Been thinking a lot about the ideology of Chess recently. The game goes back to ancient India and was designed to teach young men about army tactics. So in a way it was a bit like how COD prepares young men to join the military.
It changed into it's modern form in Spain, where it traveled with Islam and was adopted by the spanish. I believe the original pieces represented infantry (pawns), cavalry, chariots(bishops) and elephants (rooks). The "queen" was then male and considered the "advisor" and moved like the king. Just as Isabela became the most powerful queen in the last 500 years of Europe, the advisor was changed to queen and the became the most powerful piece. Pawns also got their ability to become queens, which, being called "promotion" may be a reference to the original role as "advisor" but may also reflect a king's ability to marry anyone and therefore make them a powerful queen. It was also during this time that the diagonal piece was named the "bishop," representing the power of the church and flanking the monarchy, closer even than the knights to the king and queen.
This is all to be expected, I guess. What I find insidious about the game is simply the "black vs. white" color scheme. Could it have been lost on the Spanish that their skin color was lighter than the Muslims they fought? Is it lost on modern players that the white pieces are superior to the black (white has the advantage of going first and therefore is more likely to win)?
Another subtly insidious aspect is the widespread understanding that the computer knows better than humans. People who are good at chess are thought of as smart, therefore, even smarter is an AI that can beat the best players. Because the rules of chess are simple and the goal of checkmate is concrete the AI has an exact purpose and can be trusted to seek that purpose. The AI is therefore "always right." This might produce in players a habit of deferring to computer generated models, forgetting that in real life the purpose and limits of a computer program can vary wildly and are set by it's creator
This is all to be expected, I guess. What I find insidious about the game is simply the “black vs. white” color scheme. Could it have been lost on the Spanish that their skin color was lighter than the Muslims they fought? Is it lost on modern players that the white pieces are superior to the black (white has the advantage of going first and therefore is more likely to win)?
Careful with applying modern American interpretations of race to medieval Spanish history. Ain't very historical materialist.
Yeah good point. I was having a similar thought while writing it which is why I phrased those thoughts as questions. I suppose the second question is really the one that matters and the first, while interesting, is more of a curiousity.
I don't think it's very likely that the game was designed with race in mind, but it is interesting to think that the black pieces start with a disadvantage due to rules that were established by a bunch of aristocrats hundreds of years ago. But of course, I'm just playing games with words here
According to computer models black has a slight disadvantage. I've played thousands of games and have 53% wins with white and 47% wins with black (adding up to 100% only by coincidence. I used to be very proud of having just barely over 50% wins with black, but that didn't last)
Been thinking a lot about the ideology of Chess recently. The game goes back to ancient India and was designed to teach young men about army tactics. So in a way it was a bit like how COD prepares young men to join the military.
It changed into it's modern form in Spain, where it traveled with Islam and was adopted by the spanish. I believe the original pieces represented infantry (pawns), cavalry, chariots(bishops) and elephants (rooks). The "queen" was then male and considered the "advisor" and moved like the king. Just as Isabela became the most powerful queen in the last 500 years of Europe, the advisor was changed to queen and the became the most powerful piece. Pawns also got their ability to become queens, which, being called "promotion" may be a reference to the original role as "advisor" but may also reflect a king's ability to marry anyone and therefore make them a powerful queen. It was also during this time that the diagonal piece was named the "bishop," representing the power of the church and flanking the monarchy, closer even than the knights to the king and queen.
This is all to be expected, I guess. What I find insidious about the game is simply the "black vs. white" color scheme. Could it have been lost on the Spanish that their skin color was lighter than the Muslims they fought? Is it lost on modern players that the white pieces are superior to the black (white has the advantage of going first and therefore is more likely to win)?
Another subtly insidious aspect is the widespread understanding that the computer knows better than humans. People who are good at chess are thought of as smart, therefore, even smarter is an AI that can beat the best players. Because the rules of chess are simple and the goal of checkmate is concrete the AI has an exact purpose and can be trusted to seek that purpose. The AI is therefore "always right." This might produce in players a habit of deferring to computer generated models, forgetting that in real life the purpose and limits of a computer program can vary wildly and are set by it's creator
Careful with applying modern American interpretations of race to medieval Spanish history. Ain't very historical materialist.
It'd be a good research topic though.
Yeah good point. I was having a similar thought while writing it which is why I phrased those thoughts as questions. I suppose the second question is really the one that matters and the first, while interesting, is more of a curiousity.
I don't think it's very likely that the game was designed with race in mind, but it is interesting to think that the black pieces start with a disadvantage due to rules that were established by a bunch of aristocrats hundreds of years ago. But of course, I'm just playing games with words here
Do they really? They have the advantage of the responding easier to the side with initiative
Statistically the player who makes the first move wins more often
According to computer models black has a slight disadvantage. I've played thousands of games and have 53% wins with white and 47% wins with black (adding up to 100% only by coincidence. I used to be very proud of having just barely over 50% wins with black, but that didn't last)
deleted by creator
Whoa. Did not consider this application of the idea. Yeah. I think ur right