effect on communication.

That being said, a less common stance is to argue for technology’s positive effect on communication, which can be backed by more than studies and surveys; facts and history.

In the past, advances in communication made the literal difference between life and death. To be specific, during World War I soldiers were tasked with laying ‘com lines’ which were wires for the base to send directions and orders to the infantry on the frontlines. This integral part of battle during the war was so important, opposing sides would send troops to ‘cut’ the lines and leave the division stranded[6]. Now, countries can fight wars on other continents from a laptop in a secure building somewhere else.

These major advances in literal communication techniques can be traced directly to progression in technology. The average user utilizes the internet for conversational purposes. During the holiday season (when most people are expected to buy gifts), “53 percent of Internet users sent greetings through e-mail, 32 percent sent e-greeting cards […] Only 24 percent purchased gifts.[2]”

Although technology benefits national and international conversing, the real benefit lends itself to helping the individual.

In today’s world, citizens tend to lean more towards comfort rather than practicality. Some teens and college-age students look for comfort in their social lives. For example, when a situation gets awkward or uncomfortable, technology allows for a brief escape on Facebook or similar apps[7].  We allow people to do this because most of the time they are communicating in some way shape or form.

Of course, there are exceptions to this escaping behavior such as, extroverts, who would rather embrace the situation. For those that apply, technology gives them a voice when they would have previously been rendered silent by their circumstance. More specifically, 63.9% of college students reported having a fear of public speaking [8]. Technology allows for a smooth conversation to exist in each citizen’s comfort level.

The most important example of giving someone a voice is Minspeak. Minspeak (minimal speaking) is a device created by Dr. Bruce Baker to help those speak who couldn’t do so for themselves. The device uses a multi-meaning icon language system to make the language easier and faster (up to 70%)[1].  There are fewer than 100 buttons that allow the user to form full, complex sentences with only 1 to 2 buttons.

The company that created Minspeak, Semantic Compaction Systems, markets its products to children and adults with physical disabilities such as cerebral palsy or learning disabilities such as autism. Both demographics struggle with the idea of learning a language, better yet speaking and communicating their needs to aids or other members of society. The technology allows for an electronically generated voice to physically speak for the user.

Technology positively affects the everyday lives of those who struggle with language and provides the added ease for those who don’t. Although technology can be negatively attributed to a measurable lack of verbal communication on a global scale, it doesn’t come close to the Technology changes communication on a major scale when looking at the longterm effects of its benefits.

____________________________________________

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know as there!

____________________________________________

  1. Minspeak | a way of representing language through icons
  2. Generation Blog | Nicholas Carr
  3. Debate Topics – ProCon.org
  4. 25 Controversial Topics to Help You Start Your Research
  5. The History of WiFi | Purple
  6. WWI Military Communication
  7. Alone in the crowd
  8. Fear of Public Speaking: Perceptions of College Students and Correlates

Say It With Your Chess!

In this blog, I hope you can gain a better understanding of why I am so passionate about chess as well as why I want to tell everyone and to Say It With My Chest! A lot of people have either heard of the game Chess or knows someone who can play, but it was never always this way. I’ll explain why Chess is a passion of mine throughout the next 10 blogs.

 

Before we get into how to play Chess, I would like to start with what Chess is. I’m won’t get spiritual and talk about why the game is one huge metaphor for life. In my opinion, the history of the game is much more important and interesting to learn about, and I hope you think so too.

Chess is often considered a metaphor for life due to its origin: a game created to tell a story. In Ancient India, the ruler of the Gupta Empire was killed on the battlefield during a war. To preserve his fallen brother’s memory, the ruler’s sibling created a simpler version with only 4 pieces: Pawn, Knight, Rook, and Bishop. Of course, the pieces were known by different names at the time, the game itself had the same themes and motives.

Throughout many years of trade and cultural prosperity, Chess became well known with many cultures creating their adaptations to the game. One Mongolian Ruler even changed the board completely in both the size and the purpose of moving each piece around the board! The majority of the modernization of the game began in Europe around the fourteenth century.

By the fifteenth century, Chess became so widely known and standardized, it moved into literature. Books were being published about theory and specific move sets based on famous games, namely Italians (hmm … I wonder what nationality the last name ‘Magnotti’ is).

By the time the game reached France, the strategy shifted from straight analytic thinking to a more mathematic version of the game. This new version included the mathematical advantages of pawns and their importance for strategy as well as predefined moves. Yes, eventually players memorized steps to complete different “openings” or traps as those that have occurred from previous players.

After this shift in gameplay, there existed a few universally known facts about the game:

  • The King piece needs to be protected at all costs
  • The Queen piece is the most powerful
  • The Bishop and Rook soon follow as the second most powerful pieces

A burst of support for Chess came from a game known as “The Immortal Game” played by Adolf Anderssen against Lionel Kieseritzky. I will talk more about the game in later blogs, but for now, it helps to know Anderssen won with the sacrifice of the queen, two Rooks, and a bishop while still managing to win.

Chess changed its identity many times starting as a storytelling device into a game played in the homes of royalty to finally the “sport” as many consider it to be today. Skeptics of the importance of Chess are quick to question the importance of games such as The Immortal Game. However, without players such as Anderssen and Steinitz (the first recognized World Chess Champion), the game would still be deemed a game of chance rather than strategy. I would make the argument that this determination holds the utmost importance considering the game was banned by the church for being a game of chance (gambling).

The history of Chess carries a lot more political, social, and intellectual applications than the blanket statement of how chess can relate to our world as a society. I am definitely biased because it is my passion, but perhaps I got someone intrigued to learn more – which makes all the research worth it!

____________________________________________

Remember to Say It With Your Chess!

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!

____________________________________________

Resources:

  1. “A Brief History of Chess” by Alex Gendler
  2. “Chess” article from Wikipedia

A Fatal Grilled Cheese: The Rising Price of EpiPens

Hope you enjoy our video on a public contoversy!

____________________________________________

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!

____________________________________________