Luke McShane

Changing the rules

issue 19 September 2020

Nothing courts us so nimbly as technology. Perhaps the chess computers have already won you over — I am dazzled by the riches they have revealed. For a jaw-dropping sense of wonder, try playing over a forced mate in 549 moves.

Still, many yearn for a simpler time. A time when the mysteries of chess were plentiful, but studying the game ‘by hand’ yielded steady nourishment. A time when chess engines had not yet tempted us with their very own tree of the knowledge of good and evil. These days, that tangle of variations and verdicts is irresistible, but who can look at their own play without a sense of shame? Meanwhile, professional players must work harder than ever to harvest fresh ideas. Alas, spectators are underwhelmed when the consensus of optimal moves in a well-worn opening boils down to a sterile equality.

What if we could tweak the rules slightly? Ideally, we preserve the game’s natural tension and depth, but subvert the most familiar patterns of play, so players are thrown on their wits from the first moves.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in