Ayn Rand and Chess

An Open Letter to Boris Spassky from Ayn Rand:

Dear Comrade Spassky:

I have been watching with great interest your world chess championship match
with Bobby Fischer. I am not a chess enthusiast or even a player, and know
only the rudiments of the game. I am a novelist-philosopher by profession.

But I watched some of your games, reproduced play by play on television, and
found them to be a fascinating demonstration of the enormous complexity of
thought and planning required of a chess player--a demonstration of how many
considerations he has to bear in mind, how many factors to integrate, how
many contingencies to be prepared for, how far ahead to see and plan. It was
obvious that you and your opponent had to have an unusual intellectual
capacity.

Then I was struck by the realization that the game itself and the players'
exercise of mental virtuosity are made possible by the metaphysical
absolutism of the reality with which they deal. The game is ruled by the Law
of Identity and its corollary, the Law of Causality. Each piece is what it
is: a queen is a queen, a bishop is a bishop--and the actions each can
perform are determined by its nature: a queen can move any distance in any
open line, straight or diagonal, a bishop cannot; a rook can move from one
side of the board to the other, a pawn cannot; etc. Their identities and the
rules of their movements are immutable--and this enables the player's mind
to devise a complex, long-range strategy, so that the game depends on
nothing but the power of his (and his opponent's) ingenuity.

This led me to some questions that I should like to ask you.

1.. Would you be able to play if, at a crucial moment--when, after hours
of brain-wrenching effort, you had succeeded in cornering your opponent--an
unknown, arbitrary power suddenly changed the rules of the game in his
favor, allowing, say, his bishops to move like queens? You would not be able
to continue? Yet out in the living world, this is the law of your
country--and this is the condition in which your countrymen are expected,
not to play, but to live.
2.. Would you be able to play if the rules of chess were updated to
conform to a dialectic reality, in which opposites merge--so that, at a
crucial moment, your queen turned suddenly from White to Black, becoming the
queen of your opponent; and then turned Gray, belonging to both of you? You
would not be able to continue? Yet in the living world, this is the view of
reality your countrymen are taught to accept, to absorb, and to live by.
3.. Would you be able to play if you had to play by teamwork--i.e., if you
were forbidden to think or act alone and had to play not with a group of
advisers, but with a team that determined your every move by vote? Since, as
champion, you would be the best mind among them, how much time and effort
would you have to spend persuading the team that your strategy is the best?
Would you be likely to succeed? And what would you do if some pragmatist,
range-of-the-moment mentalities voted to grab an opponent's knight at the
price of a checkmate to you three moves later? You would not be able to
continue? Yet in the living world, this is the theoretical ideal of your
country, and this is the method by which it proposes to deal (someday) with
scientific research, industrial production, and every other kind of activity
required for man's survival.
4.. Would you be able to play if the cumbersome mechanism of teamwork were
streamlined, and your moves were dictated simply by a man standing behind
you, with a gun pressed to your back--a man who would not explain or argue,
his gun being his only argument and sole qualification? You would not be
able to start, let alone continue, playing? Yet in the living world, this is
the practical policy under which men live--and die--in your country.
5.. Would you be able to play--or to enjoy the professional understanding,
interest, and acclaim of an international Chess Federation--if the rules of
the game were splintered, and you played by "proletarian" rules while your
opponent played by "bourgeois" rules? Would you say that such "polyrulism"
is more preposterous than polylogism? Yet in the living world, your country
professes to seek global harmony and understanding, while proclaiming that
she follows "proletarian" logic and that others follow "bourgeois" logic, or
"Aryan" logic, or "third-world" logic, etc.
6.. Would you be able to play if the rules of the game remained as they
are at present, with one exception: that the pawns were declared to be the
most valuable and non-expendable pieces (since they may symbolize the
masses) which had to be protected at the price of sacrificing the more
efficacious pieces (the individuals)? You might claim a draw on the answer
to this one--since it is not only your country, but the whole living world
that accept this sort of rule in morality.
7.. Would you care to play, if the rules of the game remained unchanged,
but the distribution of rewards were altered in accordance with egalitarian
principles: if the prizes, the honors, the fame were given not to the
winner, but to the loser--if wining were regarded as a symptom of
selfishness, and the winner were penalized for the crime of possessing a
superior intelligence, the penalty consisting in suspension for a year, in
order to give others a chance? Would you and your opponent try playing not
to win, but to lose? What would this do to your mind?
You do not have to answer me, Comrade. You are not free to speak or even to
think of such questions--and I know the answers. No, you would not be able
to play under any of the conditions listed above. It is to escape this
category of phenomena that you fled into the world of chess.

Oh yes, Comrade, chess is an escape--an escape from reality. It is an "out,"
a kind of "make-work" for a man of higher than average intelligence who was
afraid to live, but could not leave his mind unemployed and devoted it to a
placebo--thus surrendering to others the living world he had rejected as too
hard to understand.

Please do not take this to mean that I object to games as such: games are an
important part of man's life, they provide a necessary rest, and chess may
do so for men who live under the constant pressure of purposeful work.
Besides, some games--such as sports contests, for instance--offer us an
opportunity to see certain human skills developed to a level of perfection.
But what would you think of a world champion runner who, in real life, moved
about in a wheelchair? Or of a champion high jumper who crawled about on all
fours? You, the chess professionals, are taken as exponents of the most
precious of human skills: intellectual power--yet that power deserts you
beyond the confines of the sixty-four squares of a chessboard, leaving you
confused, anxious, and helplessly unfocused. Because, you see, the
chessboard is not a training ground, but a substitute for reality.

A gifted, precocious youth often finds himself bewildered by the world: it
is people that he cannot understand, it is their inexplicable,
contradictory, messy behavior that frightens him. The enemy he rightly
senses, but does not choose to fight, is human irrationality. He withdraws,
gives up, and runs, looking for some sanctuary where his mind would be
appreciated--and he falls into the booby trap of chess.

You, the chess professionals, live in a special world--a safe, protected,
orderly world, in which all the great, fundamental principles of existence
are so firmly established and obeyed that you do not even have to be aware
of them. (They are the principles involved in my seven questions.) You do
not know that these principles are the preconditions of your game--and you
do not have to recognize them when you encounter them, or their breach, in
reality. In your world, you do not have to be concerned with them: all you
have to do is think.

The process of thinking is man's basic means of survival. The pleasure of
performing this process successfully--of experiencing the efficacy of one's
own mind--is the most profound pleasure possible to men, and it is their
deepest need, on any level of intelligence, great or small. So one can
understand what attracts you to chess: you believe that you have found a
world in which all irrelevant obstacles have been eliminated, and nothing
matters, but the pure, triumphant exercise of your mind's powers. But have
you, Comrade?

Unlike algebra, chess does not represent the abstraction--the basic
pattern--of mental effort; it represents the opposite: it focuses mental
effort on a set of concretes, and demands such complex calculations that a
mind has no room for anything else. By creating an illusion of action and
struggle, chess reduces the professional player's mind to an uncritical,
unvaluing passivity toward life. Chess removes the motor of intellectual
effort--the question "What for?"--and leaves a somewhat frightening
phenomenon: intellectual effort devoid of purpose.

If--for any number of reasons, psychological or existential--a man comes to
believe that the living world is closed to him, that he has nothing to seek
or to achieve, that no action is possible, then chess becomes his antidote,
the means of drugging his own rebellious mind that refuses fully to believe
it and to stand still. This, Comrade, is the reason why chess has always
been so popular in your country, before and since it's present regime--and
why there have not been many American masters. You see, in this country, men
are still free to act.

Because the rulers of your country have proclaimed this championship match
to be an ideological issue, a contest between Russia and America, I am
rooting for Bobby to win--and so are all of my friends. The reason why this
match has aroused an unprecedented interest in our country is the
longstanding frustration and indignation of the American people at your
country's policy of attacks, provocations, and hooligan insolence--and at
our own government's overtolerant, overcourteous patience. There is a
widespread desire in our country to see Soviet Russia beaten in any way,
shape or form, and--since we are all sick and tired of the global clashes
among the faceless, anonymous masses of collective--the almost medieval
drama of two individual knights fighting the battle of good against evil,
appeals to us symbolically. (But this, of course, is only a symbol; you are
not necessarily the voluntary defender of evil--for all we know, you might
be as much its victim as the rest of the world.)

Bobby Fischer's behavior, however, mars the symbolism--but it is a clear
example of the clash between a chess expert's mind, and reality. This
confident, disciplined, and obviously brilliant player falls to pieces when
he has to deal with the real world. He throws tantrums like a child, breaks
agreements, makes arbitrary demands, and indulges in the kind of whim
worship one touch of which in the playing of chess would disqualify him for
a high-school tournament. Thus he brings to the real world the very evil
that made him escape it: irrationality. A man who is afraid to sign a
letter, who fears any firm commitment, who seeks the guidance of the
arbitrary edicts of a mystic sect in order to learn how to live his life--is
not a great, confident mind, but a tragically helpless victim, torn by acute
anxiety and, perhaps, by a sense of treason to what might have been a great
potential.

But, you may wish to say, the principles of reason are not applicable beyond
the limit of a chessboard, they are merely a human invention, they are
impotent against the chaos outside, they have no chance in the real world.
If this were true, none of us would have survived nor even been born,
because the human species would have perished long ago. If, under irrational
rules, like the ones I listed above, men could not even play a game, how
could they live? It is not reason, but irrationality that is a human
invention--or, rather, a default.

Nature (reality) is just as absolutist as chess, and her rules (laws) are
just as immutable (more so)--but her rules and their applications are much,
much more complex, and have to be discovered by man. And just as a man may
memorize the rules of chess, but has to use his own mind in order to apply
them, i.e., in order to play well--so each man has to use his own mind in
order to apply the rules of nature, i.e., in order to live successfully. A
long time ago, the grandmaster of all grandmasters gave us the basic
principles of the method by which one discovers the rules of nature and
life. His name was Aristotle.

Would you have wanted to escape into chess, if you lived in a society based
on Aristotelian principles? It would be a country where the rules were
objective, firm and clear, where you could use the power of your mind to its
fullest extent, on any scale you wished, where you would gain rewards for
your achievements, and men who chose to be irrational would not have the
power to stop you nor to harm anyone but themselves. Such a social system
could not be devised, you say? But it was devised, and it came close to full
existence--only, the mentalities whose level was playing jacks or craps, the
men with the guns and their witch doctors, did not want mankind to know it.
It was called Capitalism.

But on this issue, Comrade, you may claim a draw: your country does not know
the meaning of that word--and, today, most people in our country do not know
it either.

Sincerely,

Ayn Rand

Thoughts?

Hmmm...

The troll thread "Why are Jews good at chess", posted at almost exactly the same time as this thread, has 34 replies spanning 2 pages. This thread, with several interesting philosophical, political, and historical possibilities of discussion languishes with no replies.

I'm starting to think this might not be the chess forum for me... I'm just not willing to put in the time and effort it will take to become an accomplished troll of distinction.

Thank you for sharing this.

I know I came 5 months later, but where was that published? In American newspapers?

The article first appeared in Ayn Rand's newsletter and was later republished in Rand's book, "Philosophy: Who Needs It."

(According to cassandra2004.blogspot.co.uk)

Ayn Rand's writing is intellectual twaddle and misogynist garbage.  There's some decent stuff about the strength of the individual and the power of imagination and creativity, but then it descends into narcissism and finally (in the Fountainhead) with her ideal man raping a woman, and both of them feeling that he was justified in doing it.  Pro tip for authors:  keep your sexual fantasies for other types of writing .

It doesn't surprise me that she tried to use Spassky to launch her fame further.  Thank goodness he apparently did not respond; maybe he was smarter than she, despite her obvious and desperate need to claim otherwise.

As for her claim about chess, there's some truth to it, but it's a rather fundamental observation, and certainly does not require any great amount of insight.

This is one of the most condescending things I've ever read.  

Two thoughts come to mind. First, Ayn Rand's absolutist views here come off as naive to me. Were we to live in a world in which "men who chose to be irrational would not have the power to stop you nor to harm anyone but themselves," then that would also mean that many capitalists would have to be disallowed to have complete free rein to "use the power of your mind to its fullest extent, on any scale you wished, where you would gain rewards for your achievements." The history books and the newspapers are full of stories about the dark side of unchecked capitalism. 

Second thought: I got into an interesting conversation with a Marxist a while back, in which I said, "Well, communism seems like it has some good points, but can you give me one example of a nation in which it actually worked out well for the people? It didn't look like it worked out very well in, for instance, the Soviet Union." My Marxist friend replied,"But that wasn't true communism as Marx envisioned it. That, rather, was capitalism with state ownership."

I am neither a deep philosophizer nor a trained economist but, over a few beers and pizza at a restaurant in Berlin, my Marxist friend did his best to explain how communism in the Soviet Union (and China and Cuba, etc.) differed from the model put forward by Marx. I've read the Manifesto, but I'm afraid it will be some time before I get around to slogging through Das Kapital. It is currently collecting dust on my shelves, like a few books on chess i could name! So much to read, so little time...

Well, I suppose it is just a coincidence that none of the communist countries have ever applied the model Marx proposed...

As for Ayn Rand, I am afraid she was sometimes too simplistic. Saying that the USA had few good players just because it was not a dictatorship is just ridiculous.

 Fischer Shrugged.

Who is Bobby Fischer?

 Define "who."

Hmmm.  Don't think I will be reading her novels.

What have I started? Was just showing appreciation to the OP.

I think The Fountainhead is her best novel. Atlas Shrugged was, I think, weakened by her trying wrap her new philosophical system, objectivism, up in it.

I will say though, that as an artist, her writing has helped me.

I've only read Atlas Shrugged. I thought it would never end.

And eventually, those that grow up and think Rand was not right eventually mature and realize she was.

I'm an incessant reader and have been for 45 + years. Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead " are two that I've read numerous times and will re-read again. She is not an author who would appeal to those caught up in the phoniness of political correctness or aligned with the liberal philosophy of "feel good-ism ", I.e., emotions over reason. Funny how through the years, most of her critics that I've actually spoken to have actually never read her.

Haven't read The Fountainhead. Read Atlas Shrugged thrice---enjoyed it every time. I also like her collection of essays: Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal.

Reading Ayn Rand is not an acquired taste, but requires an open mind to get through.  Objectivism is simply an extension of Capitalism and the power of the individual: a celebration of the individual and potential stored within to make his/her world a better place by striving to achieve.

I find it terribly ironic that Ayn Rand has not written a book in nearly 75 years and we're still finding people who devoutly ridicule her works as if they read a few bullet points off some liberal web-site and took those notes for granted.

I agree, Atlas Shrugged is not the easiest thing in the world to read---it takes the first four chapters just to get going.  I find, though, the reading becomes easier as the plot develops.   The letter to Spassky above is also not the easiest thing in the world to read; I suppose if one has not had an introduction to her writing style &/or objectivism in general, one may find it hardly palatable.  Mocking without substantive argument is clearly a result of an ill-prepared mind.  Fight for the proletariat much? So many know of Marxism, yet, so few who proclaim its virtues have ever bothered to read Ayn Rand with an equally open mind.

Most liberal antagonists of Ayn Rand are ignorant of the fact that she was an atheist.   Yet she lived her life without contradiction as one would have expected from one capable of writing Atlas Shrugged.  In my university days, Noam Chomsky was all the rage.  If he came, the university nearly had a week off to revel in his presence.   Yet, in trying to understand Noam, I read a few of his books and found his ideals to be baseless.  Indeed when I went with hundreds of other curious students to a lecture of his, his 'wisdom' wandered all over the place: from existentialism to poverty to linguistics to politics.   All without a succinct logical base.  Chomsky would root his arguments in 'ethics' and 'emotion'.  For all his prowess as a linguist, he was also afforded expertise in many subjects most of us would not be granted without sufficient study or academic pursuit.  Ayn Rand never had to in her writings.  Ayn Rand found how to detach human emotion from the argument and focused on the only logical conclusion one could reach about humankind: "individualism" is the driving force behind the progression of humanity through the ages.

How many scientific discoveries, inventions, and improvements in the human condition have come from the USSR, PRC (China), North Korea, Venezuela, Vietnam, Central America and any other time / place that has practiced communism for an extended length of time? You can probably list them as a footnote of a footnote compared to what happened in the United States during the same time period. As much as Hollywood loves to berate Big Business and Greed, it owes its own success to those very things. Without a pharmaceutical company developing and selling a new drug---for profit---no effort would ever be ventured to achieve such. Without airlines making a profit off of customers looking to efficiently get from pointA to pointB, we would be left with Soviet-style air travel in this country, where aircraft land until someone on board ponies up extra cash to fuel the aircraft further along.

I was doing business in communist China in the late 90s, early 2000s. I have 'communist' italicized since I would hardly refer to it as a Communist nation, though we still label it as such. One could see the effect of capitalism on the previously strict communist system. Month-by-month, new factories, new roads, new buildings went up. I remarked at how many cranes and buildings I saw being erected along ChangAnjie (长安街), the most famous road in Beijing and all of China—the street that passes through Red Square in front of the Forbidden Palace. Several square blocks of construction. Due to government oversight? No. Only because the government allowed government officials to 'run' businesses as if they were CEOs. That is Capitalism 101. And for the past 2 decades now, China's had more capitalistic tendencies than most western nations. Is it any wonder they've risen in prominence?

Sure, they've yet to embark on inventions and creatively deploy new medicines (well, not that they haven't done so in their own country, they have a flurry of new medicines not approved by the U.S.'s FDA), but they are showing that unfettered Capitalism reigns supreme to Communism as the power of the individual is rewarded for his or her individual efforts.

Ayn Rand's depiction of chess, getting back to the topic at-hand, is her simplification of life, yes. Her view of the world cast upon the chess pieces and the reasoning why the Soviets often had numerous masters compared to the West. I'd be curious as to Kasparov's opinion of this letter; his letter to Bernie Sanders and supporters thereof is a phenomenal read. For those that wish it, it is here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/10/garry-kasparov-hey-bernie-don-t-lecture-me-about-socialism-i-lived-through-it.html .

Yes, some of Ayn's works delve in to sex; but it is an exercise to show that her theories apply equally to men & women as sexual partners. In Ayn Rand's world, women are not conditioned to feel belittled that a man has used her for his own pleasure.  That is what feminism professes to be one of the worst of sins—that men should actually take pleasure in sex.  Seriously, how many women think to themselves, I'm only having sex for procreation, I'm not going to enjoy this..!  That sex is not to be enjoyed by either party.  How many of us men are afraid to ride trains, or are conscientiously aware of close physical contact with women on trains, elevators, and other public facilities?  I can tell you of numerous stories of Japanese men who were relieved when most of the country's railways designated a portion of each train as 'female only'.  Open segregation.  Most seemed ready to embrace legalized segregation in public transportation.  For what purpose?  To not only keep creeps with roaming hands away from victims, but also to keep men equally safe from false accusations.  One (false) accusation would often spell the end of one's career and, in-turn, the utter destruction of one's family.  No woman should be subjected to unwanted physical contact.  Of course it should be consensual.   But, equally, nor should men be afraid of incidental contact with women.  Some may find this line of reasoning preposterous--that women should be "OK" with a man enjoying her body and sex for his sole pleasure.  Yet, there is nothing to the counter-argument to say she is also using his body and sex for her own pleasure.   If you accept her premise, you can get through the saucier parts of her books without much incident or shocked faces.

Anyway, Ayn Rand is a fairly disciplined read, but a worthwhile adventure for those willing to take it. Directive 10-289 is worth discovering.

Who gives a flip about Ayn Rand? People come here for chess, not to find their new philosophy on life. Incidentally, I loved The Fountainhead but I think the reason you've not had all that many replies is because this isn't really the place to be expounding the virtues of Ayn Rand and her ideology. It's not people's general ignorance. And the link to Chess is pretty tenuous.