Computers are beating humans in chess but the man-man contest still elicits interest. How about training our diplomats in chess and have negotiations over a board of 64 squares ? (I have heard of romantic associations being formed over the chess board.).

 

Why not let our diplomats get on with what they are good at, and leave chess to the people who are good chess players.

Why choose chess?
Why not teach them sumo wrestling; it makes just as much sense?

Why not let our diplomats get on with what they are good at, and leave chess to the people who are good chess players.

Why choose chess?

Why not teach them sumo wrestling; it makes just as much sense?

 

Having a tete-a-tete over a cup of coffee and a game of chess seems more proactive.....

 

Having a tete-a-tete over a cup of coffee and a game of chess seems more proactive.....

What do you consider the word "proactive" to mean?

What do you consider the word "proactive" to mean?

 

adjective

1. (of a person or action) creating or controlling a situation rather than just responding to it after it has happened.

   In the context of political conflicts and differences of opinion.

Thorough what mechanism does moving figures around on a squared board control the sort of situation which we expect our diplomats to deal with?

 

For example the testing of a nuclear weapon by North Korea is giving our diplomats something to think about.

 

Why would chess not be a waste of their time?

There is (implausible as it seems) the sport of chessboxing. Given the grossly divergent opinions of our political leaders, this might be more appropriate. More entertaining, anyway.

Having played chess on the Internet with players from nations as diverse as Mozambique and Iran, to cite an example, I can endorse the fact that a kind of telepathic consanguinity develops between the players, even if it is only ephemeral. This is a prelude to the actual thawing of ice between otherwise discordant individuals. Better building bridges than building walls (Newton said so....).