Drafts under preparation

These are the drafts under preparation, if you have any similar ideas you may like to share send me an email (check my profile) or post comments or ......thanx!

1. Falsification of own theories :
-Falsification is a scientific tool mostly used in mathematics to derive at a conclusion. In normal lilfe, we don't use it that much: this search is based on where and how we use it. who are those people?
-Based on the idea that Grand Masters falsify their own theories
-Falsification of own theories is based on logic from pure mathematics
-Falsification rarely used by people in real life: in search of the places where its used...

2. Chess is a perfect example of leading an aimless life
3. Philosophy of En Passant in real life
4. What's promotion in life? like pawns?
5. is checkmate like death?
.....

Double isolated pawn (version 5)

There is a poem by Tagore where he said: "a couple in love is more lonely than a single"....I can't recollect the exact poem or writing but Tagore truly wrote something very similar to that.

I have also read it elsewhere similar ideas....a smooth writer said very similar stuff...Probably in some movies...

Double isolated pawns are like that...They are very weak as a combined force compared to a single isolated pawn..Specially the pawn behind, that's really weak. There isn't much use of the pawn behind..Relatively speaking, it probably doesn't matter for the pawn infront whether the pawn behind exists or not, doesn't have much sense of its presence! Similar is the feeling for pawn behind, may be worse feeling. Pawn infront is a bottleneck for him/her since its not possible to move at all if he/she doesn't move!

However, the most important point here to understand why is a couple in love so lonely? Are they lonely because they will be more complete staying alone? Because they are trying to fix each other's loneliness what they can't fix? This way they are making themselves more lonely?

Another possibility is that their detachment from the rest of the universe (due to their deep love, of course) make them more isolated compare to others not in that situation. This definitely makes sense to me!

I don't remember the exact logic of Tagore (or the the European writer), but that's what come to my mind right now!

But as a combined force the system looks to them as a weak combination. That's so similar to the look of the poet Tagore..Exactly the same way he looked at a couple in love! Did he know about this double isolated pawn concept? I guess no! I doubt that he had that much time to play chess. I heard from another poet (Byron) that: "Life is too short for chess", I guess Tagore might have similar views on chess too, no clue though!

Interesting is that one can get the same feeling and derive the same concept in so many different ways without knowing each others understanding!

Maskless ruthless chess: Hypocrite Life (version2)

Here my objective is to draw similarities between important concepts played over a chess board and life, however there are fundamental differences between these two: mainly, these differences created by our modern civilization, in a different civilization we could have behaved differently. Or, at least, we can think of a new civilization where its exactly like playing games over a chess board.

Let's just watch some very important differences, we might go into details later on:

1. Nobel Prize in human civilization (literature): A writer writes great things about human life, shows the greatness of humanity, writes in a nice language (of course, I don't have a doubt on that) and wins a Nobel Prize. This has a noble cause. It advances society, inspires humanity for a good cause.

However, it doesn't question about very basics: do we really have potential? Are we all not going to die one day with our beloved planet (whatever we try)? Are we all not basically very greedy? Are we all not born because of someone else's mistakes? That there is no fundamental difference between a beast and a human? But we all have the superiority complex and consider ourselves the king of this planet...

We don't seem like all that bad since we use lots of masks..
Human has to be hypocrite since they want to be happy. All human philosophy, literature, poetry etc. Designed to make human happy. Human appreciates such work of happiness and reward those people who bring happiness in their lives. But truth may not bring happiness all the time. Truth hurts, the real truth may not make human happy. So we pretend to be truthful knowing that we are not. We project ourselves who believe in truth, but all we want to be is happy; this contradiction makes us hypocrite.

But a game of chess is maskless. Here we all know how we survive, how we get killed, no one is so great. A sacrifice is made to win something else, may be someother time. It all depends on calculation, strategy and positional maneuvers! Its merciless!

Stale Mate

(This is just a draft, waiting for your comments...)

Your opponent can't move any of the pieces and you don't have a check on opponents king either, and its your opponents turn to move: this situation is called stale mate.

This is a very peculiar situation in chess board. It may happen that you have lots of forces, excellent position, everything to win the game; still you can't win the game. The game ends in a draw.

You can call that opponent is "stale mated" but its not same as "mate"; you haven't won over the opponent though you might have outplayed the opponent in every aspect of the game.

Its not necessary that you are the stronger force and you really have outplayed opponent in the game, but normally that's the case when stale mate happens.

In real life, stale mate normally happens more often than chess. You may outperform someone in a competition, or in a debate about something you think very important to win, or .....

But at the end of it, at the end of having outplayed your opponent in real life, you may find that you really haven't won the game! If you have this feeling, then its stale mate. Stale mate happens in real life, just check yourself, be honest with yourself and ask the question after winning an argument: "Have I really won?"