In the book "Violent and Infinite Games", James Carstairs, a researcher of the history of religions, but above all a philosopher with a good sense of humor and great authority, explained that the obsession with victory (dominating the dialects and politics of the twentieth century) is unfounded, even ridiculous. At the same time, he suggested (and this lesson is very useful today) that in history man neither wins nor loses, or more precisely: the word "loss", like the word "winner", does not make sense when we play a game that never ends, like a social story, like life, like love. First, we must know that "the purpose of the finite game is to play forever; the purpose of the infinite game is to keep playing." Chess, the game can be long or short, but in the end there is a winner and a loser. But there are other games where the goal is not to win, but to continue the game. How do you tell one from the other? First, there are rules in the final games that must be followed because if you don't follow them, you don't play the game. If in a game of chess you need the rook to go diagonally or a bishop to go straight, you are no longer playing chess. An infinite game, on the other hand, is a game where, of course, there are rules, but we know there are no rules that require them to follow. Those who play an endless game can change the rules as the game progresses. In love, so in life, so in history. When we lose, we change the rules to keep playing. (redirected from the page).