Let's talk about the basic rules of chess. You start with like 20 pieces or so, half of which are fucking useless. Yes, these useless pieces are called pawns and them being called this is the only part of chess that makes sense. But don't worry, it all ends there. The pawn has a fairly basic moveset. It can go one or two spaces straight ahead but that's it. It can't go backwards or diagonally. So you're probably thinking to yourself, "yeah, that's a bit weird but I guess it works." But then everything falls apart. This is mainly because pawns can only attack diagonally.
Now what the fuck is that shit. Seriously, why is that part of the game. Does it make any sense to define a piece as "it only moves forward...one or two spaces...except when you use it for, you know, actually attacking, in which case it moves in this other direction." That is just stupid. Are there any other board games that do this? Probably not, and for good reason. It's dumb. And even if there are other games that do it, they are probably terrible.
But there is more to chess than just pawns though. Unfortunately the rest of the pieces aren't much better. You have the rook and the bishop, the former which can only move in straight lines and the latter which can only move diagonally. This I actually find pretty good. It adds strategy to the game by means of variety. Two different pieces that move in ways that are in a way opposite to each other. They even attack through the same method in which they move! Incredible! But once again the sensible thought behind these two pieces is ruined by the moveset of the knight.
After playing several games of chess, I still can't remember the exact move structure of the knight. He moves in some weird clockwise L patter that forms an octagon or something. This means he can move to a maximum of 8 spaces around him at any time. Now to those of you who don't know how chess works, this explanation probably doesn't help you understand the exact moveset of the knight. Which is precisely why the moveset is so flawed. Despite playing chess numerous times, I cannot right now clearly explain how the knight moves. This is because the circular-octagonal pattern it moves in seems completely arbitrary. Sure, the moveset may have a lot of strategy and mathematics behind it to show that it is not arbitrary at all. But that is not the point. The fact that it seems arbitrary is the significant factor. If it is not easy to understand why such a strange moveset is required, then I believe the game has reached a point where it is just not worth it.
This is very similar to baseball. The sport probably started out by just hitting a ball with a stick. But after countless trial and error, a complex system was invented to ensure that fair play took place. That complex system has transformed a simple idea into a sport that is so heavily stat-based with so many facets that people wonder how the whole thing was put together in the first place. Well here's a hint, it probably worked just like Chess. Rules upon rules were invented and revised slowly over time that the resemblance to the original idea seems so faded.
Looking at chess, we can assume that in its early stages it was a battle plan. Using specific abilities of your troops to kill opposing troops and capture their leader. This is fairly obvious. But where did the rules come from in the naming? And going on with my rant, how were such ridiculous movesets formed. Well I'm not going to bother looking all of that up because I don't think I should have to. So let's make due with what I believe to be the reasons for the invention of such a stupid, stupid game.
Two armies lining up on their respective sides to fight an epic battle. Quite a common occurrence in ancient history, I would imagine. After all, there were no guerrilla tactics or camouflage or squad-based operations back then. No, the playing field was fair and there was even a sense of order, dignity, honor, and respect for an act that attempts to kill people and take over their territory. Chess tries to mimic these battles from ancient history but it fails because unlike the actual battles from back then which have evolved substantially over the years, chess has maintained this flawed sense of order in war and therefore had to come up with outrageous rules to justify itself and make sure everything still worked.
But since I've already explained that, let's get to the inane naming and shape issue. The king, queen, and knight all make sense. They are representations of figures that were held very highly in ancient times and I would imagine had a lot of impact in a battle. I suppose the pawn makes sense as well since it represents the foot-soldier that obeys the orders of those higher than him. The fact that it's by far the weakest piece in the game and the most numerous makes that claim obvious. The shapes of all of those pieces make sense as well. The king and queen are both represented by the crown-like tops found on most pieces. The pawn, while not looking anything like an ordinary solider, does have a very simple and generic look that is suited to it. The knight, being represented by a horse in most sets, is a little strange but understandable. The knight on horseback is a popular image and chess obviously decided to play off of that.
But then we have the rook and the bishop, two pieces whose names make zero sense and whose shapes make even less sense. Where do I start first? Well, I guess the bishop makes slightly (very slightly) more sense. I'm not a Christian so I do not exactly know what a bishop is, but I at least have the notion that it is somewhere high up in the order of the Catholic Church, lower than a Pope and Cardinal but higher than a traditional priest. What the fuck? These people fight in battles now? Aren't they supposed to be above such supposedly brutal behavior? The only explanation I can think of is that bishops, the holy men of today, were originally a wizard type character in the original game. Bishops have nothing to do with war (though they might have some sway in the decision) but I imagine that in the old times, wizards and potion-makers were a key part of an army. I think this also explains the diagonal movement of the bishop. I don't really know why, but for some reason I can see a relationship between a mystical wizard and the diagonal-only movement. So if we use this explanation, the bishop name kind of makes sense. But it still doesn't. Why not update the name to reflect the original idea instead of making us think that high level church officials can be (directly) responsible for the death of countless soldiers. It only makes the game more confusing to newcomers and is another addition to the long list of flaws. And while the shapes of the most of the other pieces make sense, the bishop makes none. It's like a flame on a candle with a huge indentation into it. It's kind of like someone decided to cut down a tree with an axe but decided not to after they were half-way done. It doesn't make any sense. It's not iconic, it's stupid.
But the flaws of the bishop seem quite paltry to the flaws of the rook. Those who are not familiar with chess may ask, "What the hell is a rook?" And the answer to that would be I have no fucking clue. It's a made up word. It's not a case where the name doesn't make sense, it's a case where the name doesn't fucking exist. This is substantially worse. So since we have no idea to tell if the name is fitting to the abilities of the piece, we'll have to look at the shape. Fortunately, the shape at least as the honorable distinction of not making any sense. The best way to describe the shape is that it looks like a tower on an old, English, fortress or castle (foreshadowing for the worst part of chess!). Now, even if we put aside the fact that a tower is an inanimate object, UNLIKE ALL OF THE OTHER PIECES, and really does not have any place in a battle on an open field, there are still problems. First, the rook is one of the most powerful pieces on the board. It has access to all squares on the board and can go vertically or horizontally all the way across the board. While this greatly increases the defensive power of the rook, which is what a tower is mainly used for, it does seem a little strange to give such high mobility to a piece that represents something completely immobile. But then again, it might not actually be a tower, it might be a rook. Whatever the fuck that is.
So I think we've taken an in depth look at ever piece aside from the king and queen. The king and queen are the best pieces in the game, as in almost everything about them make sense. They are two figures that were heavily involved in battles in ancient times, and their movesets and shapes are well suited to them. But there are still some problems. The main one is the massive amount of power the queen has. It's not that I'm against giving this much power to a queen. I'm quite fond of powerful women. But the problem here is why? Why does the queen have so much power? If this game is indeed based on ancient battle tactics, isn't the queen being by far the most powerful piece in the game a little, well, completely contradictory to the history of such battles? The queen can move in any direction and however many spaces she can in the game. Shouldn't this type of moveset be given to, you know, the most powerful and significant piece in the game, the king? The queen's moveset makes the king's one space in any direction moveset look anemic. Again, I'm not really against this decision but it makes the game far more confusing to newcomers because there's no explanation for it. Either the inventors of this game were the first feminists or they were well aware of the motto "Behind every great man there's a greater woman."
And now we've come to the point where I'm supposed to say I've been overreacting and don't really believe in the things I just typed. You can probably see that this "article" is not really based on any kind of research but rather loosely collected knowledge that was tied together in a time of, let's say, passion. It's probably even more obvious to see that I am not, by all means, a good chess player. So yes, maybe my poor understanding of the game has caused me to overreact a bit. And as you know from my previous article about objectivity, I have a strong believe that everything (ideas, objects, subjects) exist for not only a reason but a good reason (what is good? I haven't figured that out yet). I also belief that we must limit ignorance as much as possible, so I've already contradicted myself by writing this article. But I also believe that we can never fully achieve, well (and there's that annoying technique again!), anything (we have to talk about what just happened here in the writing). So things will continue to contradict themselves and people will continue to be hypocrites no matter what we do. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't try to limit this things from happening. Keep in mind that I said I and not we. Other people are free to do whatever they want. This is something I have to remind myself, not anyone else.
Let's end this tangent by relating it back to the point of the article. Why did I contradict myself despite being fully aware of it (more foreshadowing!)? Like I said, there is a good reason for everything. But that is sometimes oh so hard to determine. Chess is easily the most popular board game of all time despite being the most complex. This is because of the tremendous amount of strategy involved. But because so much strategy is involved, it makes the game so much more confusing and very hard to learn. Other popular board games are very simple and easy to learn in a matter of minutes. It is entirely possible to create a game just as or even more complex than chess but nobody would buy it because it was so complex. Or look at it this way. If chess had never been invented before and came out tomorrow, do you really thing people would accept it and it would eventually gain even a fraction of the popularity it has now? I certainly do not think so. This means that the only reason chess is popular is because of time. It was invented when there were very few board games, was praised for its high level of strategy, and over the course of many years became what it is today. But this is something I am willing to say is not a good reason. So we must ask the questions why and how (oh shit we're back to the beginning). The two hardest questions to answer. How were these ridiculous rules in chess invented and why were the implemented in the game? Answering these would be instrumental in helping someone understand the game better. And I'm sure these questions can be answered with research into the game. The same amount of research that I didn't do when writing this article. So there you have it, my very real frustration with the game of chess is because I do not understand it. I am ignorant with respect to a large majority of its characteristics.
Before I put aside my frustration and apologize, I would like to at least put forward the part of chess that has been bothering me the most. If, after I've put it forward, I still feel strongly about it, I'll just end the article there. However, if I have convinced myself that it is again something stemming from my ignorance, I will happily continue with my apology.
The aspect I'm referring to of course is castling. This is the move where if you have a rook and a king in the right place they can switch places or something. Wait...WHAT?! I just fucking took all that time explaining these intricate movesets for every single piece and pondering the reasons for them and now I've just realized that there is a move that discredits all of that. Wait, I was worried about my fucking contradictions? THIS FUCKING MOVE CONTRADICTS THE WHOLE GAME. WHY THE FUCK IS THERE A MOVE THAT IS BASICALLY JUST SOME MAGIC SHIT. WAIT, SHOULDN'T THAT INVOLVE THE BISHOP CAUSE HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE SOME MAGICAL WIZARD OR SOME SHIT. SERIOUSLY WHAT IS THE FUCKING BASIS FOR THIS MOVE? THE KING IS ABLE TO HIDE BEHIND SOME MAGIC TOWER? A TOWER MAGICAL ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE KING TO FUCKING TELEPORT? WELL I GUESS HE'S HIDING FROM HIS QUEEN CAUSE SHE HAS THE POWER TO RAPE HIS FUCKING ASS.
THIS WOULD BE LIKE WHEN YOU'RE PLAYING SOME SHITTY JAPANESE RPG AND YOU'RE DOWN IN A BATTLE SO YOU USE SOME KIND OF MAGIC SPELL THAT HAS A HIGH COST ATTACHED TO IT. BUT THERE IS NO COST ATTACHED TO IT, YOUR TWO PIECES JUST HAVE TO BE IN SOME ARBITRARY POSITION. AND WE'RE NOT PLAYING AN RPG, WE'RE PLAYING A BOARD GAME THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE CONSIDERED VERY HIGHLY IN INTELLECTUAL CIRCLES. CHESS IS SUPPOSED TO SYMBOLIZE GENIUS AND BRILLIANCE. IT TRUMPS THE FUCKING RUBIK'S CUBE ON THE HOW FUCKING SMART ARE YOU LADDER. BUT HOW CAN IT IF IT HAS THIS ABSURD PIECE OF SHIT MOVE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REST OF THE GAME. CHESS SUCKS. FUCK CHESS. PLAY CHECKERS.
This is very similar to baseball. The sport probably started out by just hitting a ball with a stick. But after countless trial and error, a complex system was invented to ensure that fair play took place. That complex system has transformed a simple idea into a sport that is so heavily stat-based with so many facets that people wonder how the whole thing was put together in the first place. Well here's a hint, it probably worked just like Chess. Rules upon rules were invented and revised slowly over time that the resemblance to the original idea seems so faded.
Looking at chess, we can assume that in its early stages it was a battle plan. Using specific abilities of your troops to kill opposing troops and capture their leader. This is fairly obvious. But where did the rules come from in the naming? And going on with my rant, how were such ridiculous movesets formed. Well I'm not going to bother looking all of that up because I don't think I should have to. So let's make due with what I believe to be the reasons for the invention of such a stupid, stupid game.
Two armies lining up on their respective sides to fight an epic battle. Quite a common occurrence in ancient history, I would imagine. After all, there were no guerrilla tactics or camouflage or squad-based operations back then. No, the playing field was fair and there was even a sense of order, dignity, honor, and respect for an act that attempts to kill people and take over their territory. Chess tries to mimic these battles from ancient history but it fails because unlike the actual battles from back then which have evolved substantially over the years, chess has maintained this flawed sense of order in war and therefore had to come up with outrageous rules to justify itself and make sure everything still worked.
But since I've already explained that, let's get to the inane naming and shape issue. The king, queen, and knight all make sense. They are representations of figures that were held very highly in ancient times and I would imagine had a lot of impact in a battle. I suppose the pawn makes sense as well since it represents the foot-soldier that obeys the orders of those higher than him. The fact that it's by far the weakest piece in the game and the most numerous makes that claim obvious. The shapes of all of those pieces make sense as well. The king and queen are both represented by the crown-like tops found on most pieces. The pawn, while not looking anything like an ordinary solider, does have a very simple and generic look that is suited to it. The knight, being represented by a horse in most sets, is a little strange but understandable. The knight on horseback is a popular image and chess obviously decided to play off of that.
But then we have the rook and the bishop, two pieces whose names make zero sense and whose shapes make even less sense. Where do I start first? Well, I guess the bishop makes slightly (very slightly) more sense. I'm not a Christian so I do not exactly know what a bishop is, but I at least have the notion that it is somewhere high up in the order of the Catholic Church, lower than a Pope and Cardinal but higher than a traditional priest. What the fuck? These people fight in battles now? Aren't they supposed to be above such supposedly brutal behavior? The only explanation I can think of is that bishops, the holy men of today, were originally a wizard type character in the original game. Bishops have nothing to do with war (though they might have some sway in the decision) but I imagine that in the old times, wizards and potion-makers were a key part of an army. I think this also explains the diagonal movement of the bishop. I don't really know why, but for some reason I can see a relationship between a mystical wizard and the diagonal-only movement. So if we use this explanation, the bishop name kind of makes sense. But it still doesn't. Why not update the name to reflect the original idea instead of making us think that high level church officials can be (directly) responsible for the death of countless soldiers. It only makes the game more confusing to newcomers and is another addition to the long list of flaws. And while the shapes of the most of the other pieces make sense, the bishop makes none. It's like a flame on a candle with a huge indentation into it. It's kind of like someone decided to cut down a tree with an axe but decided not to after they were half-way done. It doesn't make any sense. It's not iconic, it's stupid.
But the flaws of the bishop seem quite paltry to the flaws of the rook. Those who are not familiar with chess may ask, "What the hell is a rook?" And the answer to that would be I have no fucking clue. It's a made up word. It's not a case where the name doesn't make sense, it's a case where the name doesn't fucking exist. This is substantially worse. So since we have no idea to tell if the name is fitting to the abilities of the piece, we'll have to look at the shape. Fortunately, the shape at least as the honorable distinction of not making any sense. The best way to describe the shape is that it looks like a tower on an old, English, fortress or castle (foreshadowing for the worst part of chess!). Now, even if we put aside the fact that a tower is an inanimate object, UNLIKE ALL OF THE OTHER PIECES, and really does not have any place in a battle on an open field, there are still problems. First, the rook is one of the most powerful pieces on the board. It has access to all squares on the board and can go vertically or horizontally all the way across the board. While this greatly increases the defensive power of the rook, which is what a tower is mainly used for, it does seem a little strange to give such high mobility to a piece that represents something completely immobile. But then again, it might not actually be a tower, it might be a rook. Whatever the fuck that is.
So I think we've taken an in depth look at ever piece aside from the king and queen. The king and queen are the best pieces in the game, as in almost everything about them make sense. They are two figures that were heavily involved in battles in ancient times, and their movesets and shapes are well suited to them. But there are still some problems. The main one is the massive amount of power the queen has. It's not that I'm against giving this much power to a queen. I'm quite fond of powerful women. But the problem here is why? Why does the queen have so much power? If this game is indeed based on ancient battle tactics, isn't the queen being by far the most powerful piece in the game a little, well, completely contradictory to the history of such battles? The queen can move in any direction and however many spaces she can in the game. Shouldn't this type of moveset be given to, you know, the most powerful and significant piece in the game, the king? The queen's moveset makes the king's one space in any direction moveset look anemic. Again, I'm not really against this decision but it makes the game far more confusing to newcomers because there's no explanation for it. Either the inventors of this game were the first feminists or they were well aware of the motto "Behind every great man there's a greater woman."
And now we've come to the point where I'm supposed to say I've been overreacting and don't really believe in the things I just typed. You can probably see that this "article" is not really based on any kind of research but rather loosely collected knowledge that was tied together in a time of, let's say, passion. It's probably even more obvious to see that I am not, by all means, a good chess player. So yes, maybe my poor understanding of the game has caused me to overreact a bit. And as you know from my previous article about objectivity, I have a strong believe that everything (ideas, objects, subjects) exist for not only a reason but a good reason (what is good? I haven't figured that out yet). I also belief that we must limit ignorance as much as possible, so I've already contradicted myself by writing this article. But I also believe that we can never fully achieve, well (and there's that annoying technique again!), anything (we have to talk about what just happened here in the writing). So things will continue to contradict themselves and people will continue to be hypocrites no matter what we do. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't try to limit this things from happening. Keep in mind that I said I and not we. Other people are free to do whatever they want. This is something I have to remind myself, not anyone else.
Let's end this tangent by relating it back to the point of the article. Why did I contradict myself despite being fully aware of it (more foreshadowing!)? Like I said, there is a good reason for everything. But that is sometimes oh so hard to determine. Chess is easily the most popular board game of all time despite being the most complex. This is because of the tremendous amount of strategy involved. But because so much strategy is involved, it makes the game so much more confusing and very hard to learn. Other popular board games are very simple and easy to learn in a matter of minutes. It is entirely possible to create a game just as or even more complex than chess but nobody would buy it because it was so complex. Or look at it this way. If chess had never been invented before and came out tomorrow, do you really thing people would accept it and it would eventually gain even a fraction of the popularity it has now? I certainly do not think so. This means that the only reason chess is popular is because of time. It was invented when there were very few board games, was praised for its high level of strategy, and over the course of many years became what it is today. But this is something I am willing to say is not a good reason. So we must ask the questions why and how (oh shit we're back to the beginning). The two hardest questions to answer. How were these ridiculous rules in chess invented and why were the implemented in the game? Answering these would be instrumental in helping someone understand the game better. And I'm sure these questions can be answered with research into the game. The same amount of research that I didn't do when writing this article. So there you have it, my very real frustration with the game of chess is because I do not understand it. I am ignorant with respect to a large majority of its characteristics.
Before I put aside my frustration and apologize, I would like to at least put forward the part of chess that has been bothering me the most. If, after I've put it forward, I still feel strongly about it, I'll just end the article there. However, if I have convinced myself that it is again something stemming from my ignorance, I will happily continue with my apology.
The aspect I'm referring to of course is castling. This is the move where if you have a rook and a king in the right place they can switch places or something. Wait...WHAT?! I just fucking took all that time explaining these intricate movesets for every single piece and pondering the reasons for them and now I've just realized that there is a move that discredits all of that. Wait, I was worried about my fucking contradictions? THIS FUCKING MOVE CONTRADICTS THE WHOLE GAME. WHY THE FUCK IS THERE A MOVE THAT IS BASICALLY JUST SOME MAGIC SHIT. WAIT, SHOULDN'T THAT INVOLVE THE BISHOP CAUSE HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE SOME MAGICAL WIZARD OR SOME SHIT. SERIOUSLY WHAT IS THE FUCKING BASIS FOR THIS MOVE? THE KING IS ABLE TO HIDE BEHIND SOME MAGIC TOWER? A TOWER MAGICAL ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE KING TO FUCKING TELEPORT? WELL I GUESS HE'S HIDING FROM HIS QUEEN CAUSE SHE HAS THE POWER TO RAPE HIS FUCKING ASS.
THIS WOULD BE LIKE WHEN YOU'RE PLAYING SOME SHITTY JAPANESE RPG AND YOU'RE DOWN IN A BATTLE SO YOU USE SOME KIND OF MAGIC SPELL THAT HAS A HIGH COST ATTACHED TO IT. BUT THERE IS NO COST ATTACHED TO IT, YOUR TWO PIECES JUST HAVE TO BE IN SOME ARBITRARY POSITION. AND WE'RE NOT PLAYING AN RPG, WE'RE PLAYING A BOARD GAME THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE CONSIDERED VERY HIGHLY IN INTELLECTUAL CIRCLES. CHESS IS SUPPOSED TO SYMBOLIZE GENIUS AND BRILLIANCE. IT TRUMPS THE FUCKING RUBIK'S CUBE ON THE HOW FUCKING SMART ARE YOU LADDER. BUT HOW CAN IT IF IT HAS THIS ABSURD PIECE OF SHIT MOVE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REST OF THE GAME. CHESS SUCKS. FUCK CHESS. PLAY CHECKERS.
5 comments:
So fucking true. I've always thought about these shitty things, and I've come to a conclution, like it or not (bitches). And it is that chess is regarded 'highly' and for 'geniuses' because it is iconic because of time. And assholes playing this 'logical' game are not logical in the first place because the goddamn game is not logical in the first place!!! Read the article, read my comment, and WHAM all pieces fall in place. Thanks for the article pal.
Holy shit, I stopped reading after the first PARAGRAPH. Most people will stop reading after the first LINE. Unfortunately, the dumbass above me begs to differ.
1) Learn to play chess. It's more than simply knowing how each piece moves.
2) Raging will not get you better at chess.
3) It's clearly obvious that you really have no skill with using what you've got to the best of your ability.
4) Give up now, it's also obvious you're not willing to learn a damn thing, but sit there on your computer writing shitty articles (yeah, I've read your other garbage too).
5) Go play monopoly or something, where skill is replaced with luck.
One less rookie to deal with.
If you're going to rant about something, make sure you at least understand what you're talking about.
As for your assumptions regarding ancient warfare, I suggest you read The Art of War by Sun Tsu.
no man, chess sucks, i agree, but not for the reasons you say, and if you're going to rant have your facts correct, you'll sound more credible.
*Facepalm assist, because it was so dumb it had me paralyzed*
Now first of all learn some history about ancient warfare. Secondly learn how to play chess, and before you do realize that when it was invented the pieces were somewhat different form what they are today. But chess is not about how they move, but how you use them. Also back then there were no computers (obvious) so people could not invent realistic games. Do not thing of it as a battle-simulation board game, think of it just as a simple tactical/strategy game.
Now for the pieces
1. Bishops: You're too close minded to think that the catholic cardinals took part in battles. In my language the bishop's name literally means sergeant when translated to English, form Italian to English it's name means archer, and actually in the begging of this game it was called elephant.
2. Rooks: yes most likely an invented word, but if you translate it form another language to English it will roughly translate to either war-chariot or tower.
3. Knight: If you do not understand it's pattern of moving then you're dumb. I learned every single rule of chess when I was 6 years old, and now I'm not a very good chess player, because although i live this game i don't play it often.
4. Pawns: They're far from useless. You can sacrifice them for another piece, any piece and don't damage yourself by doing it, They are the spirit of chess, when they reach the eighth rank of the board they become queens, they are used to defend most of your other pieces.
5. Queens: Yes I agree with you, their name is totally out of order, and they're a bit overpowered.
One more thing, you have no right to rant about chess until you learn it properly.
Post a Comment