Chess Sucks

Seriously, why was this board game ever invented? Or how was it invented? I have no fucking clue and I don't want to know. Because it actually makes me angry.

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.

No, OM-nipotent

Well I've been thinking a lot about superpowers recently so I guess it's a good time to talk about one of my main beliefs other than objectivity, though the two are strongly related. I believe in superpowers and I'm not sure why. I guess one of the reasons is because they're cool. I've wanted superpowers as far back as I can remember. But that leads to the other reason; the one that actually has a sliver of academic merit. It's fairly obvious that superpowers are an ingrained part of all humans, not just me. After all, how else would they have arisen? There is absolute no evidence of a man with the individual power of flight or the ability to manipulate metallic objects. Likewise, the same is true for any supernatural activity described throughout human history, whether in real life or fiction. But other than various religious events, anything involving the supernatural is dismissed as a part of fantasy. But why is there such strong focus on the fantasy genre? In fact, why does it even exist in the first place?

An easy explanation is probably found through humanity's tendency to exaggerate. Sure, there's really no basis for a man with the properties of a spider, but maybe someone had above average agility and toughness that caused the comparison. And I guess what I'm really referring to here is the human imagination. Not only does our imagination exaggerate, it invents. So while someone will say "Hey man, that's some spider-like shit right there!" he'll also say, "Dude, what if you had some other powers like a spider like shooting webs and shit. That would be awesome as hell." Of course, that's more like what I would say rather than the actual thought process behind the creation of Spider-Man. Superpowers aren't the only part of the fantasy world, however, since the horror genre is also based on the supernatural. But I believe specifically in superpowers while I'm indifferent to other supernatural phenomena. This is mainly because the other parts of the supernatural are based on fear. For example, zombies, ghosts, ghouls, monsters, and other scary creatures are well within the parameters for being classified as fantasy or supernatural, but they have a specific purpose to scare people. This is in contrast with superpowers, which have rather unclear purposes.

I'll admit that this is a weak argument and a majority of it is because I think superpowers are more fascinating (or "cooler") than other elements of fantasy. But let me try and explain it in further detail. I'll start by looking at the standard models for the horror and superpower genres. The horror genre has a few different models, but they're all mostly the same. These models are the ghost, the zombie, and the monster. Zombies and ghosts are the same in the sense that they both arise from the dead. While clearly supernatural, there is nothing all that strange about this. As in, imagining the concept does not sound so far-fetched. Dead things are scary are already scary, as is evident by the effect that skeletons and corpses have on some people. Ghosts and zombies just seem to be an extension of that concept. If that dead thing were to come back to life, it would be far scarier. The traditional ghost story often has some concept of revenge or redemption, making it even scarier. The scariness of zombies is portrayed through their hideousness and horde-like behavior. As in, they are literally what would happen if the dead were given the ability to move. So ghosts and zombies are an extension of an already existing idea. There's nothing strange about their origin. Monsters are a little trickier because there are a variety of monsters, each one being unique from the rest. I would say the standard model for a monster is Frankenstein. But he's really no different from a zombie and therefore can be put in the same category. Other monsters are far different from Frankenstein so the same logic can't be used. Let's take for example the Bogeyman and the evil Sandman. I think both of these are similar in the sense that they both scare their victims (specifically children) while they're in their room/bed/sleeping. Therefore, these monsters play off of the already established fear of the dark, just as ghosts and zombies play off of the fear of the dead. But there are still monsters that don't fit into either category. Cerberus, for example, is a beast monster who doesn't share many similarities with ghosts or zombies. He's in the best category, which while still scary, does not really stem from an established fear. The closest real thing to Cerberus is a dog or wolf. Now Cerberus was created in ancient times, so the image of a ferocious dog was probably used as inspiration. And just like ghosts are exaggerations of death and the Bogeyman is an exaggeration of darkness, Cerberus is an exaggeration of the evil barking dog that chases the mailman. Say, wouldn't it be much scarier if that dog had like three heads and was fucking huge? I imagine the same is true for most other mythical beasts.*

And so a problem arises. How is this any different from the example of Spider-Man I mentioned earlier? It's almost exactly the same. If monsters can have the same origins as superpowers, then either every supernatural thing is real or none is. And so I've failed at: a) distinguishing superpowers from other supernatural powers, and b) showing how superpowers are actually real. But my argument is still alive because I can refute it. I also said that one possible explanation for Spider-Man was humanity's tendency to exaggerate things. What would be another explanation? Well, if superpowers were indeed real, the true origin of Spider-Man would be much more complicated. Instead, let's look at the standard model for a superhero, just like we did with the horror genre. The basic model is of course Superman. Not only is he arguably the first superhero, but he's also the most popular and the one that most people would jump to if they were asked to name a superhero. Superman's characteristics are easy to explain. Pretty much everything about him is, well, "super" compared to normal human beings. He's stronger, faster, can fly, has super breath, etc. Name one physical trait and Superman can perform it better than anyone. But there is a problem. Superman has heat-vision.

Now I hate to make a big deal about minor things but I believe in this case it's crucial to everything. Superman has heat-vision. I want you to repeat that several times, up to the point where it loses all meaning. Because it makes no sense to begin with. Superman is the simplest superhero. His creation was no doubt one of the easiest. Just take everything normal humans can do and make them better. Yet this super-human is for some reason given the power to shoot laser beams out of his eyeballs. No, I'm sorry DC, because that is almost absurd. But what does it prove? Well clearly it's not as absurd as I'm making it out to be. Superman has had this power for over 50 years and nobody seems to bring up the fact that it doesn't make sense in relation to his other attributes. In fact, it's a well accepted power in his arsenal. Maybe it isn't absurd at all.

This is where my belief really starts to take off. When I was about six years old, I imagined a superhero perhaps after seeing images of Superman. I swear to you and myself that I had no knowledge of any of Superman's powers, other than that he had some sort of superpowers. But the superhero I imagined also had heat vision. To me, this is astounding. What is the coincidence that I would give my imagined superhero the one power I find to be the most ridiculous? The one that by far makes the least sense? But looking back at Superman, the power does seem to make sense. Of course Superman should have heat vision! Why? Because it just seems right. And therein lays the heart of my belief. There is something about us humans that not only accepts but embraces Superman's heat vision when logically we have no reason to. I think the reason for this embrace is because humanity innately believes in a power like heat vision. And why would we have this innate belief if superpowers didn't actually exist in our universe in some way? Yes! They must! How else can you explain it?

I realize that a lot of this is far-fetched and relying on this tiny piece of evidence really shouldn't prove anything. But this is my personal belief. You may not believe that I imagined Superman with heat vision before I knew that was one of his powers, but I certainly do. And what separates this from modern day mainstream religions? Aren't those all based on superpowers? How is Jesus being able to walk on water somehow more believable, more noble, than Aquaman being able to control water? This is not a criticism of religion but rather an embrace of the supernatural abilities that constitute it. Religion is based upon a leap of faith. This leap of faith happens when you can't prove something is true but have such a strong belief in it that you act like it is true. My belief in superpowers, my belief in the idea that humans are innately exposed to superpowers, like I was to heat vision, is my leap of faith.

This has turned out to be a little anti-climactic. All of the words and evidence before this sum up to form nothing more than a personal belief. In order to redeem this, I'll put forth some final food for thought. The writing before this might be significant because it established that supernatural things are nothing more than exaggerations of real life things. Ghosts and zombies are exaggerations of death, monsters are exaggerations of animals, and Spider-Man is an exaggeration of an agile human. Likewise, Superman can be considered an exaggeration of a man. In fact, isn't that what his name suggests? A super man, nothing more. All of his abilities can be done by humans, just not as well. Except for one, that being heat vision. Unless of course I somehow am not aware of the human ability to mildly warm things up by staring at them. Some can also argue that flying is not a humanistic trait, but let's not forget that Superman originally could not fly but instead jump really high. Does the phrase "Leap over a building in a single bound" ring any bells? This of course is an exaggeration of the basic human ability of jumping. This exaggeration itself was exaggerated even further to give Superman the ability to fly. But heat vision still doesn't make sense? Where did it come from? How did it originate? Why did Superman's creators give him the ability in the first place? It may seem silly, but I think those are some truly important questions.

I think I've accomplished my goal with this entry and while the thought involved in it may not be very impressing, I'm quite proud that I was able to back up my belief this successfully. But lastly there is still one problem left. I don't believe in just superpowers, I believe in omnipotence, which in turn includes omniscience. However, that would take a long time to explain in an article that is by far my longest to date already. So I'll just say type down the gist of it in the hope that I may expand upon it later. Basically it stems from the idea that if superpowers are real, then theoretically there should be no limit on them. Why stop at just heat vision and super strength? What's to stop someone from eventually acquiring every superpower? Maybe he/she has a superpower that gives them the ability to steal other people's superpowers? Limits are endless in real life, shouldn't they be even more so when superpowers are involved.

And then there's the fact that I keep separating real life and a life where superpowers exist. Why should I if I believe that superpowers exist in real life? Well unfortunately it's quite obvious that they don't, or at least they can't be seen. Maybe this is all part of the omnipotent being's plan. Maybe he/she removed all superpowers from the universe for the time being and is observing us right now without them. Why, you may ask, has this omnipotent being done this? Well do they really need to answer that question? They're omnipotent! Their actions do not need an explanation, they simply just are. Most people would call this being God, but I don't think it is God. I think this omnipotent being is someone completely independent of God. I believe that this omnipotent being does exist and that God could exist but they are not the same person.

And finally there's the question of why I would want to believe in this ridiculous theory. Well, again, there's enough reason in there to fill another article with. But this one stems from my other belief that the most important thing to humans is power. I believe in an omnipotent being independent from God because I want to be that omnipotent being. Don't you?

 

*As I typed these sentences about mythical beasts, I immediately thought of the unicorn because it destroyed everything I had just said. If mythical beasts were supposed to cause fear (and therefore not have any basis in reality) what is the explanation for the unicorn, a mythical beast that is a symbol of hope and beauty. Well I checked Wikipedia, the source of all human knowledge, and the first paragraph contained a quote that said "The unicorn is the only fabulous beast that does not seem to have been conceived out of human fears." This strongly re-affirmed my beliefs and was an inspiration to finish this article. I guess the unicorn is one of those unique exceptions in my theory.