Single Comment

It was written out 7.April.2008, ''...when it comes to war (this is what Chess is an abstracted model of), that no battle fought is ever the same? It is 'Heraclitian' in that the conditions to start the battle are never the same, and they change in the battle, independent of what the troops do. Yet great generals are able to be evaluated.'' Chess as War is just one metaphor, an unexamined comforting one. When Chess has been occasionally important culturally, it stands for far more than war. H.J.R. Murray 'History of Chess'(1913) covers the 'Chess Moralities' over two centuries, the ''best-selling'' (in sense of having the most hand-written copies made) works before invention of printing, only except for the Bible. Does diminished scope credited today arise because Napoleon played Chess, or false attribution to Alexander III as its inventor? One great website 'GoddessChess' rejects the idea as main historical rationale for Chess, to promote war. Some historical references at that site I have used for Falcon poetry introduction. At least two Chess Variant Page contributors, Andreas Bunkahle and John Ayer, also write for Goddess Chess. One of many dissident views there is that Chess is game of the Goddess: relevant symbolism the Queen as the most powerful. When Catholic Church for some years banned Chess, it was not because of objection to promoting War but more so because of promoting older, natural belief centered in Goddess -- in contradistinction to approved worship-objects of newer partriarchal religionists -- typical radical opinion in discussions at GoddessChess. [Slight rewording 9.4.08 same day]