One World

37) The Price of Conflict

Posted 9th September 2016

I enjoy playing chess. I'm not brilliant at it, and I'm not interested in joining a serious chess club to hone my skills, but I'm OK at it, and play it for fun. One of the things I've learned, which helps in choosing which pieces to exchange with my opponent when playing, is the relative value, or power, of the pawns and pieces. These are as follows:-

Pawn - 1 point

Knight - 3 points

Bishop - 3 points

Rook - 5 points

Queen - 9 points

King - Priceless (i.e. game over if it gets trapped)

To begin with, each player has 8 pawns, 2 each of knights, bishops and rooks, one queen and one king.

Therefore, each player begins the game with 8 + 2 x (3 + 3 + 5) + 9 + king = 39 points + a king.

That is, there is a total of 78 points + 2 kings on the board to begin with.

Now, if I am playing an opponent who is bent on defeating me, as is the nature of the game, I will use my pawns and pieces (and my wits) to defend my king against his pawns and pieces. As the game progresses I will attempt to deny him as much of the board as I can by having my pieces control central spaces on the board, whilst at the same time I will try to maximise the freedom of my own pieces to move around the board (this is called 'active prophylaxis'). In any impending exchange of pieces, I will calculate the total points I will lose versus what he will lose, and only engage if I either lose less points than him or improve my positioning on the board to the extent that it is justified by a points sacrifice.

As the game nears its end, if my opponent and I are evenly matched, it is typical that we have avoided 'check mate' (where the king, under attack, has no spaces to escape to, cannot block the attack, nor capture the attacking piece or pawn) and we are each left with one pawn and perhaps a single knight or bishop, and, of course, our kings.

Then, there is a 50% chance (indeed, as it has been from the outset of the game if we are evenly matched) that I will win the game. One of us makes a silly, or lucky, or clever move and, say, a pawn is lost. Victory is almost inevitable for the player still holding a pawn as he need only use his king to escort his pawn to the far side, thus promoting it to, say, a queen. If the losing player doesn't then resign, the winning player quickly forces the opposing king into an edge or corner with the queen, captures his knight/bishop and uses his own bishop/knight to give checkmate.

At the end of the game, one king lays on its side, defeated, and one king stands victorious, alongside a single knight or bishop and a queen also belonging to the victor. That is, out of those initial 78 points + 2 kings, there only remains 12 points and one king on the board. That is, 1 king + 85% of the points that the game began with lay destroyed on the battlefield.

Now, let's say I play a game of chess where I play both sides (i.e. both black and white pieces). When I play white, I do my best to defend against, and weaken and destroy, black. Similarly for when I play black. The chances of white, say, winning are 50% as black is also played by me (and so black also has a 50% chance of victory). However, there is a very good chance of there being a loss of 85% (+1 king) of the total starting resources, the total point value of the pieces and pawns, by the end of the game. So why play? Unlike two separate opponents, I have a 100% chance of victory, and of defeat, as I play both sides, but I will probably lose most of the resources (i.e. ~85% loss + a king) in the process. Therefore, if the resources were truly valuable, it would be foolish of me to play solo chess. The situation is far more dire for 2 individual chess players - they face the equal likelihood of either losing most of the starting resources (if they 'win') OR losing absolutely everything if they lose. Therefore, If the pieces and pawns were of real value to the players, it would be foolish to play regardless of the outcome as even the 'winner' is far worse off than when he began. It would be far wiser not to play, and to expend one's efforts to cooperate with the hitherto 'opponent' - thus keeping ALL resources on the board, maintaining the environment, and adding to the shared wealth through shared efforts.

Of course, the chess board I'm really talking about is our precious planet Earth, the players are the rulers of the nations, and the resources are human and animal life, the fruits of human endeavour, and the fruits of the natural world.

__________

The comedian Billy Connolly spoke about advice he'd once received from a man in a pub on how to win in a fight: -

"You give him a one," said the hard looking man, mimicking punching, "then you give him a three!"

"Eh, what about a two?" asked Billy.

"You get that!" said the man

Immediately after the Battle of Waterloo, the Duke of Wellington surveyed the battlefield. Seeing the dead and dying soldiers from both sides of the conflict, he wept, saying, "I hope to God I have fought my last battle".

"When two tribes go to war, one is all that two can score"