Chess and the King
In my spare time, I play chess. Occasionally, I even think about the philosophical implications of the game. This time, the thought occurred to me that there is a reasonably clear divide between two kinds of chess, ancient and modern.
In the more ancient games, the piece standing next to the king has less mobility than the king; the vizier, minister or counsellor can only move one square at a time, normally along a diagonal. In the Chinese variant, even that movement is limited to the court around the king.
In modern rules, the major piece standing next to the king is the queen; the modern queen has unlimited movement potential either orthogonally or diagonally. This makes her immediately and obviously the most powerful piece on the board, especially as (or if) the game opens up. No longer shackled to the king and free to roam, she is a shining example of feminism in action.
But what is striking is the combination of absolute and relative roles of the king. The absolute role of the king is to avoid being trapped without escape. Once the king is en prise without escape, that's the end. One relative role of the king is that of a minor piece, but one that gains power as the board is denuded. A king-defended pawn is actually often better off than a pawn-defended pawn for one reason: the king is a flexible defender and an attacking piece in the later stages of the game. Another relative role of the king is that of central piece; but next to a queen, his power looks diminished — and next to an ancient-style counsellor or vizier, his power looks positively well-rounded.
There are life-lessons to be seen here. In life, the king often has the option to choose the kind of pieces he surrounds himself with. Some kings surround themselves with weaker pieces so that they will look stronger, while others (more visionary, more confident) surround themselves with stronger pieces so that their side as a whole is stronger. A clever king seeks to promote his pawns, so that he has even more powerful pieces, perhaps a second queen; a not-so-clever king hides behind his pawns and sacrifices them to keep his position. It all depends on whether there is strategic vision or not.
In the more ancient games, the piece standing next to the king has less mobility than the king; the vizier, minister or counsellor can only move one square at a time, normally along a diagonal. In the Chinese variant, even that movement is limited to the court around the king.
In modern rules, the major piece standing next to the king is the queen; the modern queen has unlimited movement potential either orthogonally or diagonally. This makes her immediately and obviously the most powerful piece on the board, especially as (or if) the game opens up. No longer shackled to the king and free to roam, she is a shining example of feminism in action.
But what is striking is the combination of absolute and relative roles of the king. The absolute role of the king is to avoid being trapped without escape. Once the king is en prise without escape, that's the end. One relative role of the king is that of a minor piece, but one that gains power as the board is denuded. A king-defended pawn is actually often better off than a pawn-defended pawn for one reason: the king is a flexible defender and an attacking piece in the later stages of the game. Another relative role of the king is that of central piece; but next to a queen, his power looks diminished — and next to an ancient-style counsellor or vizier, his power looks positively well-rounded.
There are life-lessons to be seen here. In life, the king often has the option to choose the kind of pieces he surrounds himself with. Some kings surround themselves with weaker pieces so that they will look stronger, while others (more visionary, more confident) surround themselves with stronger pieces so that their side as a whole is stronger. A clever king seeks to promote his pawns, so that he has even more powerful pieces, perhaps a second queen; a not-so-clever king hides behind his pawns and sacrifices them to keep his position. It all depends on whether there is strategic vision or not.
etched with acid at 10:39:00 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home