Games and Wars - Part 1

Cricket and football games in recent history have boiled over into full scale wars between fans, clubs and at times, countries. Some fans can’t stand the sight of their rivals winning anything at all. In some cases, the outcomes of these games are closely followed by and used for political gains. In fact, it is becoming increasingly rare to see people who treat them just as games at the end of the day.

Perhaps the game that is closest to war, not in the minds of the fans, but with respect to the actual game itself, is Chess. Soldiers taking the first line, protecting their Generals and their King, while these powers command the field, trying to outwit the opposing army, all while keeping the king safe… this is as close as it gets.

That is probably why I love the game.

In this part of the series, I will talk about Openings in this beautiful game and how I relate it to actual strategic decisions on battlefields.

From the old days of Mahabharatha to the more recent Game of thrones, wars have been about strategy and political games. They are moving the right pieces into the right positions at the right time, keeping your opponents guessing and thwarting their plans to break through your lines of defence. This is where formations come into the picture.

To War!

We can see the importance given to these formations in Roman armies and old Indian kingdoms. Wars were won with masterstrokes in formations. In my opinion, that’s what people do on the chessboard as well. They try to set their pieces into attacking or defensive formations depending on the opponent. These would serve to protect the King or make it possible to unleash deadly combinations on the opposing army, usually aimed at the King. These formations are achieved through a specific set of moves, known as openings, which transform the setup from two rows of pieces into a formidable destructive unit. Of the oh-so-many openings known to man, some are more preferred to others. The Ruy Lopez, for instance, is like deciding to fight when the sun is up – a common practice among young amateurs and old warhorses alike.

While formations are being set up by a player, the opposing player should defend his turf and launch counter strategies of his own, as in any battle. A newbie to the game wouldn’t know what the opponent is setting up, as his pieces seemingly move about in a random way. They see it only when a brutal attack is launched, or in some cases, when it’s over. This clearly shows that experience and theoretical knowledge gives you a rather big advantage.

There are warriors in history though (from William Wallace and Achilles to General Giap), who have prevailed over much larger and better planned armies because of various reasons. They knew their terrain well, they knew their strengths well and more importantly, they knew what they had to do to protect their weaknesses. In short, they knew what they were doing. Chess has its share of prodigies as well, like Paul Morphy or Jose Capablanca (who refused to learn or play by the book on multiple occasions). Those players used to outwit theoretical masters because they were able to envisage all the possibilities in their minds, several moves in advance.

Chess is fair in the sense that both armies start with the same number of pieces, a near impossible situation in real battles. Grandmasters of the game, like Paul Morphy, bring that into the picture with occasional games wherein he would play with one or more pieces removed from his lineup – usually the Queen itself. He has won such games as well, a case for strategic genius over numbers.

I will share my opinion on the remaining areas of the game in the next updates. Strategies of the game have also been found to be very useful in business scenarios as well.

In the meantime, tell me. Do you play Chess like war as well?