In today’s politically correct (PC) world, everything is under review for potential offense. While I find these witch hunts of the offensive offensive, I would like to offer a brief argument as to why the game of chess may come under scrutiny from the “PC police” and be banned.
First, let me clarify that I am an avid chess player and have been for 50 years. It certainly helps develop strategy and mental ability. But on reflection, and with a bit of irony, I must admit that the game does carry some disturbing subliminal messages, which the PC police must carefully consider.
The most obvious problem is that chess is inherently racist. Black versus white is not something we should encourage in a racially tense culture. And of course white comes first, which is something that I think is disturbing to people of color. It’s like sitting in the back of the bus. It is another form of white supremacy.
On the other hand, white first suggests that whites are more aggressive than blacks. The board is set up with everyone’s pieces in line, with total peace on the playing field. And then the whites attack. Every time. The message is that being white makes you the aggressor.
And aggression is an important part of chess. I once tried to play chess on a computer and tried not to be aggressive. It was impossible. Aggression is built into the game. It is a game of war and conflict. Train the player to find ways to defeat the opponent, not ways to make amends.
As with all wars, there will be casualties, usually pawns. Pawns are also the weakest pieces. You would think that a kingdom should protect its most vulnerable and weakest citizens, not send them off to war to be sacrificed as, well, as pawns.
And everything is to protect the king. You can keep all your pieces, but if the king is taken, all is lost. Everyone, including the queen, is sacrificed if necessary to save the king. Of course, this unconditional submission to a monarch is highly undemocratic and even fascist.
It is also misogynistic to assume that the queen must die for the king. Shouldn’t the king protect his queen? What happened to the cavalry?
Of course, the queen is more powerful than the king, as she can move any number of spaces in any direction. The king is only limited to one space at a time. It clearly has no superiority of form or function. There is no good reason why the queen should be sacrificed by the lesser king. This is pure paternalistic trap and perpetuates gender discrimination. I guess the queen must also wear a bra and high heels as she walks the board saving her useless husband.
And speaking of gender, what sex are the pawns? When they reach the other side of the board, they can be exchanged for any piece, including a rook, bishop, knight, or queen. But usually they become queen. Does this mean that they are female pawns? Do they undergo gender reassignment when they reach the other end of the board? Pawns seem to be gender neutral, or at least gender confused, until they decide what they want to become. Do we want children who play chess to wonder about their gender as they move along their life board? Should we tell the boys that queens are better than kings? This kind of gender-confusing message could make pubescent boys angry.
As for male models, kings are really pathetic. All they know how to do is fight. They are incapable of stopping the war in which they are perpetually engaged. Two kings can’t even get close to each other. Negotiated agreements are not allowed. Each king focuses solely on himself, a royal narcissist who runs to his castle to hide behind some pawns at the first sight of a threat. He is ruthless, willing to send everyone to their deaths if necessary. He’s a brutal selfish man. Is this really the kind of leader we want children to emulate when they grow up?
Chess also promotes Christianity over other religions. Note that there are only bishops on a chessboard. What’s up with that? What about using ayatollahs or rabbis instead? Perhaps one side should have rabbis and the other ayatollahs. But what about Protestant ministers versus Catholic bishops? Of course, all of this is objectionable to agnostics and atheists, who may prefer advisers to bishops. Maybe they should be astrologers versus scientists? Clearly more diversity is needed here, and the Christian monopoly on the bishop’s piece is offensive and hateful to non-Christians. It probably also promotes Islamophobia.
And what about the impact of chess on stupid people? Winning at chess is considered by many to be a sign of intelligence, and losing at chess suggests that your opponent is smarter than you. This win-lose game reinforces the insecurities of stupid children, who deviate from chess because they lose all the time and decide to play video games. Many of these video games are violent and teach these silly kids to be violent.
Chess is, therefore, a “door game” to violence. This means that stupid children who play chess may one day be considered potential criminals. Stupid chess players are therefore a threat to national security, while classifying them as possible criminals is a threat to our freedom. It is a kind of stagnation.
Today’s world is different from the world of the past that this chess game spawned. Now we respect all religions equally. We do not believe that the world should be ruled by selfish, bloodthirsty kings, and we believe that queens should be able to rule without a king. We insist that the pawns have more voice in what happens, since “The pawn lives matters”. We don’t want to refer to losers as losers, as that can hurt their feelings and reinforce their sense of being a loser. And if a king decides to become queen, that’s fine too.
Clearly, chess is no longer enough in our new PC world.
