You mean the article in full is at CURA? The link goes to ALEPH, which unfortunately isn't available to individual subscribers.

I miss living near a uni with a good medieval Jewish studies department.

I posted the wrong damn link.

Here is the correct one: http://cura.free.fr/cura2/810houx.html

I'll fix my previous post. Sorry about that.

Tom?

Thanks for both, actually. ALEPH does have one free issue online, and a lot of it deals with medieval Jewish attitudes towards astrology - always mixed, and pretty interesting stuff.

Thanks for the link Tom. The free will vs deterministic fate arguments always interest me; I especially enjoyed the description of the Mesopotamian namburbi.

Game Theory tells us that if the moves that can be made by an opponent are fixed or limited in some fashion (i.e. as in the rules for chess moves) then you have a better chance of besting him; since you can develop counter-strategies for each of his possible moves. It appears the Mesopotamian's understood this, ( nothing is more fixed than the movements of the heavens) and came up with a variety of counter strategies in order to best the gods

Great text, thank you for the heads up.

*saves in favorites*

Game Theory tells us that if the moves that can be made by an opponent are fixed or limited in some fashion (i.e. as in the rules for chess moves) then you have a better chance of besting him

If I remember correctly, GAme theory states that, in a game like Chess, there is a finite number of strategies and results, so we could, a priory, establish the one strategy that would defeat all. This means that the game of Chess could be "predetermined"

As chess is a symetrical game, where the only assymetry would be who makes the first move, in principle we could discover that whites could always win, or maybe the blacks.... though it is possible in theory it would take untill the end of universe to make the calculations, and for the luck of the players, there is trillions of possible games to play, so they don?t have to worry about somebody finding the "key" to the perfect game of chess...

:-)

That's true, there are a million+ ways to play the game but at any one point, when you know the possible moves are limited it is easier to develop a strategy to cope with them.

What I find interesting is the fact that, as the movement of the heavens is so predictable we are actually afforded more, rather than less, choice in our lives. A nice setup for us

If I remember correctly, GAme theory states that, in a game like Chess, there is a finite number of strategies and results, so we could, a priory, establish the one strategy that would defeat all. This means that the game of Chess could be "predetermined"

As chess is a symetrical game, where the only assymetry would be who makes the first move, in principle we could discover that whites could always win, or maybe the blacks.... though it is possible in theory it would take untill the end of universe to make the calculations, and for the luck of the players, there is trillions of possible games to play, so they don?t have to worry about somebody finding the "key" to the perfect game of chess...

Hi Yuzuru,

First off my apologies to those of you who find discussing chess comparable to watching paint dry.....

I know you are just using chess as an example but as an enthusiastic chess player I have to state the games theory analogy you reference doesn't quite fit my understanding of the game. First of all there are frequently several plausible moves for white and black that are perfectly playable with best play. This is why chess has generated thousands and thousands of volumes on chess theory. There are numerous ways for white to open the game and numerous valid defences for black. The idea that there could ever be one clear winning strategy from move 1 is therefore not plausible.

Chess opening theory has developed from the testing ground of numerous variations which all attempt to provide the strongest variation for black or white. While one can often comment that certain moves might be stronger or weaker in a particular position there are often numerous strong moves in an opening position to choose from. At this point there is a considerable amount of choice ( free will?) available to each player.

The game only fits the predictable nature you suggest if one player makes a clearly weak move that can be capitalised on by an attack winning material, threatening mate or offering an end game advantage. In addition, as the game progresses the forest of possibilities thins out considerably reducing the number of strong or good options available to each player. Thus in the final stages of the end game the best/winning moves are often predictable and open to calculation as they would be in a mating attack or combination.

White usually has a slight advantage in chess. Its been compared to the serve in Tennis. As with Tennis black must first neutralise this slight advantage.

However, looking at chess computers of equal strength we often see the game resulting in a draw so that the perfect symmetry is maintained. With best play by both sides the symmetry is maintained resulting in a draw.
Similarly, draws are a much more common feature of Grandmaster chess than at more humble levels of the game.

When this doesn't happen it calls into question the validity of a particular variation in terms of maintaining white's initial advantage or countering it as black.

I really, really enjoyed reading this article, thank you for sharing the link Tom, I would have probably never found it if it weren't for this topic.