‘Chess, an ancient game of strategy…’ – that’s what they write on the packaging in department stores. But in real life, playing a game of chess feels more like fighting fires, half of which you kindled yourself. Whatever grand ambitions you have, right now your queen is under attack and the next priority is your shaky kingside. But, first let’s go and attack that bishop! A game of chess is just one damned thing after another.
Even for the world’s best players, any planning is mostly implicit, since they recognise the contours of the game at a glance. In such and such position, the bishop belongs here and the knight belongs there, and this is the pawn break you aim for. Handy guidelines for sure, but in the implementation it all comes down to tactics: can I get away with playing that move first, when my opponent is about to strike on the other side?
Pervasive as it is, this reductive view of chess is not universal.
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.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in