The paradox is really the pathos of intellectual life and just as only great souls are exposed to passions it is only the great thinker who is exposed to what we call paradoxes.

The paradox is really the pathos of intellectual life and just as only great souls are exposed to passions it is only the great thinker who is exposed to what I call paradoxes, which are nothing else than grandiose thoughts in embryo.




~ Soren Kierkegaard 1813-1855


I would like to take this discussion from a psycho philosophical reasoning in an attempt to understanding the DNA of the intellectuals and the genesis of the problem of contradiction that an intellectual life faces, and providing a perspective by navigating through the shipwreaks in the waters of world history and converging to the Indian Political scenario in past and present with intermittent dispalys of events and examples. I shall not only try to provide an exhaustive account of intellectuals but also done the hat myself in critical analysis of few contradictions.References have been mentioned in Italics.


Let me give you an exhaustive yet necessary account of the intellectuals of the 19th, 20th and present century (TIME Magazine Special Edition, April 13, 1998). Amongst the most interesting debates we have had was one of the relative influences of the thinkers versus the tinkerers-those who work mainly inside their own mind versus those who turn their mind to practical things. In some centuries the tinkers are more influential. The 15th, for example, was important for Gutenberg building his printing press and Columbus setting sail, the 19th for Fulton and his steamboat, Morse and his code, Bell and his telephone, Edison and his light bulb. But in other centuries the pure thinkers were more influential. The 17th, for example, boasted Newton, Galileo, Descartes and Locke.


In the 20th Century, Einstein’s ideas led to making the 20th a century of Physics, one marked by manipulations of subatomic particles in ways that produced everything from atom bombs to silicon chips. But this century will also be remembered for its great tinkereres. The ability to transcend gravity, brought about the folks from Wright brothers to Robert Goddard, affected the way we live as much as Einstein’s ability to figure out what gravity actually is. Philo Farnsworth’s ability to turn electrons into television images was likewise as influential as figuring out what electrons really are. Indeed, this century may be noted most for those who went out to their garages and helped bring us televisions and transistors, plastics and penicillin, computers and www. The discovery of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick make 21st century a century of biotechnology. Sigmund Freud-Psychoanalyst-He opened a window on the unconscious-where, he said, lust, rage and repression battle for supremacy-and changed the way we view ourselves. Freud drew a sharp distinction between religious faith (which is not checkable or correctable) and scientific inquiry (which is both) A paradox arises within self when a thinker, a proponent or product of a religious faith devotes himself to the search of truth by the means of scientific enquiry. A poor student at 14, by 26 Einstein had reshaped time and space. The paradox lies in the fact that he rebuked the education system that has been in first place built to achieve what he achieved by rejecting it. You can call it a systemic failure or an appealing paradox. He once said,” To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself”. Even he could not escape paradoxes within his own mind, or perhaps he and his kind ‘only’, could not escape paradoxes!


A paradox is a statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition. The term is also used for an apparent contradiction that actually expresses a non-dual truth (cf. kōan, Catuskoti). Typically, the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction, the puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the premises themselves are not all really true or cannot all be true together. The word paradox is often used interchangeably with contradiction. It is also used to describe situations that are ironic.(Wikipedia)




All great thinkers experience paradox majorly because of Self –Deception. Given the ubiquity, an elusive nature of Self-Deception, perhaps the first step in addressing the matter is to work toward a better understanding of how it functions. Towards that end I will examine the work of two psychologists on the Topic of Self-Deception: Daniel Goleman’s “Vital Lies, Simple Truths: The Psychology of Self-Deception” and Shelley E Taylor’s “Positive Illusions: Creative Self Deception and the Healthy Mind”. Taylor argues for a form of creative self deception, or the use of “positive illusions”, which involves a positive and optimistic view of oneself and the world (that might show variance with ‘reality’).Taylor contends that individuals are more likely to live happy, successful lives as a consequence. Perhaps this explains why intellectuals everywhere dislikes capitalism, as claimed and explained by philosopher Robert Nozick. They feel entitled to (because of ‘positive illusions’) greater prestige, money and power, whereas the market rewards those who fulfil perceived demand in the marketplace. The wordsmith’s expectation is created early in school. In the classroom the brightest are rewarded with the highest marks and teachers’ smiles. Hence, they grow up expecting praise. When it does not come in later life, and when society values things other than verbal ability, they grow resentful and sullen, especially when they experience downward mobility.Some of them in this process contradict their own motives that played role in the proces that made them intellectuals. Goleman focusses on the negative aspects of Self-Deception.He locates the basis of self deception in the “trade off” between ‘anxiety’ and ‘awareness’.Attention is used to gather information that is necessary for survival and anxiety resukts when this information is regarded as threat.Goleman concludes that we tend to perceive what we are looking for rather than what we are looing at. Or, as Robert Persing puts it:”Seeing is not beleiving.Believing is seeing”. He says that we develop diversionary schemas to protect us against threats to our self-image and to prevent psychic pain.Freud called such schemas as “defence mechanisms”, the most notable of which include rationalization, denial and repression, which Freud defined in its most basic sense as “the function of rejcting aand keeping something out of consciousness”.An individual’s memory and recollection of one’s personal history is also fertile ground for self-deception.Goleman remarks:”The ease with which we deny and dissemble, an deny and dissemble that we have denied and dissembled is remarkable”.(Playing with the Self: Self-Deception and Education, William L.Fridley)Contradctions exist within a human mind, not outside it.They exist between cognition and conduct, thoughts and speech, conscious and unconcious!


Contardictions are there in everyone’s life.Intellectuals are just more aware and receptive of them, that they are less self-deceived than others.And passionate souls arise when the limits of self deception in them reach the pinnacle thus insulating them from the existential angst (the futility of their life).




The theory of Existentialism that claims” existence before essence” and discusses the absurdities of life, points to the fact that every man has make some meaning out of his existence and create goals and spend time achieving them. Thinkers set such goals by discovering inconsistencies and then finding a solution to them. They are compelled by an urge to keep discovering inconsistencies or paradoxes so as to keep giving a meaning to their life, which otherwise would face existentialistic demise in presence of absolute or even agreeable truth. Also they are more subjective and do not subscribe simply a truth or falsity to a premise, hence they reach paradoxes much easily. In the proces they sometimes make inventions and at the pinnacle of their efforts discover self–deception, a paradox which is both true and false at the same time in the same sense , like a dialetheism.When they claim such discoveries, people submerged in self-deception claim it as paradox. A modernist mix of anarchy, existential despair and rebellion against conformity motivated art, philosophy, literature, music, fashion and even behaviour for much of the century, and gave birth to many intellectuals in these fields.




Take for example, Ludwig Wittgensttein, who began by trying to reduce all mathematics to logic and ended by finding most metaphysics to be nonsense.He said, “Philosophers are often like small children who scribble random marks on a paer and then ask an adult, ‘ What Is this?’.Well, it is a contradictions that they have figured out in the web of cause and effect relations.Or for example, Kurt Godel, who would appear on the doorsteps of his fellowship mathematicians without warning and announce, “My mind is Open”.Probably this is one essential reason why thinkers come across paradoxes more than anyone else. Because they do not induldge in self deception and do not run away from uncomfortable logical queries.They infact are seeking such paradoxes so that they can satisfy themselves by expanding the horizons of their mind. By thinking of theorems as patterns or symbols, Godel discovered that it is possible for a statement in a formal system not only to talk about itself, but also to deny its own theoremhood.Or that John Maynard Keynes’ idea that governments should spend money that they do not own may have not only saved Capitalism, but is a fashionable refuge in the post financial crisis era.All these great thinkers have experienced contradictions in time and space.




While those who seek passion harbingered more on end justifies the means. They wanted to carve out a place for themselves in the existentialistic realm by propagating an ideology, or pursuing a self defined mission, or an experience inflicted moral obligation. Franklin D Roosevelt, with his limitless energy and passionate sense of the nation, set stage for the American Century. His earliest surviving letter, written at the age of 10, mourns the cutting down of a tree, and he went down on to become America’s first conservative President, responsible for 5 new national parks, 18 national monuments and untold millions of acres of forests. Margaret Sanger-Crusade to legalize birth control spurred the movement for women’s liberation. She made people accept that Women had the right to control their own destinies. Eleanor Roosevelt blazed paths for women and led the battle for social justice everywhere. Feminism made huge strides in the century and women of the world went from disenfranchised to heads of the state. It was demonstrated by the rise to power of the likes of Sirimavo Bendarnaike, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Corazon Aquino, Benazir Bhutto, Violeta Barrios Chamorro. While on one hand likes of Lenin, driven by their ideological zeal, reshaped Russia and made communism a global force, on the other the likes of Franklin D Roosevelt became proponents of Free Market economy and democracy. The ideologies of Democracy, Facisism and Communism have undergone trials, testing and have triumphed in different periods of time and in different coordinates of space, all driven by a handful of passionate souls and irrevocable thinkers.




Amongst a few examples of the Nation Builders like Mustafa Kemal, Gamal Abdul Nasser, Fiedel Castro, Lee Kuan Yew, albeit with diametrically opposite or minorly overlapping ideologies, I would like to illustrate the contradictions within the life of such great individuals by considering Mahatma Gandhi (a point in case in Indian Politics) is, whose philosophy of non violence and his passion for independence began a drive for freedom that doomed colonialism. Call it a “Think Different” strategy or an innocent passionate pursuit, he would not have been happy to see the sprawling inconsistencies in India’s shining façade and the ground realities.


“Think different”. Gandhi, in his younger days a sophisticated and westernized lawer, did indeed change his thinking more radically than most people do. Ghyanshyam Das Birla, one of the merchant princes who backed him, once said, “He was more modern than I. But he made a conscious decision to go back to the Middle Ages”.


He wanted to live his life as an ascetic, but, as the poet Sarojini Naidu joked, it cost the nation a fortune to keep Gandhi living in poverty. It is a matter of great irony that his broken spectacles and his bowl fetched millions of dollars in auctions in London and New York.His entire philosophy privileged the village way over that of the city, yet he was always financially dependent on the support of industrial billionaires like Birla. His hunger strikes could stop riots and massacres, but he also once went on a hunger strike to force one of his capitalist patrons’ employees to break their strike against the harsh conditions of employment. He sought to improve the conditions of the untouchables, yet in today’s India, these peoples, now calling themselves Dalits and forming an increasingly well organized and effective political grouping, have rallied around the memory of their own leader, Bhimrao Ambedkar, an old rival of Gandhi. At 16, he had been making love to his wife Kasturba at the moment of his father’s death (reminds me of The Outsider by Albert Camus, Existentialist).Gandhi later forswore sexual relations but went on to his old age with what he called his “Brahmacharya Experiments”, during which naked young women would be asked to lie with him all night sop that he could prove that he had mastered his physical urges.




Whether these are illustrations of lacunas in Gandhi’s consciousness or aberrations in his perceived personality noticed by self-deceived common man (presumably a non-intellectual), it is clear that Gandhi was able to give a meaning to his life and achieve it, maybe by “deliberate self-deception” and having known the contradictions within his own life.




Ho Chi Minh, who married nationalism to communism and perfected the deadly art of Guerilla Warfare, aspired to be the Mahatma Gandhi of Indochina. It is remarkable how different ideologies can have the same inspiration and how the differences evolve over a period of time into complete contentious phenomenon. .Or was it Martin Luther King, The Gandhi of America, who could be spared such misalignment with ideas and pursuits of Gandhi? After all both met the same fate (assassination) too! Was that a coincidence? Is it a coincidence that a few great thinkers who went against the tide of time were assassinated?


Or do we blame the combined efforts of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan for the financial crisis that inflicted misery on the world, or the likes of Hitler, Lenin, et al. who created holocausts taking away lives of people? Both these kinds of leaders are nevertheless celebrated within their own markets! Or was it Mikhail Gorbachev who faced contradictions within his own empire when he decided to risk his power in order to save his reforms, rather than risk his reforms to save his power (as said by Richard M. Nixon, suggesting Gorbachev as the man of the century) ! Or can we dismiss this as a political act of appeasement. The thinkers, as the proponents of ideologies face major contradictions on two fronts. One, within their own lifestyles (as Mahatma Gandhi), and other on the ugly turns that their justified ideologies may take place, bringing the premises of that ideology back into discussion (attention), only to discover instances of mismatch between the ideological notions proposed and the lifestyle of the proponent or expectations that masses had developed under the guise of anxiety, that also made them oblivious to this contradiction so far.


With an intellectual’s hat, I would like to bring to attention the following paradoxes in Indian History, in past and in contemporary times and discuss the role of intellectuals in modern society.




Vice President Mohammad Hamid Ansari has described India as a political and economic paradox, a rich-poor nation with a weak strong state.” Persistent centrism, and continuous realignment, is one of its striking features. This has accommodated a wide spectrum of interests, classes, status groups, regions and communities in the political process and development structures. This accommodation has not always been equitable,” Ansari said. Ansari opined that it is now time to revert to the role and responsibility question in regard to intellectuals. “Most would accept the need to speak truth to power and do so by advocating the correct alternative. In doing so, awareness and analysis of the major and minor premises of proposed approaches becomes unavoidable,” he added.


For instance Nizam of Hyderabad was a very loyal British rule supporter, even though he had the largest and richest princely state in India. Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan but had to make a new country on the basis of religion. Nehru was an upper caste Indian who wanted freedom for India, but didn’t realize that socialism would only transfer power from British to Indian bureaucrats. On one hand Socialistic mindset could not bring any significant changes in HDI until 1991, and on the other the HDI indicators present a gnawing disagreement with the economic progress the nation has achieved post liberalisation in 1991. It is philosophical anxiety that prevents us from accepting the universal truth of distortion of wealth and resources,based on power, intellect and information (perhaps this is a basic concept supported by economic theory). Gandhi was a Gujarati who supported Indian villages and handicraft based economy (basically decentralized) and Nehru wanted centralized planned investments. Patel played a huge role in the political integration of India, but Kashmir was put off bounds for him by Nehru, which is a main reason why Kashmir is still not integrated with India. The Congress until the 70s wanted Hindi to be the only official language of India, but the Tamils and other south Indians rejected it and demanded English also, which is why English and Hindi both remained official languages, and now English is strength of Indians. Communists are the representatives of the poorest of the poor and still the Maoists, the impatient poorest of the poor, attack in West Bengal. The capitalists say that they are helping in developing the areas and re-establishing people where they are carrying out their mining activities and as a result have displaced millions of people. Clearly, the local people there do not believe that the roads as wide and flat as aircraft runways that are being built through their forestsin Dantewadaby the NMDC are being built for them to walk theior children to school on. How can this paradox be explained? How a government that professed its inabiltiy to resettle even a fraction of the fifty million people who had been displaced by “ development “ projects was suddenly able to identify 140000 hectares of prime land to give to industrialists for more than 300 SEZs?Any communist party should have an ideology to defend the rights of the working class, yet in Nandigram it was the communist who took away land from farmers and gave it to rich upper class factory owners. Mumbai has got its prosperity from the most talented people of the country who moved there to work, and now they want to close borders for non Marathis. NREGS does better in non congress ruled states. Communists, who are non democrats, decide party leaders on the basis of voting, while congress and BJP, democrats, decide it on the basis of being a Gandhi.


Jaswant Singh, a knowledgeable leader of BJP, is expelled for sharing his intellectual research and opinion on Jinnah in public domain for reasons known to all of us. Shashi Tharoor goes beyond the intellectual capabilities of his fellow mates and has to pay the prize for being too ahead of the times in Indian Politics. Khushwant Singh, a Sikh himself, is the best known critique of Sikhs, other than being the producer of some of the most startling and daring works on Indian History and thought that are not met with intellectual discussion but mindless political dissent. Arvind Adiga, Gregory David Roberts, as complete or semi- foreigners were perfect choices for having written a mind blowing account of the Indian Life ! “Animal Farm” by George Orwell was a perfect example of the paradoxes in political ideologies explained in the most beautiful way.




We need Intellectuals who can bring forth the paradoxes they experience and help other people to understand them rather than using their wisdom to mislead people ( like the lobbyists cum intellectuals in News Hour of Times Now, who barely seem to agree with one another and are too content to agree to disagree at the closure) According to a senior bureaucrat, the milk revolution was responsible for malnutrition of children in Gujrat because families sold all the milk produced leaving nothing for their kids. The economic attraction of the dairy cooperatives was so strong that all the milk produced by rural families was sold to them.There was no milk left for the children.These families aspired and dreamt of pucca houses and consumer durables that mad elife comfortable.Between the options of nourishing their children with milk and spending on consumer durables, they opted for the latter. An intellectual, by virtue of proximity to contradictions should identify such mishappeneings in advance.



The paradoxes in the Indian economics and politics often emerge as a consequence of the role or position of responsibility of an Individual or Institution or we can say that these contradictions often emerge as a consequence or influence of the taste of ideologies sported by an Individual.




Consider Lalu Prasad, who revolutionized the Indian Railways as the ‘Railway Minister’, and has become has become analogous to corruption as the ‘Politician’. Consider Manmohan Singh as the ‘Intellectual’ who lead India’s economic liberalization as an economist and a finance minister and is playing a mere appeasing Diplomat as the ‘PM’ of the Nation .Consider Arundhati Roy who has developed predictable anti-capitalist agenda as the ‘Intellectual Activist’ and amassed fame as the ‘Writer (Booker’s Prize)’ .Consider Sanjay Gandhi who was notorious for his affiliations to orthodox Hindu Groups as the ‘Religious Political Son of Hinduism’ or a was highly successful as the ‘radical reformist (Child Birth/Population control)’. Consider Sonia Gandhi who discouraged Rahul Gandhi to take up politics as the ‘Mother’ and the face of leadership in Indian Politics as the ‘leader of Congress’. Is it fate that brought the whole Gandhi Family? I do not think so. These leaders were aware of the paradox of their existence and they had taken up the task aware of the possible consequences. It seems like paradox to people who have always created “positive illusions” around the lives of such leaders. There was a time when Indian politics and intellectual life were both dominated by men and women who were consistently unwavering in their support to freedom and democracy. I was interested to read in the obituaries of the deceased Congressman, S. Nijalingappa, that he and Indira Gandhi parted ways over the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. As president of the Congress, Nijalingappa wanted our government to condemn the invasion, but as prime minister, Indira Gandhi refused to do so. Nijalingappa was reared in the tradition of M.K. Gandhi and C. Rajagopalachari, who loathed Hitler as much as they loathed Stalin, whose life’s work was the winning of democratic freedoms for their people, and who would not be so arrogant as to deny other people those same freedoms. Why do u have to be a Bill Gates to solve world’s AID problems ? Has Microsoft not committed any Social crimes? Can Bill Gate the Capitalist wash away his sins by the virtue of being Bill Gates the Social Worker?




As the manager of Public Debt, the RBI arranges to sell the Government bonds cheap to reduce the interest burden on the Government whereas as monetary authority it should tighten the interest rates to contain inflation.Conflict of interests? is there no contradiction but simply a hidden agenda that escapes our own emotional and ideological senses?Seems as we practice self deception by getting swayed in the ideological happenings that conform to our own and witjout applying any critical thought.


Let me give you an example from the life of a common man.A TV journalist can shout about a politician taking away illegaly homes of poor for redevelopment but when the same people come to forcefully seige his residence, he is flaggerbasted; Source-PAA Movie (Perhaps that is why the irony of the ‘Mumbai Slums’ in the economic capital of India exists!).


Why is that I have a developed left brain as a virtue of my analyticla skills but still chose to leverage right brain more in times of crises and keep left brain only as a utility that can be used as a pocket calculator when forced to?


Also some times ideologies become a powerful force in themselves, so much that they deviate from the moral structure of the inventor. Charu Majumdar, who founded the Naxalbari movement commited suicide. Blame it on his self deception or lack of command, he was simply an intellectual who built an ideology on just principles of Maoism that translated into inapprrpriate ideological war.A similar philosophy has been used a s a revolutionry tool by Che Guevra in Cuba and in other parts of world and is seen in a different light. But its manifestation in India is pathetic and condemnable as ideologies have detached themselves as a political tool from mainstream reasons of the uprising in 1960s.


Kobad Ghandy is an "unlikely revolutionary" - a foreign educated urbanite, he is reputed to like joking and socializing. Khoja-Parsi by birth, Kobad Ghandy completed his schooling in India's elite Doon school and St Xavier's College in Bombay. He went to London to pursue studies in chartered accountancy.What explains that this gentleman is leading an ideology that has become misplaced and unjustified? Is it wrong in calling him an intellectual ? Can rebels not be Intellectuals?Or are they just separated from society by time or wwavelenghth of their thought and so much that they exist as criminals in prevalent societal norms?


If Adam Smith vouched for free markets as a mechanism that would benefit the maximum, then should I blame him for the financial crisis? If yes, who do I credit for the amazing profits made in 2006-07?Keynes?


Intellectuals have to be accountable for their statements even years after their death.They remain alive beyond their death.Probably this is one of the greatest contradiction they face , as they under their existentialistic beliefs couldn’t have imagined giving a purpose to their lif beyond the life they lived!


Or is it a contradiction that such a question evoked so much awe that I wrote beyond 750 words, or simply my self deception or expression of preference of choice and that I deserve a better grade for being blunt in stating that!.Hopefully in this contradiction, or a choice that I make of chosing to express my self sufficiently than to selectively restrict and compress my views within 750 words is a right choice.We can call it rebellion, you may call it an intellectual choice, but the fact is that I have made one and I hope it is judged on its merit. I believe contradictions in Intellectual life are a question of Psychoanalysis rather than a Universal Law, as illustrated with examples.

“Chess is an infinitely complex game, which one can play in infinitely numerous and varied ways”—Vladimir Krammik

NOT TRUE!


The total number of chess games possible that end in a checkmate is indeed finite. Let us examine using arguments.

Say White loses. The W King can be on any of the 64 places when check mated. For each such place, it can be Killed/Check Mated by an element ei from finite number of possible positions. Number of such elements ei is also finite. Hence number of ways of Checkmate is finite. Now in the previous move, the W would have either moved the King or any other element. The summation of all such possibilities for all such elements is finite. Also the combination of elements that one wants to keep on board at the end of the game is also finite. So the number of ways of playing chess seems to be mathematically a huge finite number that can be expressed as a function of number of elements of each type and color left at the end of the game. Say f (count of elephants (W, B), count of King (W, B), count of Queen (W, B), count of Camel (W, B), count of Horse (W, B), count of Soldiers(W, B)), where each of the variables has lower and upper limits.

0<= Count of elephants (W, B), Count of Camel (W, B), Count of Horse (W, B) <=4

0<= Count of Soldiers (W, B) <=16

Count of King (W, B) =2

0<= Count of Queen<=2

Thus the Total number of possibilities=summation (f (W, B))

Hardy (1999) estimated the number of possible games of chess as .

But the big assumption is that there can be no draws. Let us see if the number of draws in Chess is finite?

Is it possible that this event of checkmate is never realized and that the game would continue infinitely?

If game was played perfectly by both players (hypothetical situation as perfection can be defined as the ability to make a move that ensures a win. The limitation in either a man or a machine is that such a decision of making a perfect move has to be a result of the computation of all future ramifications of that move (i.e. forecasting the whole possible tree of decisions that could be made henceforth).A set of irrational human beings can traverse any path on this tree. Let us denote the act of first “move” as m1.The possible moves after this m11, m12, m13… m1i., where i s finite (as discussed above).And the possible moves after any of these moves (say m13) is m131, m132, m133…m13j, where j is finite. Thus we have a multiplying tree. Whether the tree converges or diverges is yet to be analyzed ( as some of the moves may involve elimination and others no elimination and also the special permutation and combinations at different stages of the tree don not seem to have any particular order or functional relationship). Now some of the branches will stop with a checkmate and some will lead to a draw (in case where it is agreed that both the sides can infinitely keep making moves with no checkmate, assuming a very basic level of human intelligence in predicting the implications of a move ahead to just the next move. This is dubious as if I extend this argument to include the ability of human to read the ramifications of a move to next say 14 moves, it includes making an assessment of the opponents next 7 moves too, thus constructing the whole tree for next 14 moves. Hence we speak of reading the ramifications of any move on the immediate next move only in context of the declaration of a draw).Lets se what happens when both players have unlimited computational powers and are playing to win (utopian case for 2 humans playing at their best).I have a point to make. Having infinite computational power helps to construct the tree, however the decision making process of choosing the path has to be analyses, even by a so called ‘perfectly thinking machines’. This is where the difference between Humans and Machines comes in –the decision making process (reminds me of how close we are to discussing Artificial Intelligence, where we try to merge these differences).

Now say W makes 1st move. Say out of 8 possible moves (each move has its own tree=8 trees), how does he chose which move to make to win as win might be possible in multiple trees and in several ways in each of the trees (as a result of computation of infinite trees).He can only make this choice if he can compare his chances/probabilities of wining across trees and the opportunities with opponent across trees).

Now let me describe the tree in a tabular form.


Note that the table so formed will be universal. However the track game takes will be rational (assuming perfect competition). Now we will consider 2 cases-One, W starts and the other, B starts. Case I: W Starts ith move=i Number of ways W can WIN = wi Number of ways B can WIN= bi No Result=di Total Number of Ways=ti 1-W 0 0 8 8 2-B 0 0 8 8 3-W W3 B3 D3 T3 4-B W4 B4 D4 T4 5-W W5 B5 D5 T5 6-B W6 B6 D6 T6 7-W W7 B7 D7 T7 Now say in the (2k+1) th round, W knows he has S 2k+1 (T 2k+1 is not equal to S 2k+1, S 2k+1<=T 2k+1) ways to make a move (assuming that none of it can make it win as the opponent B would have made a wise choice in the previous move by the logic that W will also implement in this round, as explained below). For each of these S 2k+1 ways, let there be p ways in which B can win in next round. That is if there are B 2k+2 ways in which B can win in the immediate next move, then B 2k+2=p for node 1 of round 2k+1+ p for node 2 of round 2k+1+ p for node 3 of round 2k+1+…+ p for node S 2k+1 of round 2k+1.Now if none of p i (1<=i<=2k+1) is equal to zero then irrespective of the move W makes, B will win in the next round. So W chooses one of those moves for which pi=0.Let q 2k+1 be such number of ways. So in S2k+1-q 2k+1 moves of W, B would have had the capability to chose one such move to make it win in the next round itself. Now B will have a choice of moves in round 2k+2 after the choice of move of W in 2k+1 round, but none of these would make B win in round 2k+2, because of the wise choice made by W in round 2k+1.Now B will also make a similar wise choice assuming that such choices do exist, i.e. there is at least 1 pi ((1<=i<=S 2k+2) such that pi=0 for round 2k+2. Now let us say there is no pi=0 in round 2k+2 and hence for any move that B makes, W will win in round 2k+3. 1) I need mathematical proof to show that such a case exists for some 2k+2. 2) If such a case does not exist then the game is continuing to infinity. 3) Even if such a case exists we are making a big assumption, i.e., each of W, B have computational abilities to construct the tree only till 1 advance step. In simple words each of them only consider 1 round in future in making there decisions for the current round. What if they had a computational prowess beyond that, say they could compute and foresee possibilities up to ‘f’ rounds in future? I am assuming equal computational power of ‘f’ (say C (f)) for both W, B. This also would lead to an endless game as either of W,B can prevent from making a move that prevents coming to a stage where there is no pi=0.But this they can ensure only up to next f rounds. But since both have an equal leverage of computational power, the limitation of seeing through only f rounds in future applies to both W, B. So even if there is no way in which one of them can find a move that prevents them from coming to a stage where there is no pi=0 based on their analysis of next 25 rounds/moves, then the advantage is with the first mover in our case W).Say W at some round 2z+1 makes a move and B computes that there is no way in which it can win even by analyzing the whole tree of next f moves, then B definitely loses. The way B could have avoided this is by having C (f+1) computational power that would have allowed it to make a move in round 2z such that W would have not made a move that it made in round 2z+1.Hence if f approaches to infinity, then we can say that the game shall never end as both W, B know the complete tree with equal knowledge at any point in space and time, even before the first move! Conclusion- Hence the game of chess is infinite under conditions of perfect (i.e. C (f) of W=C (f) of B) and highest level (f approaches infinity) of competition and made finite and creative only by human intervention of irrational complexity, personality and imperfection! Hence I say that chess is irrationally infinite and rationally finite( One may argue that this finiteness can be achieved in infinite number of ways as even imperfect subjects can by coincidence make choices that are perfect or that coincide with choices that would have been made in perfect and highest levels of competition. But then that assumption makes these imperfect subjects completely perfect for that isolated event). In the light of the above analysis let me comment on the 2 parts of the argument given in the question. Now even in the case of it being simply infinite (in case of perfect and highest level of competition), we have neglected the act of elimination of elements of the game while the play is in progression. This gradual erosion of elements as the game progresses on drivers of computational prowess can result in a situation where it becomes useless to continue the game and where it is obvious that the game will not result in any win even if assuming lowest levels of computational prowess of subjects (i.e. f=1).Notice that f=0 for any of the subjects means that that subject wants to willingly lose (‘intellectual suicide”).However if f=0 for both subjects then it neutralizes the willingness to lose and the game can still continue infinitely with both subjects being aware that none of them can win. That is defined a s draw. If I assume that subjects stop making moves at this juncture and that the result is accepted as a draw, (because of the assured infiniteness that was agreed upon by both subjects), then the game of chess becomes a finite function. “Chess is an infinitely complex game, Not True. This is an emotional judgment. What defines real and complex is a matter of human subjectivity. I would say that humans make it ‘finitely complex’ and perfect and highest level of competition makes it ‘infinitely simple’. However in any of these 2 cases, the second part of the sentence still holds untrue, as the functional tree of chess is universally finite ( explained in conclusion-The only element of infiniteness is stopped mathematically from being infinite by the concept of draw as we assume that there is a motivation for both subjects to win and once they realize that neither of their motives can result however long they play, they call it a draw, thus making the game theoretically finite), irrespective of the computational power of the set of subjects involved. which one can play in infinitely numerous and varied ways”—Vladimir Krammik Not true, as the whole map of function called chess is unique and finite (terminating in checkmates or draw), that can be represented by the tree as discussed above. It is only the set of 2 people who decide to traverse that tree in a number of possible ways, albeit not innumerous/infinite.