Is chess still posh?

The chess game of old has been many things. Aristocratic, when players like Ruy López de Segura played with kings. Romantic, when Fisher took on the soviet juggernaut from the streets of Brooklyn. Futuristic even, when for the first time a computer beat a world champion.

But one thing remained roughly constant throughout the ages: chess was posh. It was not, as many believed, the leisure of geniuses and eccentrics. It was the private domain of the wealthy and the educated. My father, for example, a well-educated lawyer, played chess (badly) not because he liked it, but because that's what you do when you are a well-educated lawyer. He taught me (badly), not on the off chance that I might like it. But because I was the son of a well-educated lawyer and, as such, should know how to play the game of kings.

In those days, and more importantly in those circles, confessing not knowing how a knight was supposed to move on the board was considered a faux-pas. Being surprised to see a pawn move two squares instead of one would have been a tell: a tacit acknowledgment that although you may have risen to "our" level through hard word or good luck, you were not born into it. You might be rich, but you were not a true "bourgeois." Perhaps your son could be one of us, maybe, if you didn't forget to teach him about chess.

Obviously, I am caricaturing to make a point. But chess was posh, and knowing about it could be a tiny advantage to socialize in high circles... and I am not sure it's the case anymore.

A slow process

Nothing new in the question I am asking (and answering) today. Indeed, the excellent novel by Stefan Zweig, "Schachnovelle," was built around the incongruous idea that a low-born Hungarian peasant somehow became the world chess champion: a reality that seemed to baffle the main character and the narrator.

Zweig did work a lot on the changing of the times. On that theme, I can't recommend his semi-autobiography enough. But to stay on the Schachnovelle, it also figures an American millionaire who finds it completely normal to pay the Hungarian prodigy for a game, to the horror of the narrator and other well-educated Europeans. This excellent work, published in 1941, seems to show the world of before, facing the beginning of tomorrow's reality. And the author chose the game of chess to do so, which doesn't seem to be an accident.

The end of an era

Thus the process of removing poshness from chess began. From writing about the theoretical possibility of a chess world champion without an education, we slowly moved through Bobby Fisher being interviewed on a late-night show (the horror!) to reach online chess and, finally, Pog-chess.

And, I would argue, it's a great thing.

Even though I was born into it, or perhaps because I was born into it, I dislike the poshness, the snobbery, and the arrogance of the so-called well-born. To be precise, what I dislike is not the privilege of any social class in particular. It is a much more general disease: I dislike those who believe that their taste, as opposed to their deed, gives them some kind of value.

Now, chess, especially online chess, has finally dropped the facade. There are still some pockets of resistance here and there, but by and large, chess is now mainstream, democratic, and, much more importantly: pragmatic. You can find videos where an overexcited teenager will teach you the Grob as he would a Minecraft trick. You will find GMs using the color of their heir or their jokes as a selling point. And above all, you will not find a beginner who looks at other players and thinks: "Those people are too high born for me. Perhaps I am not made for chess."

Anyone can enjoy the game just for the game, admire good players, and enjoy small progress.

To answer my question. Chess is not posh anymore. And for society, the great game, and the even greater players of all levels, it's a net gain. 

The best of both world

To end, as always, on a slight contradiction, I would like to note a place where chess is still bourgeois, intellectual, impressive, and posh. And that is, inside the mind of people who do not play chess.

Just like people who never touch a book like to explain how a writer is defined by his genius, and every writer ever defines himself by his hard work, people who know of chess but don't practice it still see it as the king of Spain did in 1580, or perhaps a bit more like my father.

Just the other day, while visiting a Bank for some consulting work, the department chief saw me doing some tactics during a break and asked about it. We talked a bit about chess. He didn't play since high school but still remembers fondly the live game between Karpov and Kasparov he saw with his father. He asked about my level, my approach to the game, and I do not doubt that I scored some "networking points" thanks to my hobby. It must be the famous "boy club" everyone always mentions.

This small anecdote told me that, chess-wise, we are in the best possible state of the world. The old guard still thinks that chess is the game of kings and that practicing it somehow marks you for greatness. In contrast, the new kids see it as a very cool game that you can play online with a bunch of other motivated nerds. We can have fun with each other and still impress the old ones who hold most of the capital and the career opportunities.

I am not sure this will still be true when the generation who grew up with Hikaru's videos holds the key jobs. But hey, that's for the kids to worry about. For now, let's just all enjoy an awesome hobby that can still give you some unfair but valuable networking points from time to time!