“The Impossible Game” A History of Chess, by David Shenk

I have long noted chess as one of the oldest games of strategy in the West in discussing the history of wargaming and wargames, and its origins and roots in Persia and India take it back much farther.  Author David Shenk guides us on an entertaining, informative journey through the history of the game in his book “The Impossible Game”.  Providing moments of diversion from that journey is the parallel telling of a single chess game played between two masters of the mid-19th Century, Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky, immortalized as “The Impossible Game” referred to in the title.

I don’t remember when I first learned about chess, how the pieces move, and a general idea of how the game works.  I still make no claim to having learned how to play chess.  David Shenk’s account of the history and evolution of the game and its play both supports that confession while renewing my interest in the game.  I found his explanations of the pieces and strategy of the game very clear and insightful, much easier to grasp than what I had read in the past from a handful of the tens of thousands of books written about Chess.

I have also decided that in the argument about whether or not chess is a “wargame”, it is at the very least a battle game and it offers many of the same benefits from playing as do wargames.  Benjamin Franklin offered what might be considered the classical argument in favor of chess as a wargame:

   “We learn by chess the habit of not being discouraged by present bad appearances in the state of our affairs, the habit of hoping for a favorable change, and that of persevering in the search of resources.” 

He went on to specify the beneficial lessons of playing chess:

Foresight – looking ahead to the long-term consequences of any action

Circumspection- surveying the entire scene, observing hidden dynamics and unseen possibilities, dangers,

Caution-avoiding haste and unnecessary blunders as you must abide the consequences

Perseverance-refusing to give up in dim circumstances, continually pushing to improve one’s [relative] position and look for the opportunities

Author Shenk is kind enough to include Franklin’s collected thoughts on chess in an appendix of his book but you can also read it here:.  https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-29-02-0608

Obviously real generals did play chess, though a British chess writer in 1840 wrote upon observing Napoleon playing chess that “He played openings badly…and was impatient if his adversary dwelt too long upon his move…. Under defeat…he was sore and irritable.”  In exile on St Helena, he ironically played with an ivory chess set sent to him as a gift without ever knowing that the plans for an elaborate escape from the island were hidden in the chess set, but the officer with that knowledge died on the voyage to the island and never revealed the secret.  So being a good chess player, or being a good general, does not automatically mean you will be good at the other.

Researchers studying how Chess Grandmasters ‘saw’ the game as they played it, blindfolded them as they played, and then asked them to draw how they saw the board in their mind.  Rather than drawing a photographic like picture of the board, their drawings focused on the patterns made by the major pieces and the lines made by their relative positions on the board.  In a lifetime of studying battles and playing wargames, I can recognize this manner of seeing a battle and planning actions in it. 

Author Shenk goes on to recount a more recent study in which Australia’s Defense Science and Technology Organization analyzed chess games examining 3 key variables:

·         material (number of pieces per player);

·         tempo (number of moves allowed per turn), and

·         search depth (number of moves ahead).

The intent was to find insights into war and conflicts in which these are critical elements of the contest.  They concluded that “deep searching” – seeing more moves ahead – combined with an increased tempo overwhelmed an opposing force having greater material, i.e., more pieces.

A more entertaining observation offered by David Shenk was the suggestion that one of the most famous chess games in cinema was won because the winner – HAL, the computer – psyched his opponent.  In the film 2001: A Space Odyssey – HAL apparently cheats at chess via a psych move – 

HAL: Bishop takes Knight’s pawn

FRANK: Lovely move…Rook to King One

HAL: I’m sorry, Frank, I think you missed it.  Queen to Bishop three, Bishop takes Queen, Knight takes Bishop, Mate.

FRANK: Yeah, looks like you’re right.  I resign.

HAL: Thank you for a very enjoyable game.

[HAL doesn’t tell the truth about the forced Mate.  The Computer essentially intimidates Frank into resigning.]

Dave Shenk has given us an entertaining, informative, and for me inspiring book about the game of chess – its play, its history, and its potential.  I will leave with you a particularly apt piece of advice he shared – for chess players and for generals:

Rudolf Spielmann said, “Play the opening like a book, the middle game like a magician, and the endgame like a machine.”