An interesting paper (or rough draft of) by a close friend

 

            A board of sixty-four squares, half black, half white, thirty-two pieces symbolizing war and royalty, and two players controlling the world; this is the game of chess.  It is a game with simple, straightforward rules that creates a complex world of strategy in the minds of players.  Battles can be fought between people or symbolically for thoughts and nations.  Flirtation and sexuality can be conducted in the safe space of the board.  Chess is a world; it is utopic and dystopic, pleasant and violent, and rational and irrational.  Chess is a utopia and is portrayed in literature as such.  M.H. Abrams defines utopia as a “class of fictional writings that represent an ideal but non-existent political and social way of life….[the word is a conflation of] the Greek words ‘eutopia’ (good place) and ‘outopia’ (no place)” (327-328).  Chess is an imaginary world that is materially represented with a two dimensional black and white checkered board and thirty-two carved pieces.  It is both a good place and no place.  It is a good place because it is hyperorganized with clearly defined rules, which is common of utopian fiction.  Chess also allows persons to act out passions and aggressions in the metaphorical world of the game.  Wars happen but no one is hurt.  It is no place at the same time; since the game is only two-dimensional the world of chess exists in the minds of the players.  Many authors use chess as a means to convey dystopic ideas but have reality remain unaffected; chess becomes a utopic dystopia.  In The Tempest, Shakespeare uses chess as a means for the young couple, Ferdinand and Miranda, to flirt in a safe environment.  It also comments on their future leadership in contrast to the failed rule of their elders.  Here chess acts as utopia because it allows dystopia to exist without harming anyone in reality.  T.S. Elliot leaves out the utopic elements of chess in “The Wasteland” to illustrate the dysfunctional sexuality of the sordid modern life.  Chess is the world these unhappy people live in.  Lewis Carroll turns the Looking Glass world into a giant chessboard to illustrate Alice’s transformation from child to adult in Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There.  Vladimir Nabokov transforms the world into a chess game in the mind of Luzhin, a chess prodigy who suffers a nervous breakdown in The Defense.  Kurt Vonnegut’s short story “All the King’s Horses” depicts what would happen if chess were real.  It is the battle between East and West where real people suffer for victory.  Many real chess players suffer tragic lives similar to the painful existence of a few of these fiction characters.  Bobby Fischer, perhaps time’s greatest chess player, experienced a tragic life that has left him insane.  What is it about the structured, utopic world of chess that causes fictional and real persons to suffer so much?

            Abrams credits Sir Thomas More as the creator of the term utopia, which is the title of his Renaissance novel that describes the perfect commonwealth (328).  In Utopia, Raphael Hythloday describes the perfectly organized island of Utopia.  This nation has existed for 1,760 years of rarely disturbed perfection (More 55).  Every city is exactly the same in appearance and organization: “There be in the island fifty-four large and fair cities, or shire towns, agreeing all together in one tongue, in like manners, institutions, and laws.  They be all set and situate alike, and in all points fashioned alike” (50).  The society is hyperorganized and abides by laws that allow all men to be equals.  Persistence and equality are important and defining characteristics of utopias; they are also essential to dystopias.  George Orwell’s nightmare world of 1984 is hyperorganized and monitored to ensure equality—equality of suffering—of its citizens.  It’s a long established society where everyone is watched through the telescreen (1-3).  Both of these worlds abide by a strict set of rules, which have allowed them to endure for so long.  Chess follows this patter.  The origin of chess has been hotly debated, but scholars generally agree that the Hindus of India invented the fame around 3000 BC (Staunton 1-2).  Hindu literature describes a game similar to a primitive form of modern chess.  This game was called Chaturanga, which had four armies and four players (fig. 1).  In the fifteenth century, the four armies became two with two of the Kings becoming Queens.  The most recent changes to the game happened in the sixteenth century: the moves of the Queen and Bishop were extended, Castling was introduced, and Pawns were allowed to move two squares for their opening move only to make the game faster (Staunton 2-3).  However, many rules have never been altered, for instance the movements of the Knight and Rook has been the same for five thousand years (4).

            The rules and arrangement of the game are clear-cut:

The game of chess is played by two persons, each having at command a little army of sixteen men, upon a board divided into sixty-four squares.  The squares are usually colored white and black, or red and white, alternately; and custom has made it an indispensable regulation, that the board shall be so placed that each player has a white square at his right hand corner. (fig. 2) (Handbook 7)

The world of chess is equal: players have an equal number of men and their movements are dictated by strict rules that equally apply to both teams.  The longevity, organization, and equality of chess parallel those of classic fictional utopias and dystopias.

            Shakespeare’s fictional island in The Tempest is the setting for a chess game.  In Act 5.1, Prospero discovers the young lovers playing chess.  Gary Schmidgall states, “chess is an innocent intellectual pastime” (12).  Prospero clearly announces that the couple should only have chaste relations prior to their marriage:

                                                                                    But

                        If thou dost break her virgin-knot before

                        All sanctimonious ceremonies may

                        With full and holy rite be ministered,

                        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                        Sour-eyed disdain, and discord shall bestrew

                        The union of your bed with weeds so loathly

                        That you shall hate it both.  Therefore take heed,

                        As Hymen’s lamps shall light you. (4.1 13-23)

Hymen’s lamps, the god and symbol of marriage, are alluded to in order to make Prospero’s order clear.  However, the couple needs a space to flirt and expel their sexual tensions, thus, they play chess.  This game is also appropriate to their noble status (Schmidgall 11).  It is a neutral and equal space which mirrors the moves and strategies of love.  Chess was a common game for lovers in the Middle Ages: Stephen Orgel writes, “The game was an aristocratic pastime associated especially with lovers, often with illicit sexual overtones, and also served as a frequent allegory of politics” (197).  Miranda accuses Ferdinand of cheating, “Sweet lord, you play me false” (5.1 171) but states her complicity with it, "Yes, for a score of kingdoms you should wrangle, / And I would call it fair play” (173-174).  She may be accusing him of cheating in love because he has seen much of the world, whereas Ferdinand is the only Italian man other than her father she has ever seen.  In the world of chess, Miranda is able to assert her ideas because of the equality chess affords.  Both lovers are on equal terms in the game of love and politics.  Her accusation also refers to political treason.

            Chess is a microcosm of the court that is organized like the feudal system.  Each piece (Rook, Bishop, King, and Queen) has a Pawn for protection and they are easily sacrificed.  Ferdinand is usurping Prospero’s daughter and dukedom.  Prospero accuses him of treason early in the play:

Thou dost here usurp

The mane thou ow’st not, and hast put thyself

Upon this island as a spy, to win it

From me, the lord on’t. (1.2 454-457)

Miranda echoes her father, and both are correct.  It is an endorsement of Machiavellian politics; whatever must be dome to win will be done and she will accept it.  Whatever pieces must be sacrificed in the game will be necessary.  The young couple will rule better than their parents whose vying for land and power on the island led to disharmony and treason.  They will win the chess game unlike the older generation.

            No one wins the game of chess in Elliot’s “The Wasteland.”  The second section of the poem is titled “II. A game of Chess,” and depicts stagnant and dysfunctional sexuality.  The section is divided in two: a high-class couple at home and two low class women in a pub.  Each section involves two people, the players in the game.  Before the couple speaks, Elliot describes a classic tale of tragic sexuality in which the woman loses.  “As though a window gave upon to sylvan scene / The change of Philomel, but the barbarous king” (Elliot 98-99) In Ovid’s Metamorphosis, Philomel is perused and raped by her sister’s husband, and is transformed into a nightingale (133-143).  The chase is similar to moves on a chessboard where one player captures a piece of his opponent.  Unlike this story, the modern couple cannot capture one another.  They speak in paranoid voices and cannot talk about talk about their love or life.  They are not able to discuss sexuality, so they say they play chess:

                                                The hot water at ten.

                        And if it rains, a closed car at four.

                        And we shall play a game if chess,

Pressing lidless eyes and waiting for a knock upon the door. (135-138)

However, their game is stagnant.  They must wait for entertainment because their game, like their love, is stagnant and appears to end in a draw because no one makes any progression.  A stalemate in chess happens when both players can only make moves that will put them in check.  This perpetual checking results in a stalemate, a draw, because no one can win (Staunton 52).  This couple cannot win because they keep checking each other. 

            The two women in the bar face a stalemate as well.  As they gossip, the reader realizes that there is no communication between them.  Sexuality is going nowhere for either woman.  Procreation, the productive side of sex does not exist.  One woman describes her latest abortion: “It’s them pills I took to bring it off she said. / … / The chemist said it would be all right, but I’ve never been the same” (159-161).  She is wasting time with sex in the eyes of society; her opponent/companion asks, “What you get married for if you don’t want children?” (164)  The calls of the bartender, “HURRY UP PLEASE ITS TIME” (141), call attention to wasting time.  It is like the clocks of chess tournaments help structure the game.

            The format of this section parallels chess.  Each pair banters back and forth; each person gets his or her turn to move.  The jump from high to low society is like the switch from black to white.  Both games end in a draw because of the lack of communication and the stagnation of modern life.  Elliot’s chess game is a dystopia that mirrors reality; no one advances, they only defend their positions and nobody wins.

            Carroll uses chess as the organizing element in Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There.  Alice once again wanders into a magical dream world, but this time the world is a chess game and she wants to play (fig. 3). 

“I declare it’s marked out just like a large chess-board!” Alice said at last.  “There ought to be some men moving about somewhere—and so there are!” she added in a tone of delight, and her heart began to beat quick with excitement as she went on.  “It’s a great huge game of chess that’s being played—all over the world—if this is the world at all, you know.  Oh, what fun it is!  How I wish I was one of them!  I wouldn’t mind being a Pawn, if only I might join—though of course I should like to be Queen, best!” (Carroll 144)

Alice is allowed to play and becomes the White Queen’s Pawn.  The novel begins with a solvable chess problem: “White Pawn (Alice) to play, and win in eleven moves” (fig. 4) (114).  This diagram maps the entire story in chess documentation; the following novel elaborates this diagram. The chess puzzle is a solvable variation of the game, there is an answer and not a seeming infinite depth of possibilities.  Chess puzzles like this are numerous and many real and fictional players, such as Luzhin, learn from them.

            Alice learns from playing the game.  Carroll wrote the book from the White Pawn’s point of view.  All of her movements abide by the rules of chess.  For instance, her opening move is two spaces forwards by train.  This is part of the En Passant rule (Mason 17).  Since the rules and space are clearly dictated, Alice has the security she needs in which to mature.  Kathleen Blake states, “the main thing [in games] is to fix the perimeter and the internal relationship structure, the terms and rules, of a game-system, and make these stick.  Then the universe will be secure (what Carroll calls certain), and one will enjoy the freedom of that security” (qtd in Rackin 75).  Each piece she meets represents childish vanities is adult and magical form; for example, Humpty Dumpty represents arrogance.  She must conquer them on the board and in herself to reach the next developmental stage.  Donald Rackin explains,

Like pieces in a game she has already won—parts of her former psychic self, still in some sense operative, but now subdues, perceived as childish, and thus under her conscious control—these creatures are not longer fully alive in her, no longer capable of pulling her back to the original, undifferentiated Eden before her stable, conscious self emerged. (77)

Alice’s new, mature self is made manifest when she reaches the eighth rank and is Queened.  In The Laws and Practices of Chess, Staunton explicated this rule: “When a player manages to push one of his Pawns through all the opposing obstacles to any square on the eighth rank, such Pawn…assumes the name and privileges of any superior Piece (except a King) which the player chooses, and this is called Queening a Pawn” (61).  Alice must press through all of the chaotic and dystopic elements of the Looking Glass world to reach maturity.  After is defended as a lady by the chivalrous White Knight, Alice finds that she has been Queened.  “‘And what is this on my head?’…It was a golden crown” (fig. 5) (Carroll 223).  The Queen is the most powerful and mobile chess piece, which is an apt role for the new, self-confidant Alice.  The dystopic world of chess allows Alice to overcome many of her childish vanities and mature to a self-sufficient Queen.  This chess dystopia is a utopia because it allows Alice to discover herself in her own manner and in her own time; reality is not effected.

            Nabokov’s main character is The Defense is a chess prodigy who suffers a nervous breakdown and then sees the entire world as a game of chess.  Luzhin’s one passion is life is chess and it destroys him.  His obsession begins as a young boy and one can see that he is a true chess player.  Players that are not serous are called “patzers;” trying to take pieces, they see the game materially.  Serious players see the game in terms of time and space.  They want to control squares on the board, space, and win tempos, time on their opponent.  Truly elegant chess games involve extreme sacrifices of material for time (Magill interview).  Luzhin plays games in his head and blindfolded because he is able to sense the rhythms of time and space in his mind:

When playing blind he was able to sense these diverse forces in their original purity.  He saw then neither the Knight’s carved mane not the glossy heads of the Pawns—but he felt quite clearly that this or that imaginary square was occupies by a definite, concentrated force, so that he envisioned the movement of a piece as a discharge, a shock, a stroke of lightening—and the whole chess field quivered with tension, and over this tension he was sovereign, her gathering in and there releasing electric power. (Nabokov 92)

Chess is a utopia for Luzhin in his younger days because it serves as an escape from his tormented schools life.  As time goes one, it becomes a dystopia that takes over his entire life.  At the famed tournament with his rival, Turati, Luzhin has a breakdown and see his reality in relation to chess: “The pain immediately passed, but in the fiery gap he had seen something unbearable awesome, the full horror of the abysmal depths of chess…. But the chessmen were pitiless, they held and absorbed him.  There was horror in this, but in this also was the sole harmony, for what else exists in the world besides chess?” (139)

            After this unfinished game, there is nothing else but chess for Luzhin, even though he stops playing the material game.  He notices patterns in his life that he must defend against and not longer rests for fear of traps.  The world is his enemy.  Nabokov does not name the primary characters, such as Luzhin and his wife; they are all nameless pieces on the chessboard.  The novel, like Luzhin’s life, is structured like a chess game.  Laurie Clancy points out that the novel jumps in time like the movement of chess pieces around the board (35).  The pattern created in the novel and in his life is a horrific repetition of his childhood from he desperately wanted to escape: “With vague admiration and vague horror he observed how awesomely, how elegantly and how flexibly, move by move, the images of his childhood had been repeated (country house…town…school…aunt), but he still did not quite understand why this combonational repetition inspired his soul with suck dread” (Nabokov 214).  The utopic games that took him out of his dystopic reality has brought him back and this time the only way he can escape is suicide.  Jumping from his bathroom window, he falls into a chessboard-like landscape; “the whole chasm was seen to divide into dark and pale squares” (256).  This terrible chess death affords him escape from chess and he finally receives the clarity he has searched for when his wife’s friends call out his name: “The door was burst in.  Aleksandr Ivanovich, Aleksandr Ivanovich,’ roared several voices” (256).  TRANSITION.

            Vonnegut focuses on the strategic and tactical side of chess by having two military forces compete in “All the King’s Horses.”  He illustrates the dystopic violence of chess by having real people play.  Colonel Kelly, his wife, twin sons, and thirteen soldiers crash land in Pi Ying’s communist guerrilla territory in China.  Pi Ying decides that he and Kelly will play chess for the Americans’ lives: “‘The rules of the game are easy to remember.  You are all to behave as Colonel Kelly tells you.  Those of you who are so unfortunate as to be taken by one of my chessmen will be killed quickly, painlessly, promptly’” (89).  The game is clearly a military battle; chess allows players to act as general.  They must plan ahead and think of the future rather than the present, which means they must make material, or in this case human, sacrifices.  Pi Ying says, “As Colonel Kelly can tell you, a chess game can very rarely be won—any more than a battle can be won—without sacrifices” (89).  Kelly must make the ultimate sacrifice in order to win; one of his sons must be positioned to bait the Black Knight into a trap.  Luckily, Pi Ying is murdered in the intense emotion of the game, so the young boy’s life is spared.  TRANSITION.

            This game takes on greater significance; Pi Ying sees the game as East meeting West.  He says, “I think this is an excellent way of bringing together the Eastern and Western minds, don’t you, Colonel?  Here we indulge the American’s love for gambling with our appreciation of profound drama and philosophy” (91).  Centuries of cultural and political differences are able to meet in the neutral space of chess.  No one has the advantage, which makes this a utopia.  After Pi Ying dies, the Russian Barzov takes over the black army.  Now more of the communist world is represented.  The free world is playing the communist world; the game has universal significance.  The dystopic world of chess is a utopia because it serves as a microcosm of the world in which symbolic political battle can be fought. MORE.

Another universal battle between the free and communist worlds occurred in Reykjavik, Iceland in 1972 between American Bobby Fischer and Soviet Boris Spassky.  This was the World Championship match that took place at the height of the Cold War (Derrach 15).  At a time of intense “red fear,” many people saw the match as Fischer taking on the Russians all by himself (Gligoric 26).  This was a battle between two thought-systems that happened without weapons in the safe space of the game. The match was tenuous; each side made small, weird demands to throw his opponent.  For instance, Fischer did not show up for game one.  Spassky entered the illuminated stage of the large tournament hall half a minute before five PM Icelandic time.  Fischer was not there,” describes one witness (Derrach 31).  There was hardly a time when the world did not think that Fischer was going to walk away (29).  He won the tournament and this was pretty much the end of his chess life.  He slowly lost his mind; he said that Russia conspired against him to drive him crazy.  He had all of his teeth removed because he thought the Russians were monitoring him with radio transmitters placed in his teeth (CITATION).  He became a drifter after he moved to Los Angeles.  Fischer would leave all of his belongings in hotel rooms, but never his wooden chess set (Gligoric 8).  The world of chess consumed the child prodigy, but despite all the pain it caused him, he could not leave it completely.  After his trubulent life, an interviewer caught up with Fischer and his comment reveals his continued passion for the game: “Look at these pieces, smooth and light.  No hard edges.  Beautifully carved.  Here, feel this Knight” (qtd in Gligoric 8).  The utopic world of chess that took Fischer out of a childhood of poverty and into international fame was also a dystopia that caused him to go mad.  But Fischer has never completely left this realm; chess, not only his chess set, is still part of him.

Chess is a utopia because it allows dystopias to exist without affecting reality.   When it does affect reality, for Luzhin, Colonel Kelly, and Fischer, tragedy ensues.  The madness of these persons reveals the intensity of chess and its ability to dominate the lives of its players.  The simple rules that have not changed in hundreds of years and the clearly defined space of the game provide security in which battles between nations, persons, ideas, and the self can take place.  East can play West, free can play communist, men can play women, and childhood can play adulthood.  The Persian poet Rubaiyat wrote:

                        Tis all a Chequer-board of Nights and Days

            Where Destiny with Men for Pieces plays:

                        Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays,

            And one by one back in the Closet lays. (qtd in Jones and Gladstone 33)

Miranda, Ferdinand, Elliot’s unnamed persons, Alice, Luzhin, Colonel Kelly, and Fischer all play with destiny and retire to the closet, or bookshelf from whence they came.  These authors use chess to enact dramas and self-discovery in the metaphorical world of the game.  Chess is a utopia and a dystopia; it is a good place, a bad place, and no place.  And now it is your move.

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Jones, Jo Elwyn, and J. Francis Gladstone. The Alice Companion: A guide to Lewis

            Carroll’s Alice Books. New York: NYUP, 1998.

Derrach, Brad.  Bobby Fischer versus the Rest of the World. New York: Stein and Day         Publishers, 1974.

Gligoric, Svetozar. Fischer versus Spassky: The Chess Match of the Century. New York:

            Simon and Schuster, 1972.

More, Sir Thomas. Utopia. Three Early Modern Utopias. Ed. Susan Bruce. Oxford:

            Oxford UP, 1999.1-148.

Vonnegut, Kurt. “All the King’s Horses.” Welcome to the Monkey House. New York:

            Dell, 1950. 84-104.

Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. Ed. Stephen Orgel.  Oxford: Oxford UP, 1987.

Abrams, M.H. A Glossary of Literary Terms. 7th ed. New York: Harcourt Brace College

            Publishers, 1999.

Clancy, Laurie. The Novels of Vladimir Nabokov. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984.

Rackin, Donald. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass

            Nonsense, Sense, and Meaning. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1991.

Carroll, Lewis.Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass and

            What Alice Found There. Ed. Roger Lancelyn Green. Oxford: Oxford UP,1971.

Elliot, T.S. “The Wasteland.” The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 7th ed. Ed. M      M.H. Abrams. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000. 2368-2383.

Magill, Michael. Member of Colorado Springs Chess Club. Personal interview. 7 Apr.

            2002.

The American Chess Player’s Handbook. Chicago: John C. Winston Co., 1928.

Staunton, Howard. The Laws and Practice of Chess Together with an Analysis of the

            Openings. Ed. Robert B. Wormald. London: Chatto & Windus, 1922.

Mason, James. The Principles of Chess in Theory and Practice. 4th ed. Philadelphia:

            David McKay, 19--.

Nabokov, Vladimir. The Defense. Trans. Michael Scammell. New York: G.P. Putnam’s

            Sons, 1964.

Ovid. Metamorphosis. Trans. Rolfe Humphries. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1983.

Orwell, George. 1984. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1949.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1