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

This and the following two articles in my blog were written with the aim of helping a friend complete his essays for applying somewhere. However, the end results were, at least in my humble opinion, worthy of publication.

A game of chess involves 2 players, if each player has made a move, over 400 possibilities exist for the second move itself. The next move has over 72,000 possible variations ( as can be seen from applying the laws of permutation and combination, but let’s not go into that here); the next move has 9 million options and the fourth move has over 288 billion various versions. At first glance the game of chess certainly seems to have infinite number of ways in which it can be played. However, of these infinite possibilities, only a finite (although large) portion can be said to consist of rational choices. Here rational implies a desire to win the game of chess in question. The individual players concerned may choose to make choices deliberately leading to their defeat in the game, but as long as both parties play with an aim of victory, it can be proven that the number ways the game unfolds is indeed finite. From a more abstract point of view, infinity has no limits; where as the game of chess involves a limited number of pieces moving on a board having a limited number of set positions following a limited set of rules. And the culmination of each such game has to be either an unambiguous win for one of the parties or a draw; wherein each player can play indefinitely without having any hope of a win. The latter course of action can safely be categorised as being irrational. The writer, being an engineer by profession, is not proficient in the ways of intricate logical arguments and knows but two ways in which infinity can be achieved (if such a term as achievement can be applied to the concept) : a division by zero or a recurring function with no upper limit. Take the latter case, an infinite geometric/ arithmetic progression in chess automatically entails a draw. If the parties choose to continue in such a situation, we can safely classify their actions as being irrational and hence the game ceases to be one of chess ( in the classical sense of course) and becomes one of endurance ( the goal being to irritate the other guy into admitting defeat). A division by zero is unlikely to occur where the functions involved are permutation and combination and the limits for the variables involved belong to the set of natural numbers. Now, the humble writer neither claims to be a fervent follower of the game nor a proficient player. However, he hopes it’s not presumptuous of him to assume that a man like Vladimir Kramnik has a rational set of mind at least where the game of chess is concerned. The only conclusion from these assumptions and the rather simplistic arguments he has put forth is that Mr. Kramnik was tending towards the hyperbole when he made the statement and the number of ways in which a game of chess can be played is a finite if gigantic quantity. Some of the other brilliant minds tasked with this assignment may take it upon themselves to elucidate the point the writer has made with mathematical functions and terms that boggle the intellect, however the writer is content with what his humble intellectual faculties have produced.

"A self does not amount to much, but no self is an island; each exists in a fabric of relations that is now more complex and mobile than ever before"- JF Lyotard

Jean Francois Lyotard in his iconic piece "The Post Modern Condition- a Report on Knowledge" prophesized radical changes in the "research and transmission of acquired learning".

Our generation has been blessed with the opportunity to witness his prophecy take shape, changing the way we perceive, and interact with the world around us. As theorized by Lyotard, knowledge has ceased to be an end in itself, rather it has become a means to an end: information.

In today's world, no one is entirely, truly alone even for a moment. We wake up to the morning news, or the numerous channels on the TV. We are never far from our near and dear ones, and not so dear ones as well. Mobile technology coupled with the huge internet database, makes sure that if you want to, there's no one on earth you cannot reach. We live our lives after a fashion, on the pages of various social networking websites, meeting and familiarizing ourselves with strangers half way across the world. From the moment we wake to the moment we find solace in the arms of sleep, we are never alone. And through all this, we are constantly bombarded with information, both solicited and unsolicited.

This constant barrage of information, has changed our lives in more ways than we can imagine. An average layman of today’s age, has means and the ability to acquire respectable expertise in areas totally unrelated to his primary means of livelihood, because of the ease with which he/she can access the information required. In a manner of speaking, we are the most aware individuals in the short history of mankind.

Every trade we know of has thrived because of this boom in telecommunication. Entrepreneurs can get in touch with prospective investors more easily. Its not uncommon for business partnerships to forged over a distance of thousands of miles. We live a much smaller world than the one our parents knew, at the same time, there is more room for everything.

But how does this make business more complicated than it already was? We've already shown that its EASIER to run a business for you these days. Well, the problem is, its easier for your competitor's to do so too. The customer base you are thinking of targeting would be in the cross hairs of your competitors as well. Its not easy to keep a secret these days, one day you're sitting on a new idea, a gold mine, the next day that idea might be the latest fad on the net, and totally worthless as a commercial venture. Competition might resort to underhanded tactics and with the tools at its disposal, taking a smear campaign worldwide isn't a difficult task at all. With the availability of information, the customer you find yourself facing is a much more demanding one. He knows what other options he has for his money. More than the individual, one has to consider the collective psyche of the masses these days. This psyche has internet and television as its mouthpiece and its information input comes from a billion computer terminals plugged into a database that would eat up a forest the size of California if printed on paper. With new fads like 'stumbledupon' and facebook, you never know what your target base is thinking today and what it may be thinking tomorrow. A truly terrifying position for a business man to be in.

Add to that the fact that with new age, come new laws and restrictions to abide by. Stricter quality norms, more definitive guidelines regarding what may or may not be considered as misleading the customer.

Take the US scene, anyone with a good lawyer can bankrupt a major firm with a lawsuit and can walk away a millionaire. Not that customer grievances are wholly unjustified, but most of the cases would not have seen the light of the day a few decades ago. So, whether you are an upright businessman or not, the running and growth of a business enterprise has definitely become a more daunting and complex task of late.

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.

 In order to fully appreciate the relevance of this statement in the context of contemporary Indian politics one must first be aware of the statement in its entirety.

" Politicians accuse me of always contradicting; but therein they are my masters; for there is one person more who they contradict-namely, themselves.

The paradox is really the pathos of intellectual life, and just as only the great souls are exposed to passions, it is only the great thinkers who are exposed to what I call paradoxes, which are nothing else than grandiose thoughts in embryo" [Reference - Soren Kierkegaard's journal, April 22, 1838]

As such, the Indian political, economical and social scene has been full of paradoxes ever since the inception of our fledgling nation. The attempt to eradicate poverty by making every one poorer (as in embracing the socialist ideals) or the oft quoted expression that India is a rich nation full of poor people all point to the natural talent we have of creating grandiose paradoxes.

Ever since the green revolution hit the country, our grain production figures have been more or less on the rise. Yet, while on one hand the ministry of food and environment shows that its granaries are overflowing, we hear increasing reports of deaths from starvation. Madhya Pradesh is not called the Ethiopia of India for no particular reason. The agricultural lobby from our wheat belt has been a prominent vote bank for the taking for a long time now. Successive governments have been announcing consistently higher minimum support prices (MSP) for wheat and rice. This is a surefire way to appease the lobby and keep the votes coming in. The downside is that due to these abnormally high MSPs, most of the produce ends up with the government which has neither the facilities to store it for future consumption, nor the public distribution network needed to dispose of it before it rots. The result: sky rocketing production figures and rising deaths from starvation.

More recently, as the reputation Indian politics gradually drifts towards its nadir, we have been fortunate enough to witness another paradox in the making: the trend of people on the run from the law becoming law makers. The examples of people like Shibu Soren, Syed Shahbuddin etc who have been facing serious criminal charges running for the posts in the state gorvenment, a body which itself is responsible for  maintaining law and order in the state. Although some might like to classify this phenomena as having overtures of irony, the writer personally would like to think of it as a paradox.

However, Kierkegaard might not find these paradoxes to be akin to those he was thinking of when he made that statement. The closest our political scene comes to meeting his idea of a paradox is the creation of an islamic state by a man who thought of himself as a secular leader.