Chess Veterans

Given chess's origins as an analogue of war, does it have particular appeal to members of the armed forces - either currently serving, former servicemen and women - or veterans?

Does chess even have a martial aspect - especially to anyone unaware of the game's background?

I see there are a number of groups that have been created for ex-military to get together (e.g.  veterans-of-the-armed-forces). Is there a common experience among military types that transcends nationality and culture?

I would have thought that the basic principles still apply, control of the centre, combined attacks, lateral offensive, but warfare must have changed dramatically. The castle was originally an armoured elephant, there is no equivalent of aircraft, long range missiles etc; so whilst the principles of warfare still apply, certain aspects don't. I would have thought that modern warfare would not always follow the principles of chess, can a guerilla campaign using roadside bombs be represented? It is also difficult to envisage conventional warfare, unless it's between smaller nations. No countries could enter into a conventional war with the likes of China and the USA- not with any hope of winning at any rate.

I served in the US military and while stationed in Germany spent much of my free time playing chess offpost in the chess clubs of Schweinfurt Germany and hanging out with German chess players. In fact I spent so much time doing this that it was a running joke in my barracks that I was a German spy !  LOL

It was actually a very, very long time (most of my life) before I started to see the War analogy in chess.  But now, I always think of Bishops as missiles (or the arrows of archers) and Rooks as cannons. The Knight is a cavalryman riding into a localized battle scene and turning on his horse, looking to smite targets of opportunity on all sides. The pawns, of course, are common foot soldiers. When they are marching side by side, their shields overlap, each shield defending the soldier on each side. And when pawns are in a chain I think of it as being the way in which soldiers work together, supporting each other in a skirmish. If you remove one, it is replaced by another. And sometimes individual soldiers get cut off from their fellows and continue to fight on their own, sometimes achieving great things and being promoted up through the ranks as a reward for their heroism. And that pawns can't move backwards, symbolizing that soldiers should never retreat or surrender. The Queen, I guess, would be a General, although it is actually the chess player him/herself who plans strategies and makes decisions. Maybe I'd best not mention the Queen's attributes lest I arouse the wrath of the females on this site. (but it would have something to do with control and ruthlessness and hell hath no fury like). The Queen always gets special treatment and attention and is the center of power. The King, on the other hand, is the most important piece, but mostly sits on his throne, letting everyone else do the work of fighting and defending.

Chess is taught as a subject in the military academy of West Point because it trains a person to plan ahead and develop strategies that work different forces together in a coordinated effort.

Having said all this, I recall that I was drafted (against my will) into the military in the late sixties and that I never liked it. I've always been a Make Love - Not War kind of guy.

I think the queen was changed later, in the original version, the queen was a general, chess  is believed started in India, changed by the Persians, then more by the French much later- not sure which group changed the piece to a queen.

Chess teaches the necessity of following orders.

... and we'll see whether the term 'Military Intelligence' is justified.

... und vas zat ze case?

Funny that you should mention this. I used chess to help deal with PTSD and have helped found an organization that helps Veterans using Chess. You can read my blog about it and listen to the radio interview too.

http://blog.chess.com/Keyif/chess-for-veterans-interview

Keyif

aka crazy Veteran ;)

'Ever heard Thomas Friedman's "McDonalds theory of world peace"? He observes that with only one exception, no two countries with a McDonalds have ever gone to war with each other.

Can you imagine, say, the US going to war with Australia? Think of all the emails the senators and congressmen would get: "Hey, stop trying to kill my customers! And by the way, here's a list of 115 blogs from people who are trapped in the Siege of Sydney right now!" '  - Perry Marshall

I have never hear of the Mconalds theory, but that is funny, I guess it could also be applied to the Kentucky fried chicken, or Burger king.

Great post ART, some very good responses here, I agree chess is indeed open to be interped as War Strategy, but at the same time many great players have no military experience in the real world, but in the quest for domination in the game of chess, they may find themselves quite the strategist.    If I may go off your main line a bit,  I would like to take this opportunity to mention a new group formed recently by emanresuym, (Rod), I believed you refered to it it your open, "Veterans of the Armed Forces", of which I am also Admin, We are looking for new members to join us.    Please contact myself or go to our homepage and apply.

Anyone whom has served or are now serving your country, please join us at VAF, Thanx, Glenn

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

Chess like all games and sports has a military aspect. War being the ultimate competition, all competition mirrors this fact.

While I was in the military I didn’t find that the culture there harbored an overabundance of chess players. Competitive games/sports did have a great participation usually team sports.

As to your question about military forming groups. There is a common uniting theme that transcends national borders of the armed forces. That would be that they have a common goal, and in many cases the same training and tools to do that job. This instills a camaraderie and understanding of each other.

Currently serving in the military, and given that I'm in an Asian country, there's a great abundance of Chinese chess players but not many international chess players. *sigh* A great pity.

In any case I think chess has little relation to war, or even a simple battle. In chess you have perfect information (impossible in a real war), all your troops follow your commands (trust me, this is far from easy to achieve), and everything is confined to a simple, direct confrontation across a small, neat board (in real life you'd have a lot of political and economic considerations as well). It's too simplified to be anything like war, but it makes a great intellectual exercise. If you want war simulators, then RTS games are probably closer to the mark given that usually your opponent's moves are hidden (or you could play Kriegspiel) and the battlefields are usually more sprawling and unpredictable, although I've yet to find a game where your units defy your orders and flip the finger at you.

For the Starcraft fans, I think Mengsk summed it up pretty well. "The chessboard is limited to an eight-by-eight grid. There is nothing beyond this little universe. No ninth rank. No green pieces that suddenly sweep onto the board to attack both black and white. No pawns that suddenly become bishops."

(and before someone comes in with a comment about promotion...)

"A pawn can become a queen," Mike noted. "But only by advancing through all the spaces of its row, under fire the entire time. It doesn't suddenly blossom into a queen by its own volition. No, chess is nothing like war, which is one of the reasons I play it. It's so much simpler than real life."

In real life I think Chess resembles Boxing more than any other competition. It's just you and him and there's no excuses.

Why not ping-pong - or fencing - or any one of a hundred-and-one one-on-one sports? Perhaps blitz is more similar to ping pong - but turn-based to Greek wrestling (which used to be an Olympic sport).

Chess-960 is perhaps marginally closer to a real-life battle than standard chess. At least the armies don't always start from a fixed initial configuration.

Why not ping-pong - or fencing - or any one of a hundred-and-one one-on-one sports?

Good question - I don't know why but I still think of Boxing.

Is it because the jab is like a bishop attack, an uppercut like having one's rook taken and a knockout punch the checkmate?

As a former NCO in the US Army I say no.  I had both my interests in chess and martial arts reactivated when I was in the Army--obviously, both interests peceeded my Army career.  I would say the martial arts/military connection is stronger than than a chess/military or chess/war analogy.  As far as my interest in chess and the martial arts is concerned, I love strategy.