This idea...is misguided- ICCF International Chess Master, Kenny Harman (2)

This idea of yours that chess mirrors the structure of social institutions is interesting but I feel misguided. Chess as art, of course is nothing new. Marcel Duchamps was for a long time more interested in chess than art. The organisation of the pieces on the board is rather like a Roman military legion and from the point of view of chess as a war game can't really be bettered, in my opinion. Many artistically inclined people like to see chess as an intuitive struggle for mankinds survival, and therefore should evolve in a civilised way rather as society has done.

In the 1960's the peace movement even affected chess. Some people, one of whom was Yoko Ono decided it would be a nice idea to have a completely white chess board and all white pieces; ignoring for a moment the possible rascist connotations, it failed to influence anyone in the chess community deeply , as far as I am aware. Then point Yoko missed is that in all individuals whether peaceably inclined or not, there is a primeval instinct for survival based on the strongest person - whether physically or mentally; this is how individuals evolve into communities.However, you try to change the appearance of something on the outside, you cannot get rid of this primal urge. Two kittens playing together will illustrate this point. But this is not a bad thing. No-one knows exactly why chess was invented. But chess historians on the whole feel it gave the originators some relief from the pain of life trying to survive in the 7th Century - in the middle of the dark ages.

Chess has evolved, of course but the original purpose is still relevant. Chess as a game is both an escape from the pain of the real world and a microcosm of it.I don't think it mirrors social institutions. There is no society in chess or social hierachy. it is a solitary game, played by two people. The pieces cooperate in a militaristic sense in order to checkmate the opposing king. Pawns are willingly sacrificed as are pieces. Chess is not interested in peace. Chessplayers who only try to achieve a draw are perceived as negative and uninteresting. Only recently I organised a 'draws barred' chess tournament. Why
bother to play if you don't want to win ?

Chess could never mirror the idea of laterally planned social organisations. Perhaps the best illustration of this is the therapeutic community idea as developed in Social Psychology. It was used for a time at the Littlemore Hospital in Oxford where it was difficult to tell who were the doctors and who were the patients. The kibbutz and social cooperative are developments of laterally managed communites. I have much sympathy for this idea. I even use it in the Sheltered Housing that I manage where the tenants play an equal part in the management, and everyone is valued for their uniqueness. This is a wonderful idea and can work very well, both in theory and practice but it does not resemble a chess game, even metaphorically.

I feel you would have been better to use the game - draughts - as your model. in this game all the pieces are of equal value; there is but one aim to reach the back rank in order to become a king and then devour all your opponents pieces; in this game, there is true cooperation because every piece lacks individual potentiality from the start; there is true cooperation in reaching the ulimate goal. But, it is interesting that a computer programme exists which will defeat a human draughts player every time; in other words draughts is played out and mirrors the dehumanisation of the individual in our computer age. There is no point in draughts competitions anymore because if a computer enters it will win, much as in real life. Computers do not get tired or have any guilt about winning either.

If your project is to draw attention to the destructiveness of the hierachially determined organisation then I wish it well. I have never much been influenced by the collective. It is in my opinion, the individual who in his dreams sees more clearly. Inflluences more interestingly and stirs the imagination. For many people the idea of the collective died a long time ago, and I feel chess mirrors this human isolation from the collective in a unique way. There is only one person playing the game. Sometimes he/she wins and sometimes loses. Sometimes intuitiveness will outwit even the strongest computer chess programme, simply because computers don't have htis primal instinct to survive which is ever-present in humans, no matter how they organise themselves on the outside or within the collective consciousness.

Kenny Harman
ICCF Chess International Master
Ashford, Kent.

Kenny Harman's original post
Ruth's repsonse to Kenny Harman's original post