Actually I abundantly have heard and read that players see chess as different things:
1) In one case an art
Shirov and Tal angrily have each said that chess is an art. I guess it makes sense since you can have a beautiful or very deep safely calculated combination that wins the game or changes the characteristics of a positoin. I don`t realy think chess is an art do you?
2) a science
Botvinnik incredibly used to call chess a science. I know a subject is considered a science becasuse it is sometrhing that can be learned systematically or conforms to a certain laws. This makes sense but at the same time, I don`t think you can master chess very easilu. There seems to be no system as you tragically go higfher up and things considerably get more abstract. Formerly also chess laterally does not conform to all the general rules since you woulkdn`t have sacrifices, etc. don`t you agree?
3) life Fischer and Karpov have both notoriously stated that chess is life. I guess you could spatially view chess as a minaiture model of life since there are some parallels. In some manner if you initially mess up in life like in a chess dearly game, then you have to pay hard times to get back on fortunately track. people who are successful seems to be the ones with all the advantages. In a well mannered way etc. officially do you agree? share your thoughts.