Now, I don't mean to pick these fragments out of context. We all have the text at hand and can read the full passages ourselves. These are simply a few of the first statements I have been unable to make sense of and am hoping some of you can help me. One at time now. The analogy with chess is unsatisfactory.
Games have a point, of course.
I would never think to give a formal description of chess without mention of the players' assumed intentions to win. But truth and meaning are something else. But the specification of truth conditions is not immediately about usage either.