The History of a Game

Richard Eales' "Chess: A History of a Game" was published in 1985. I first read it around 2YK and it immediately resonated with me since I was gaining a growing interest in the development of chess as a social construct and how it's popularity ebbed and waned in various times and cultures.  At the time I read it (borrowed from the U.S. Intralibrary Loan System) I felt a dire need to retain certain pages for reference. At the time copiers charged $.25 per page, which was out of my range, and full page scanners either didn't exist or were too expensive. I had a hand scanner (also not particularly cheap at the time but at least manageable).  This required tying to roll the apparatus slowly, at a constant speed and in a straight line over a page. it would scan about 4" of width, so one would first scan the right side of the page, then the left side. Software came with the scanner that would allow you to stich the two sides together visually, into a semblance of a single page and save as a file.  In reality, every scan had so many variables, the result was usually a horrible, though readable, mess.  I scanned Eales entire chapters 4 and 5 in that tedious manner, and still read the book and returned it in the two week deadline.  The purpose behind this sad story is to illustrate how important I found this book at the time (we can call it the early internet Non-Information Highway when nothing was at one's fingertips).  Today this information is readily available from various sites but I have to wonder if the ease of accessibility also breeds haste and superficiality.  What does seem to be lost is the objective narrative, such as Eales provides, that binds various elements together into an understandable entity.  Dr. Richard Geoffrey Eales, a Fide master and a historian (he taught and headed the history dept. at the University of Kent), was able to achieve a delicate balance between academic preciseness and general readability.  Since the book relies mostly on text (there are only 16 images, though important ones), it's that readability that draws in the audience.  

image from the British Chess News

The first two chapters of this 240 page book give the requisite background of pre-chess, proto-chess and old chess (medieval).  I felt that the book's strength could be felt in the intermediate chapters (3-5) on the emerging "new" chess and it's development into the tournament age - and its transformation from a social game for the elite into an intellectual game for the masses.

One (major) issue I have is Eales' treatment of the Turk automaton. He devoted a long paragraph to von Kempelen's automaton in mainland Europe where it was a curiosity that attracted the upper class- Philidor, Catherine the Great, Frederick the Great, Bonaparte, Ben Franklin (though he only mentions Philidor) but then gives short shrift to Johann Maelzel's revitalized Turk which he displayed in London, which he fled due to his mounting debts, then in Paris, where he found William Schlumberger (his director in the US) and another lawsuit, then in his final refuge, America.   Maelzel brought his elaborate show, which included the Turk as its main draw, up and down the Eastern seaboard in major cities such as Boston, New York, Philadelphia,  Baltimore, Richmond and even Pittsburgh, advertising in and covered by all the area newspapers. Finally he went to Cuba where he supposedly suffered and died from alcohol poisoning on his return voyage. Maelzel's Turk was displayed in America for 12 years (1826-1838) and up to that time nothing even remotely compared to the Turk in the promulgation of chess in this country.  

Let me climb down from my soapbox...

I find that even the Appendices and Bibliography (which he separates by chapter) are extremely valuable assets to this book. 

Here is the first paragraph to the preface. Hopefully this will show his engaging style of writing:

A history of chess is firstly a history of chess players, and as such I hope it will interest modern players who realize that in taking up the game they are entering on a rich inheritance built up by their predecessors. But it is also an account of the changing background against which chess has evolved, the forces which have caused it to be sometimes respected and encouraged, sometimes disapproved of, or even made illegal. The long development of chess has led through many different cultures and societies. It has been variously described as a game, a sport, a science or an art. At different times its social appeal has been seen as primarily noble, intellectual, or even proletarian. In literature it has served as a metaphor for conflict through its two opposed forces, and a metaphor for order through its ranking of distinctive pieces. For these reasons I hope the book will also interest those who do not play chess well (or at all), because it deals with many important historical issues, though from an unfamiliar point of view.

Here is the table of contents, displaying the rational division of chapters.

Other History of Chess book evaluations:
History and Old Lace
"Chess: A History" —a Short Critique

Ctrl C + V

Pardonnez-moi?

Thanks again, Sarah. This edition is one of my favourites among chess books of general interest. He asks some questions that few others have: Alexander Fyodorovich Ilyin-Genevsky promoted chess in post-revolutionary Russia, and then in The Soviet Union, as military training for soldiers.  Richard Geoffrey Eales states on page 170: “The idea that chess was of value in military training had been vigorously debunked at least as early as the eighteenth century.” 

Thanks.... 

"Alexander Ilyin Zhenevsky...used his position as chief commissar in the headquarters of the General Reservists' Organization to have chess included in training programs for conscripts:

'The chief value of sport it was claimed, is that it develops in a man mental qualities which are of supreme importance in a soldier. Here a parallel with chess involuntarily suggested itself. After all, chess too - and in some ways even more than sport - develops in a man boldness, presence of mind, composure, a strong will and most important, something which sport cannot a sense of strategy. My proposal was accepted.'"

Do you think that perhaps he didn't mean that chess was a training tool of the military per se, but rather that chess helped develop characteristics in a person that would prove beneficial to someone interested in a military career?  People today want it included in a school curriculum for essentially the same reasons. 

Or, could he have meant that he told them what he thought might be what they needed to hear to include his favorite pastime  in an otherwise oppressive program?

Thank you Sarah! :-)

I love your articels! :-)

Ilyin-Ghenevsky totally disregarded the Znosko-Borovsky treatise about the differences between chess and war. I think Ilyin happily copied the postulates of Ben Franklin's chess book (published in Russian) about the virtues of chess, and was all too glad to bring chess back to life after some brief, local bans of chess because it was almost exclusively bourgeoisie before the Revolution.

That's what I mean, if what you wrote means what I think.

Ilyin-Genevsky, as we commonly write his name here, cared about chess.  His proffered reasons were perhaps just what he thought would do the trick.  

I don't know anything about it.  I'm just suggesting possibilities.

Thanks!

The book looks interesting.....

I like Illyin-Genevsky quite a lot; seems to have been a great guy who genuinely loved chess.

The story of his game with Lasker is immortal!

Re: the book's cover image. It's one of several extant examples of 14th century ivory mirror backs (about 4" in diameter) that were popular back then. The following pairs show the back (the carved images) and the front (where the mirror would be inserted) sides.

Sweet, thank you @batgirl!

Very interesting. I  look forward to reading this book.

How did I miss this article? Totally agree that Eales' book is a must read for the Chess historian or anyone interested in the topic. Thanks Sarah.