"FOR LOVE OF THE GAME "

In one of those moments of quiet reflection that sometimes visits us, I recently found myself wondering why, for the past five years, I have devoted so much of my life and resources in the pursuit of a subject that when mentioned in polite conversation, makes eyes glaze over and lends itself so well to baffled looks and stifled yawns?

I speak about a great passion in my life - the search for the origins of chess.

My family and my friends have gotten used to hearing me wax enthusiastically about the latest archaeological discoveries, be it an ancient spoke-wheeled chariot unearthed from the peat of a northern English moor or the location of the tomb of the first emperor of a unified China, and how those discoveries might possibly be of significance to furthering our understanding of the origins of chess. Perhaps they are simply relieved that I have directed my zeal to(wards) endeavors that do not routinely require the need to wear exotic costumes, employ marital arts and slaughter three or more bad guys with one fell swoop of my trusty sword. So, they let me ramble on...

A few months ago, I spent a lunch hour on two consecutive days explaining the legend recounted in the Shah-nameh about the introduction of chess from India into Persia, and the invention of the game of nard, an ancestor of backgammon. I like to think my audience, a co-worker with whom I go speed-walking for exercise, was as enthralled in the listening as I was in the telling of the story. I played it out like an old fashioned Flash Gordon serial, but in appropriately modern language. I told her of the Persian king's challenge to his wise guys, er, wise men, to discover the secrets of how to play the game of chess that had been presented to the royal court by the Indian envoy, "Yo, dudes. Figger it out, or I'm gonna off ya, see? One by one, see?"

As you see, I am a hopeless case. Today I am more enthralled and ensnared by the coils of supposition, research and discovery than when I first embarked upon this voyage in December, 1998. Since then, I have exchanged miles of correspondence with people from around the globe, travelled out of the country to pursue research opportunities, and spent a small fortune and countless hours to procure obscure books written for an obscure audience by equally obscure, long dead or ancient but very well-preserved scholars. I spend my spare time reading thousands of words each month in scientific, historical and archaeological journals, pouring over yellowing and dusty books in public libraries, and searching through untold web pages on the Internet.

Some pursue wealth; others pursue power. But our small band of researchers is in pursuit of the most dangerous thing of all - a thing that has, throughout the ages, with careless abandon and utter disregard, devoured and destroyed better men and women than ourselves. We are in pursuit of an idea! Yes! Don McLean has it exactly right. It is the "idea of chess" that we pursue so relentlessly. But what is the "idea of chess"?

Most chess historians would have us believe that the "idea" of chess started life rooted in warfare and that the game's reason d'etre has not changed since 500 CE or so. While a few historians have, from time to time, attempted to counter this hypothesis by venturing into more esoteric areas of inquiry, searching for a deeper significance and meaning to the roots of the game and the moves of its pieces, these attempts have not changed the general consensus that H.J.R. Murray had it right. Thus, the idea that "Chess is War" has taken on the same gloss of certitude, fact, or law, as the theory of evolution. That most of Darwin's basic tenets have since been quietly discarded if not disowned outright by the scientific community, in favor of more current hypotheses seems to have generally escaped the notice of chess historians.

And so, many games scholars around the world are busy trying to get to the root of the invention of chess, the war game. But have they ever stopped even a moment to question the fundamental assumptions that underlie their research? What if they - and we, the chessplaying public - have been lulled into believing that "Chess is War" based on the psychological proclivities of a late 19th century British school teacher writing under the all-pervasive aura and influence of the idea of Inevitable Empire? A writer, moreover, who was just one in a long procession of writers "towing the line" by extolling the now discarded virtues of Higher Criticism and Social Darwinism?

This assertion, "Chess is War", short-circuits and automatically demeans and disdains any view of chess other than its own. It allows no counter-argument; it brooks no dissension and no discussion. In so doing, however, the supporters of "Chess is War" must ignore the history of other preceding board games which, as archaeological evidence demonstrates, were invented or instigated as a way to practice divination and provide a method, as it were, to "grow closer to one's God". War has precious little to do with the object of games such as Mehen, Twenty Squares, Senet, Fifty-eight Holes and Luibo.

Students of social history know that, in general, what has gone before often provides the basis for what will come after. While it is possible that, in a moment of epiphany, the game of chess emerged, full-blown in a form recognizable to us as such, it is more prudent although far less exciting to assume, rather, that the idea of chess evolved out of one or more prior games played by people for thousands of years. And so, in attempting to reconstruct the idea of chess, it seems a wise course to closely examine whatever we can of the games that preceded it.

Several authors have examined the question of whether ancient games were derived from practices and methods utilized to divine the will of the gods and/or discern the future (Pascal Romaine; C.J. Gadd, Joseph Needham); or to express religious belief (Pavel Bidev; Peter Piccione). Why then, does it seem that board game scholars are so willing to dismiss the possibilities that open to the mind when wondering if the idea of chess might not be rooted in the religious and cultural traditions and beliefs of one or more ancient societies other than that advanced by Murray? On an objective basis, it is not likely that we can compete on a sheer "knowledge of facts" basis with people who have spent the better part of their lives delving into the study of board games.

We are johnnies-come-lately to the subject. On the other hand, it is precisely because we are "innocent" that we haven't any preconceived notions to deal with while examining history and culture and exploring the questions surrounding the idea of chess. Perhaps some believe we have nothing worthwhile or sensible to contribute to the discussion. The questions we ask, the subjects we examine and discuss among ourselves, and the methods (or lack thereof) we employ in our research may, therefore, strike many with chill horror, or fill some with dismissive contempt.

Sometimes things are not all that they seem to be - or what we have been told they are. Just a few weeks after I helped create the first edition of the "http://www.goddesschesxs.com/" Goddesschess website, a news story appeared in the June 28, 1999 edition of Newsweek magazine, "From Both Sides Now," by Sharon Begley with Thomas Hayden (p. 64). It contained an account of how a fresh out of school female scientist brought a new perspective to an area of research thought to be long-settled: Out on the plains of the western United States, biologists were studying herds of mustangs, in which the reigning stallion was believed to have the sole right to procreate. Then a researcher got the bright idea of running DNA tests on the horses. As paternity tests often do, these proved embarrassing: fewer than one third of the herd's foals had been sired by the resident stallion. Instead, mares had snuck over to other herds, mating with males there. Blinded by the "harem" metaphor of mustang social structure, researchers had not even looked for such female behavior.

In May, 2000, Peter Banaschak (1), in urging a new approach in research for chess historians, stated