Good vs Evil: Chess as a Story

[Editor's Note: I wrote the first draft of this back in December, well before I started my other writing project. Pure coincidence. Or maybe it was foreshadowing. Anyway, I'm still not happy with it, but it seems appropriate to publish it now... though I reserve the right to re-explore this idea later.]

Everyone loves a good story.  It is part of being human.  Even our grandest and most noble pursuits, from philosophy and science to history and myth, essentially boil down to stories, or explanations for why certain things happen.  Some of the highest paid people on the planet, actors and musicians, simply tell stories.  We can't get enough of them.

Chess has stood the test of time for many reasons, but I imagine a big one is that it has a narrative structure built into its very core.  Two armies face each other in war.  Knights charge into glorious battle, peasants hold the line, the clergy offers support from afar, and even the Royal Family takes center stage.  White and Black, attack and defence, victory and defeat, the stories literally write themselves.

Chess is a game. It is a competition.  It is a science and it is an art ... but more than any of that, I view chess as a story generator.

A Story with Many Authors

"Improv" is a type of stage play where the actors make up what happens on the spot.  Often the audience provides suggestions and the actors simply have to react.  This can produce some of the most amazing and hilarious pieces ever.  I grew up watching "Whose Line is it Anyway?", and no show had me rolling on the floor laughing as consistently as Drew Carey and company.

With improv, the goal is create a memorable scene.  The actors help each other, offer suggestions, take turns, and just generally try to give and take.  Done right, its a prime example of multiple people working together to create a single piece of art.

Chess is a lot like this ... except the authors are actively trying to destroy each other.

White wants to advance on the Kingside and gain some space; Black says screw that, I want that space.  White says fine, I will take some pawns.  Black laughs and throws everything at White's King.  Normally an author can take his or her time and write whatever; here, everything we want to do is actively getting opposed.

You might think this makes crafting a compelling story hard, but it seems to be the opposite.  When we watch a Grandmaster play a rank beginner, the game is over in 12 moves and its not that interesting.  The result was never in doubt, in large part because the beginner can't offer any resistance.  As soon as we have opposition, though, as soon as there are ideas and counter ideas, that's when things get interesting, and that's when the best games get played.

The Appeal of Uncertainty

Chess thrives because of its uncertainty.  That's a strange statement to make, given that chess is a game with perfect knowledge.  Unlike poker, where the next card is a mystery, there's no doubt where the pieces are on the board or whose turn it is to move.  Nonetheless, chess creates compelling stories precisely because the result largely remains uncertain.

It's the same reason we watch sports.  Anything can happen.  The better team should win, but there are fumbles, clutch plays, injuries and last-minute heroics.  Your favourite team can do everything right but still not win.  That level of uncertainty keeps you glued to your seat, and it makes victory all the sweeter.  Compare that with Hollywood: is there any doubt the good guy won't save the day and get the girl?  Not really.

At the top level, chess sometimes gets derided for the quick draws.  At my level, though, every game is a fight.  It's a clash of ideas: I try to do my thing, my opponent counters with something else.  I might win, I might lose; we might end in blood or a peaceful draw.  Either way, there's a gripping story, each and every time.

The Language of Narrative

"I'm attacking."  Those words alone conjure up certain images, be it vikings or SWAT teams or whatever else jumps out to your imagination.  Almost all the words we use to describe chess create similar images.  Knights advance, Bishops and Rooks apply pressure from afar; our noble troops sacrifice themselves for the greater cause; we block up the battlefield to slow the advance; we create safe spaces for our King; the Queen goes rampaging picking off weaknesses, etc etc.

It wouldn't take much imagination to turn this a true story.  Give the pieces names, so we have emotional attachment.  Derive some vague backstory, or just use the standard White vs Black, Good vs Evil imagery.  The opening, middlegame and endgame correspond to the standard three act structure.  Every move could be a chapter, or perhaps scenes within chapters.  All the elements are right there.

I believe this narrative is what keeps us coming back to chess.  Yes, winning is nice, but is it any nicer than winning in Snakes and Ladders?  Rather, with chess, we have a certain amount of control, and we can exert our will on the board.  Our opponent counters.  We overcome it.  How did we do that?  The answer to that question is in the form of a story, and humans absolutely love stories.

Some stories have deeper meanings; others are just pure entertainment.  I'm not sure where chess fits.  I often feel like there is something deeper within those 64 squares... but it might just be a board game.  Even so, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.  Telling stories makes us human.  If my chess career amounts to nothing more than a collection of games that tell some interesting stories, tales that may entertain but have no greater significance, I would have no regrets.

I am a story teller at heart.  The act of writing the story is the reward.