The Morals of Chess
So I've been reading David Shenk's The Immortal Game recently -- yeah, I know, when do I have time to do that? But nevertheless, I've been reading it. He does a great job of bringing the history of chess alive, as well as analyzing the historic cultural influences on the game and of the game.
Many people over the centuries have seen chess as a metaphor of war, life, love, politics, etc. Benjamin Franklin wrote an essay called "The Morals of Chess," that claimed the game improved a person's foresight, circumspection, caution and perseverance. "The Game of Chess," he wrote, "is not merely an idle amusement ... For Life is a kind of Chess." There is a great story in the book about Franklin playing chess with a French opponent during the Revolutionary War.
Franklin's opponent had put him in check; but Franklin ignored the check and responded with a totally illegal move. His opponent objected, pointing out clearly that Franklin's King was in check. Franklin replied, "I see he is in check, but I shall not defend him. If he was a good King, like yours, he would deserve the protection of his subjects; but he is a tyrant and has cost them already more than he is worth. Take him, if you please. I can do without him, and will fight out the rest of the battle en republicain."
This made me laugh, but it also made me wonder what variations Franklin would make to the game today? Voltaire and Rousseau saw in the chessmen a society in which each member played a vital part. Were chess re-thought for today's world, what would be the make-up of the board? Would we have unequal starting positions? Disenfranchised units that fought for the protection of an elite class? Secret objectives, covert operations, and an otherwise closed information system?
One of the beauties of chess is that it is representational of a battle, but also abstract enough to be thought of as any kind of battle. Here is a picture of Napoleon attempting a "conquest" of a different kind than usual over the auspice of a chessboard.
Reading this book in the context of all the controversy over freedom of expression in games, and the potential of games to be considered an art form, made one particular comment by chess player Anthony Saidy stand out to me. Saidy says, "It is a pity, that, unlike music or painting, chess requires of the viewer an initial period of instruction before revealing its aesthetic quality." This is really true of most games: in order to appreciate their art, a person must play them, and probably play them well, before feeling the artistry behind their design. Is this possibly the real reason that we have trouble, as a society, accepting games as an art form?