Pavel Baryshnikov
Pyatigorsk State University
This review article reveals the structural components of the chess metaphor, which represent in an unusual perspective the properties of a linguistic sign and its connection with mental processes. Strict rule-following and the conventionality of the material plane of expression turn chess into a convenient illustration of a universal linguistic structure. Particular attention is paid to the computer profile of the chess metaphor, since it reflects a whole complex of philosophical problems of computer science about mind, thinking and intelligence. In the proposed paper, the presentation of most of the material is based on the works of F. de Saussure, L. Hjelmslev, L. Wittgenstein and their interpreters, in whose texts an obvious important place is occupied by chess analogies and theoretical conclusions initiated by them. First we investigate chess metaphor in the context of language and speech structures. Next, we analyze the "chess track" in the problem of individual language and the rule-following problem. The final part is devoted to the technical elements of computer chess and the influence of this area of computer science on some of the points of cognitive theories of language and mind. The author of the article emphasizes a nontrivial transformation of the conceptual content of the chess metaphor, which indicates the evolution of computational tendencies in modern theories about language and mind. The article substantiates the thesis that the traditional chess metaphor used in the XX century in the philosophical investigation of language and mind, today it takes on a realization in the framework of computer models of the chess game. Machine deep learning can significantly expand the horizon of computability. Game interaction makes it possible to ascribe the elements of intentional content to machine functions. Nevertheless, all the argumentation in the work is aimed at proving that the rules governing language and mind are rules different from the rules of computer intelligence.
Keywords Contemporary Philosophy  Philosophy of Science
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.5840/eps202158231
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,295
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Reviled Art.Stuart Rachels - 2008 - In Benjamin Hale (ed.), Philosophy Looks at Chess. Open Court Press.
Chess, Imagination, and Perceptual Understanding.Paul Coates - 2013 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 73:211-242.
Objects of Metaphor.Samuel Guttenplan - 2005 - Oxford University Press.
Should Chess and Other Mind Sports Be Regarded as Sports?Filip Kobiela - 2018 - Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 45 (3):279-295.
Metaphor.Richard Moran - 1997 - In Bob Hale & Crispin Wright (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Blackwell. pp. 248-267.
On the Philosophical Dimensions of Chess.Arto Siitonen - 1998 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 41 (4):455 – 475.
Linguistig Frameworks and Metaphysical Questions.James W. Comman - 1964 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 7 (1-4):129 – 142.
Metaphor in the Mind: The Cognition of Metaphor.Elisabeth Camp - 2006 - Philosophy Compass 1 (2):154-170.
Chess is Not a Game.Deborah P. Vossen - 2008 - In Benjamin Hale (ed.), Philosophy Looks at Chess. Chicago and La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Press. pp. 191-208.


Added to PP index

Total views

Recent downloads (6 months)

How can I increase my downloads?


Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes