mouseandhat Wednesday: chess

Aug 4, 2010 by Joshua

Posted under: mouseandhat

I racked my brain trying to think of something to talk about relating to chess. I have not played chess in years, and while I appreciate the game and the amount of knowledge and strategy it requires, I am not all that interested in becoming a master at it.

I thought about researching the history of the game and writing about that, but it all sounds rather boring to me. Around the 6th or 7yh century, an early form of the game had developed in non-Western countries such as India and Persia. A few centuries later, it made its way to Europe and, by the 19th century, had become altered into a different, Western form that more resembles what in modern times is known as chess.

Like I said, boring, right? This is how it should have gone:

Chess was considered as a determinant in the battle of the sexes, as demonstrated by this photo of Gregory Peck and Polly Bergen. Critics were skeptical of the medium's fairness, however, given the freedom of movement granted to the queen as compared to the king.

Chess really developed as a war simulator, to save world powers from the waste of time, money and human life that come about from costlier endeavors – you know, endeavors like actually fighting a war. As it turns out, running a successful, lucrative kingdom proved difficult when the noble class went off on “purification excursions” a few too many times. In this way, leaders could demonstrate their strategic prowess, determining the likely outcome of a war without having to incur any losses on either side. Generals could flex their dominant muscles without having to risk any strain in their tendons.

And if either side was unhappy with the outcome, then they could resort to bloodshed. It wasn’t perfect, certainly, but few things are.

It did have its benefits, though. In areas of Southeast Asia, for instance, where power is measured by the amount of labor one is owed by one’s subjects, hours and wages were determined by chess. If a local ruler needed some extra workers to construct a bridge or clear a field, he might challenge the neighboring chief to a game of chess. In this way, leaders were able to maximize profit (workforce) while minimizing losses to said profit (casualties).

Humanity embraced chess as proof that humans are superior animals. As a consolation, we crafted those silly knight pieces after the likeness of horses.

Over time, the great and noble game trickled down to the smelly masses in their mud huts. Inevitably, rudimentary forms – made of strips of bark and mudpiles of varying sizes to denote different pieces – were implemented for menial disputes such as cattle ownership or dowry. A farmer need only strut toward his neighbor’s abode, barkboard in hand, to incite a menacing glare.

Some of the sharpest minds were thus able to win out against the toughest brutes, so long as they also had the agility to outrun a good pummeling.

With the growth of civilization and civilized society, chess became a pastime in its own right. Like any group of experts who devote hours upon hours mastering a particular skill, the proponents of chess elevated the game to the status of a diversion for the enlightened. They kept much of the symbolism and terminology, so as to indicate the rich and cultured history of the game. Plus, it sounds pretty cool to say that one is controlling not only a king and queen but also their pawns and royal staff.

Whatever the origins of chess may be, it has grown beyond the status of a simple board game. I say that I am not interested in learning all the intricate strategies of chess not because I wish to belittle their significance but because, to be honest, I lack the patience and focus to do so.

Next week’s topic: buying online