Chess Explorations (33)
By Edward Winter
In C.N. 559 William Hartston (Cambridge, England) presented this quote from
a 1960 paper by Dr Félix Martí Ibáñez:
‘To checkmate the opponent’s king in chess is equivalent to castrating
and devouring him, becoming one with him in a ritual of symbolic homosexualism
and cannibalistic communion, thus responding to the remnants of the infantile
Oedipus complex.’
The leading purveyor of psycho-bosh is, of course, Reuben Fine, an individual
whose output has often been discussed in Chess Notes. However, an unsung hero
in the domain is Cary Utterberg, the author of The Dynamics of Chess Psychology
(Dallas, 1994). The following passage from page 106 is wholly typical:
‘All this may be summed up by the hypothesis that Lasker had achieved
an existential recognition of strategic masking – that he unconsciously
sensed the inadequacy of maintaining the inelastic outlooks characteristic
of both idealism and skepticism.’
It is, though, Reuben Fine’s influence which has endured. His stature
was underscored in C.N. 2832, an item entitled ‘Platitudes on war/war
on platitudes’ about a book which is notable, above all, for triteness.
The full C.N. article is reproduced below.
Our recent reading has included The Expression of Aggression in the Game
of War Using Chess as a Bloodless Model by Eric Anton Kreuter (New York,
1991). To judge from the back cover, his qualifications for the task are two
degrees (in business administration and psychology) and a track-record of having
‘authored several articles on such subjects as time management and employee
motivation’.
The book’s introduction states: ‘To better study aggression as
it relates to the phenomenon of war, one could look to the game of chess for
insights into this form of universal human behavior’. In so doing, Kreuter
relies, heavily and ill-advisedly, on Reuben Fine’s The Psychology
of the Chess Player and two or three other chess books, such as The Chess
Sacrifice by Vuković (whom he calls ‘Uvokovic’). Armed
with this mini-library, Kreuter sets down some stunning insights:
‘War is a contest between advocates of differing views; a conflict
of interests which cannot be resolved using peaceful means and usually results
in a victory on one side and a defeat on the other side with heavy casualties
shared by both. Therefore war is a conflict; to wage war is to engage in a
forceful attempt to overthrow the enemy and move in via a takeover or a surrender
by the enemy.’ (Page 27)
‘In applying the description of war to chess, it must be emphasized
that any substitute for war is only a true substitute if it occurs on a much
smaller scale. Chess fulfills this requirement. Chess is also a contest between
two sides. The player has an opponent whom he wishes to destroy (checkmate)
and against whose attacks he must defend himself. It is indeed a conflict
where there is a beginning, a struggle, and an end.’ (Page 30)
‘Chess playing requires a similar deployment of strategies and tactics
as in war. Certain chess games result in stalemates due to either a passive
playing style or too many equal sacrifices. Stalemated chess games, like prolonged,
victor-less wars result from both sides’ inability or unwillingness
to execute a more aggressive style of attack.
Perhaps the same killing inhibition which stops a chessplayer from waging
an all-out attack on the chessboard is affecting the society which is unable
to penetrate enemy forces sufficiently enough to result in the end of the
war.’ (Page 45)
By now we have quoted from the book ‘sufficiently enough’, yet
it may still be wondered why Kreuter dragged chess into his analysis. The explanation
on page 7 shows that his heart is in the right place:
‘To study war completely the psychologist cannot be limited to the
laboratory. It is equally impossible and morally reprehensible to create an
actual war between two groups of people for the purpose of conducting a field
study.’
Let us at least be grateful for that.
Overblown writing may also appear, in less concentrated form, in the treatment
of chess history. Authors with only a small reserve of facts (and thus not historians
in any case) often seek refuge in pseudo-intellectual generalities. A tell-tale
sign is excessive recourse to verbs like ‘echo’, ‘foreshadow’, ‘portend’, ‘symbolize’
and, especially, ‘adumbrate’. Waffle flows effortlessly (no research being needed),
and practitioners of the broad sweep may even be hailed for profundity in some
unthinking quarters. In C.N. 6381 we referred to ‘speed-readers duped by speed-writers’.
An ‘academic’ book almost impossible not to mock is A Concept
of Dramatic Genre and the Comedy of a New Type: Chess, Literature, and Film
by V. Ulea (Carbondale and Edwardsville, 2002). Indeed, we have devoted a feature
article to it, sharing with readers such passages as:
‘The semiunconditional values of the pieces (such as queen 9, rook
5, bishop 3, knight 3, and pawn 1) appear as a result of the rules of interaction
of a piece with the opponent’s king. All other conditions, such as starting
conditions, final goal, and a program that links the initial condition to
the final state, are not taken into account. The degree of conditionality
is increased by applying preconditions, and the presence of all four preconditions
fully forms conditional values.
Katsenelinboigen outlines two extreme cases of the spectrum of values –
fully conditional and fully unconditional – and says that, in actuality,
they are ineffectual in evaluating the material and so are sometimes replaced
by semiconditional or semiunconditional valuations, which are distinguished
by their differing degrees of conditionality. He defines fully conditional
values as those based on complete and consistent linkages among all four preconditions.
Accordingly, fully unconditional values are free of the preconditions; the
introduction of the first preconditions, which is linked to the formation
of the scale of positivity/negativity, results in the appearance of unconditional
values. Semiconditional values are those based on some conditions, while semiunconditional
values are formed by complete and consistent linkages between the rules of
interactions, taking no other conditions into consideration.’
C.N. 2847 mentioned another particularly verbose book, King’s Knight
The Metaphysics Of Chess by James Nathan Post (Cottonwood, 1978). For an
illustrative quotation we went no further than page 1:
‘Much of mankind’s activity seems to be devoted to participation
in “games”, that is, goal-oriented oppositionally paired dualities.’
A future article will pursue the theme, but with books on chess instruction.
In anticipation, readers may care to ponder which chess writer was responsible
for this:
Submit information
or suggestions on chess explorations
All ChessBase articles
by Edward Winter
Edward
Winter is the editor of Chess
Notes, which was founded in January 1982 as "a forum for aficionados
to discuss all matters relating to the Royal Pastime". Since then, over 6,400
items have been published, and the series has resulted in four books by Winter:
Chess
Explorations (1996), Kings,
Commoners and Knaves (1999), A
Chess Omnibus (2003) and Chess
Facts and Fables (2006). He is also the author of a monograph
on Capablanca (1989).
Chess Notes is well known for its historical research, and anyone browsing
in its archives
will find a wealth of unknown games, accounts of historical mysteries, quotes
and quips, and other material of every kind imaginable. Correspondents from
around the world contribute items, and they include not only "ordinary readers"
but also some eminent historians – and, indeed, some eminent masters. Chess
Notes is located at the Chess
History Center. Signed copies of Edward Winter's publications are
currently available.
