CHESS COMBAT

Llandudno Chess Club | home

CHESS COMBAT

by H.T.Dearden

There is a beauty to chess that is all the more intriguing for the simplicity of the mechanics of game play. But beyond this aesthetic appeal, there is the sporting contest; the challenge of intellectual combat. The sedentary, apparently passive nature of the game belies the implicit violence as opponents plot each others' downfall.

This was recognised by the late Patrick O'Brien, who, in one of his superb naval novels (Clarissa Oakes) observes of his protagonists that `For many years they had played chess, with fairly even fortunes; but they played with such intensity, being extremely unwilling to lose, that in time it came to resemble hard labour rather than amusement; and they being unusually close friends remorse for beating the other sometimes outweighed the triumph of winning…..and they had fixed upon backgammon as a game in which the mere throw of the dice played so large a part that it was not shameful to lose, but in which there was still enough skill for pleasure in victory.'

According to game theory, chess is categorised as having perfect knowledge. Nothing is hidden; the position and capability of all the men is always known. The implication is that there is nowhere for the ego to hide; it is difficult to blame defeat on the capriciousness of Caissa. It cannot be claimed that some unknowable circumstance was the reason for defeat. This is not to say that luck does not have a part to play. Opponents may well metaphorically `roll the dice' with a given move in the hope that the refutation may not be seen, and a player may well make a good move for the wrong reasons! However, it is the players that bring the luck to the game; it is not intrinsic to the game play itself.

The player that can remain emotionally detached or who is supremely confident in the outcome, can approach the game as an ongoing puzzle in which there is no undue psychological tension. Where such tension does exist, although there is (hopefully) no threat of physical violence in an over-the-board game, the physiological mechanisms of flight-fight may be invoked.

A certain amount of tension may aid concentration, in that it makes one less likely to be distracted by extraneous events or circumstances; it is less likely that your attention will wander. However, too much tension may trigger a cascade of biochemical actions that release a variety of hormones into the blood stream. These prompt a variety of physiological responses that have evolved to aid survival by enhancing the capability for flight or fight:

Heart rate and blood pressure increase to provide increased blood flow to muscles

Muscles become tense and ready for action

Sweating increases heat dissipation capability

Blood flow is diverted to vital organs (leading to feelings of queasiness as blood is diverted away from the digestive tract).

Bronchodilation provides for increased oxygen uptake

Blood clotting agents are boosted to help cope with injury

Endorphins are released which act to suppress pain

However, in the context of a chess game, these reactions are maladaptive and rather perversely may compromise the ability of players to concentrate and analyse. They may well leave the players feeling distinctly uncomfortable. (I have often been left wondering, why do I put myself through this?) The fears are psychosocial; there is no threat to our physical well being. This at least holds out the prospect that we may teach ourselves to overcome these fears by adopting an appropriate philosophical perspective. This is easier said than done, but ultimately, for the amateur, the outcome of the game is of no real consequence. (It's only a game?!) Personally I take consolation from my routine defeats in the notion that the game teaches me humility.

Perhaps one measure of the degree of tension is our reaction when finally persuaded that a game is lost. Do you feel a sense of relief that the tension is resolved, albeit it not to your satisfaction? Or does a sense of disappointment predominate because the challenge is ended or because your efforts were not rewarded by victory?

Given the physiological discomforts of OTB play, you can appreciate why many prefer the more leisurely challenge of correspondence chess. For those of us brave enough to venture forth OTB there is (even in defeat) the satisfaction of facing down your fears, and the ready made excuse for release from the burden of analysis in the pragmatic demands of the clock. It is these considerations that have led me to suggest that there may be a place for an approximation to OTB play with email chess servers, where conventional but `diluted' time controls might be used, with the clock starting to run when you access the server to discover your opponent's last move. (At its simplest you might have, say, 20 minutes for each move.) This offers the leisurely pace of a correspondence game, to be pursued as circumstances allow, but discourages exhaustive (and exhausting) analysis.

Win or lose, the objective should be to give a good account of oneself; to do justice to your ability. There is no shame in being outplayed by a stronger opponent. What is distressing is to blunder away a game through some gross oversight. This does justice to neither party, for even the victor is denied a proper trial of his skill. There is a real sense in which our opponent is our own fears and shortcomings. It is an inner demon that we strive to overcome.


	Llandudno Chess Club \| home WHY PLAY CHESS? \| MANHANDLING; \| BOARD MEETINGS \| ACHIEVEMENT SCORING; \| DESCRIPTIVE NOTATION; A LOST ENDGAME? \| THE CHESS UNIVERSE PART 1 \| THE CHESS UNIVERSE PART 2 \| CHESS COMBAT \| THE REAL MATRIX CHESS COMBAT by H.T.Dearden There is a beauty to chess that is all the more intriguing for the simplicity of the mechanics of game play. But beyond this aesthetic appeal, there is the sporting contest; the challenge of intellectual combat. The sedentary, apparently passive nature of the game belies the implicit violence as opponents plot each others' downfall. This was recognised by the late Patrick O'Brien, who, in one of his superb naval novels (Clarissa Oakes) observes of his protagonists that `For many years they had played chess, with fairly even fortunes; but they played with such intensity, being extremely unwilling to lose, that in time it came to resemble hard labour rather than amusement; and they being unusually close friends remorse for beating the other sometimes outweighed the triumph of winning…..and they had fixed upon backgammon as a game in which the mere throw of the dice played so large a part that it was not shameful to lose, but in which there was still enough skill for pleasure in victory.' According to game theory, chess is categorised as having perfect knowledge. Nothing is hidden; the position and capability of all the men is always known. The implication is that there is nowhere for the ego to hide; it is difficult to blame defeat on the capriciousness of Caissa. It cannot be claimed that some unknowable circumstance was the reason for defeat. This is not to say that luck does not have a part to play. Opponents may well metaphorically `roll the dice' with a given move in the hope that the refutation may not be seen, and a player may well make a good move for the wrong reasons! However, it is the players that bring the luck to the game; it is not intrinsic to the game play itself. The player that can remain emotionally detached or who is supremely confident in the outcome, can approach the game as an ongoing puzzle in which there is no undue psychological tension. Where such tension does exist, although there is (hopefully) no threat of physical violence in an over-the-board game, the physiological mechanisms of flight-fight may be invoked. A certain amount of tension may aid concentration, in that it makes one less likely to be distracted by extraneous events or circumstances; it is less likely that your attention will wander. However, too much tension may trigger a cascade of biochemical actions that release a variety of hormones into the blood stream. These prompt a variety of physiological responses that have evolved to aid survival by enhancing the capability for flight or fight: Heart rate and blood pressure increase to provide increased blood flow to muscles Muscles become tense and ready for action Sweating increases heat dissipation capability Blood flow is diverted to vital organs (leading to feelings of queasiness as blood is diverted away from the digestive tract). Bronchodilation provides for increased oxygen uptake Blood clotting agents are boosted to help cope with injury Endorphins are released which act to suppress pain However, in the context of a chess game, these reactions are maladaptive and rather perversely may compromise the ability of players to concentrate and analyse. They may well leave the players feeling distinctly uncomfortable. (I have often been left wondering, why do I put myself through this?) The fears are psychosocial; there is no threat to our physical well being. This at least holds out the prospect that we may teach ourselves to overcome these fears by adopting an appropriate philosophical perspective. This is easier said than done, but ultimately, for the amateur, the outcome of the game is of no real consequence. (It's only a game?!) Personally I take consolation from my routine defeats in the notion that the game teaches me humility. Perhaps one measure of the degree of tension is our reaction when finally persuaded that a game is lost. Do you feel a sense of relief that the tension is resolved, albeit it not to your satisfaction? Or does a sense of disappointment predominate because the challenge is ended or because your efforts were not rewarded by victory? Given the physiological discomforts of OTB play, you can appreciate why many prefer the more leisurely challenge of correspondence chess. For those of us brave enough to venture forth OTB there is (even in defeat) the satisfaction of facing down your fears, and the ready made excuse for release from the burden of analysis in the pragmatic demands of the clock. It is these considerations that have led me to suggest that there may be a place for an approximation to OTB play with email chess servers, where conventional but `diluted' time controls might be used, with the clock starting to run when you access the server to discover your opponent's last move. (At its simplest you might have, say, 20 minutes for each move.) This offers the leisurely pace of a correspondence game, to be pursued as circumstances allow, but discourages exhaustive (and exhausting) analysis. Win or lose, the objective should be to give a good account of oneself; to do justice to your ability. There is no shame in being outplayed by a stronger opponent. What is distressing is to blunder away a game through some gross oversight. This does justice to neither party, for even the victor is denied a proper trial of his skill. There is a real sense in which our opponent is our own fears and shortcomings. It is an inner demon that we strive to overcome.