Chess I.

This is coolbert:

The ancient and venerable game of chess has long been touted as providing excellent training for military commanders. Those generals that actually command combat forces on the battlefield.

This belief is true to a certain extent.

As a means of training and sharpening the mind to think AHEAD, it succeeds in this respect.

And the fact that the game of chess has an origin in actual warfare itself is undeniable.

Although the game of chess as we moderns understand it is said to be of Persian origin, evidently the game has even earlier origins, based upon the battle formation of the climactic combat as described in the Mahabharata. The epic Hindu poem mentioned in other blog entries. Describes an actual battle that occurred around 1400 B.C. The pieces of the original game included pawns, riders [knights], towers [rooks] [originally symbolizing an elephant with tower mounted atop], King, and something called a "boatman" [not sure of the purpose of this piece].

"The Sanskrit name Chaturanga means 'quadripartite' (divided into four parts) and was also used to describe the Indian army of Vedic times in which a platoon had four parts: one elephant, one chariot, three soldiers on horseback, and five foot-soldiers [this is an early example of "combined arms"]. The board was known as the 'ashtapada' (eight-square) and is believed to have been adopted from an older race game related to parcheesi.
The date of the game's origin is uncertain, but documentary evidence exists from c. AD 620 in the form of a Sanskrit document, Vasavadatta from Subhandu which describes what could be chess pieces. Another document, dated from between 750 AD and 850 AD is Chatrang-namak by Pahlavi which describes the arrival of Chatranga to the court of Persia with an Indian embassy. The authenticity of the latter account is doubted by some.

The pieces were raja (king), mantri (counsellor, ancestor of the ferz), gaja (elephant, later called fil), asva (horse), ratha (chariot, later called rook), and pedati (infantry or pawns)."



And the game of chess DOES teach the player concepts that would seem to be germane to a military commander on the battlefield.

A successful master of chess will be familiar with various strategies and the tactics to achieve those strategies required for victory. These are referred to in chess as "openings". This applies both for offensive and defensive play.

A successful master of chess will employ feints and ruses to achieve victory. The successful chess master may sacrifice minor pieces to gain an upper hand.

In chess, feints, ruses, sacrifices are called "gambits".

A successful master of chess will strive to control the center of the board, always striving to gain and maintain the initiative. The master will make the foe respond to his moves, not the other way around.

A successful master of chess will understand that the player who is content with defensive moves only will never gain the initiative needed for eventual victory.

And, as been stated previously, the chess master but be able to think AHEAD. The master must not be content with analyzing the current move being made without regard to the future. The master must be concerned with the current move and looking forward two, three, four, or even more moves in the future. Each move does not exist in a vacuum! Each move must be taken in the context of future moves that lead to eventual victory!

[A U.S. divisional combat commander of the late Twentieth Century, was taught then when opposing Soviet forces, that commander had to be aware of and planning for not only the enemy forces he was in contact with at the moment, but had to be additionally aware of and planning for enemy forces he might be in contact with 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours into the future].

So, how valid is the concept of chess as being an analog of war? Albeit as a game.

How valid is chess as being a tool and game that prepares a general to think as a combat commander on the battlefield needs to think?

I would think valid. But only to a certain extent, perhaps a very small extent. The idea has merit, but perhaps only during a certain period of historical time. NOT so valid in the present. Maybe is similar to trying to learn to swim by reading a book on the subject. Nothing beats getting your feet wet! Only then can you learn the true nature of the subject.

More on this later.

coolbert.