Power as a Chess Game
PAGE IN PROGRESS
What you see here is a page of my hypertext book POWER of meanings // MEANINGS of power. Initially empty, this page will slowly be filled with thoughts, notes, and quotes. One day, I will use them to write a coherent entry, similar to these completed pages. Thank you for your interest and patience!
What you see here is a page of my hypertext book POWER of meanings // MEANINGS of power. Initially empty, this page will slowly be filled with thoughts, notes, and quotes. One day, I will use them to write a coherent entry, similar to these completed pages. Thank you for your interest and patience!
Chess was probably invented as an amusing imitation of real-world power games.
It has some ironic observations about power that can be insightful.
For example, the observation that women can sometimes have more power than men is embedded in the chess queen ability to move much more than the king, although it is the fate of the king that ultimately decides the outcome of the game.
Also, the idea that abilities of king and pawn are not much different. They can only move one square each time, although the king's move are somewhat more diverse (e.g., he can go backwards as well as forwards). This is an example that I sometimes use to describe paradoxes of power. Both kings and their subjects have to deal with a substantial amount of powerlessness, although their powerlessness looks very different (e.g., a king can order to execute his subject, although not always; a subject can conspire against the king and revolt, which can affect king's decisions and even fate, although not always).
It has some ironic observations about power that can be insightful.
For example, the observation that women can sometimes have more power than men is embedded in the chess queen ability to move much more than the king, although it is the fate of the king that ultimately decides the outcome of the game.
Also, the idea that abilities of king and pawn are not much different. They can only move one square each time, although the king's move are somewhat more diverse (e.g., he can go backwards as well as forwards). This is an example that I sometimes use to describe paradoxes of power. Both kings and their subjects have to deal with a substantial amount of powerlessness, although their powerlessness looks very different (e.g., a king can order to execute his subject, although not always; a subject can conspire against the king and revolt, which can affect king's decisions and even fate, although not always).
Image credit: Marina Kapilova
...
...