Square Controllers: Reframing Pieces

Chess Category: Instruction
Rhetoric Category: Invention, Framing

In my last entry, I shared a vision of Parallel Universe Chess, where the parameters and rules are precisely the same as in our chess, only players speak of “placements” rather than “moves.” The point of the thought experiment was to reframe our approach to our turns at play, allowing us to give our game and our opponents the precious gifts of time and presence. I invited players who need to slow down to “make believe” they are in the Parallel Universe and play accordingly.

For me, it was philosopher and longest-reigning World Chess Champion Emanuel Lasker’s seemingly unremarkable explanation for a “move” that inspired this denaturalizing of “move” talk. As I have shown, it is simply unnecessary to speak of “moves.” It is a widespread convention that is likely going nowhere, but the game could get by more than fine if we shifted to a discourse of “placement.”  (Again, for players who need to “slow down,” this shift is likely a good idea.)

In this entry, I want to explore yet another framing that can do still more to sharpen our board vision. If the pieces are not to be movers in Parallel Universe Chess, then we must determine what they are. In a Discourse of Movement, pieces “travel along pathways” and must “come to a stop” when another of their own army “stands in the way” or when they “run into” a hostile piece that “blocks their progress.” Capturing the piece is a way to “clear the obstruction.”

In a Discourse of Placement, however, the way of talking proper to Parallel Universe Chess, talk of movement is (no pun intended) out of place. So, the relationship between a piece and its possible legal placements relative to one’s own and to one’s opponent’s pieces needs elaboration.

Square Controllers

Rather than movers going along pathways, the pieces in Parallel Universe Chess are square controllers. The patterns of placement are patterns along which the pieces “radiate their influence,” to borrow a striking phrase from Yasser Seirawan’s Brilliancies (“Making History” 22), specifically his commentary on “The Applause,” a beautiful metonym for the much-celebrated Game 6 in the 1972 Fischer-Spassky championship match. Seirawan’s arresting description encourages us to see influence as something that goes outward from the pieces themselves. In this way, Seirawan’s description is another instance to show how powerful other ways of talking about pieces can be.

Consider the images below: this is the board after 32. Qe5!, where Seirawan makes his comment above. Compare the squares controlled by White (in green) and those controlled by Black (red). Without complicating the picture too much, you can count that White controls 37 squares (58% of the board), whereas Black controls 27 (42%). (Yes, some of these squares overlap: there is co-control going on.)

Squares controlled by White and Black respectively at Game 6, 32. Qe5

To be sure, we could explore which pieces are more valuable and which are more likely to venture on to a square controlled by the opponent, but, for the moment, let this simple picture make an impression. Control can be readily quantified. (This, as I read him, is a major takeaway from Seirawan’s chapter discussion of “Space” in his wonderful classic Play Winning Chess).

Parallel Universe Chess pieces “radiate influence” over the squares around them in prescribed ways. Placement patterns, in a real sense, are influence patterns, and what these patterns “influence” are precisely (1) the availability of squares for placement for one’s own pieces and (2) the availability of squares one’s opponent’s pieces.

In our universe, speaking of pieces “controlling” squares is a helpful way of describing what pieces, as movers, are doing. It appears fairly often in chess instruction and commentary, as in this example from a Chess.com analysis of a game. In Parallel Universe Chess, however, this term—along with the sharp consciousness it fosters—is absolutely central.

And this term does all it needs to do given the arbitrary rules of movement in our universe and placement in the Parallel Universe. While chess in our universe gives us pieces imbued, unaccountably, with certain patterns of movement that they simply follow, in Parallel Universe Chess, pieces have certain (unaccountable) patterns of controlling the squares around them. Why does a Bishop in our universe move only along diagonals? It just does. Why does the Xer in Parallel Universe Chess control squares along the diagonal pattern? It just does. That’s what the game’s designers assigned to them.

Under this description of influence and control, we have hereby eliminated all need for talk about “moves,” and all our deliberations and instruction in chess play can proceed entirely in terms of “placement.” Now let’s get a clear grasp on what it means to control squares.

Control & Square States

When chess writers and commentators speak of “controlling” squares, they are drawing attention to the fact that pieces render squares safe or unsafe. Accordingly, the squares of a chessboard have at least these two states. For simplicity, let’s call these states ON (safe) and OFF (unsafe). These states are activated only by pieces—the Square Controllers.

A Technical Definition of “Control”

Philosopher Daniel Dennett, whom I cited in my previous entry, offers the following technical definition of control, worthy of citing at some length:

The root idea of control, which has been elevated into a technically precise concept in cybernetics and automata theory, is (in ordinary terms) that A controls B if any only if the relation between A and B is such that A can drive B into whichever of B’s normal range of states A wants B to be in. (Dennett 57)

Accordingly, the opposite of having control may be stated as follows:

“If B is capable of being in some state s and A wants B to be in s, but has no way of putting B in s, or making B go into s, then A’s desire is frustrated, and to that extent A does not control B.” (Dennett 57)

Finally, Dennett allows for personification, in that we can speak of a thing with “desires” or “something ‘like’ desires”:

This definition makes it clear from the outset that for something to be a controllee it just needs to have a variety of different states that it can be in, but for something to be a controller its states must include desires—or something “like” desires—about the states of something (else). (Dennett 57-58)

This definition can go a long way in informing how we can tweak the already current language from pieces “controlling squares” to turning pieces into Square Controllers and introducing them as such to beginners or to intermediate players who seek to improve their play. Using personification to talk of how pieces “desire” to control certain squares can invite imagination to assessments of the board. (More on personification of pieces as an effective teaching device in a later entry.)

States of Squares

So now we have to get a firm grasp on the states of the squares. We have already said there are at least two square states: ON (safe) and OFF (unsafe). Is that all?

Consider the starting position of the game. All squares on the third rank are all turned ON for White, and correspondingly turned OFF for Black. Vice versa for the sixth rank, where Black turns all squares ON for Black and correspondingly OFF for White. This is simply to say that, if any Black piece were to be placed on any square on the third rank, it would be subject to deletion or striking. (As you may recall, Parallel Universe Chess speaks of deleting or striking pieces, not capturing or taking them.)

For example, if I imagine a game in the starting position and notice that my King’s Pawn “wants” to control squares d5 and f5, then the placement (not “move”!) 1. e4 is called for. In so doing, White has turned those squares OFF to Black. To turn those same squares back ON, Black may play 1. … e5, then 2. Nf3 may be answered by 2. … Nf6. Black may continue play to delete the e4 pawn from the board, thereby returning the squares to the ON position. Needless to say, Black has desires, too.

Seeing the Objective Anew: Another Definition of Checkmate

Because the pieces aren’t movers, but Square Controllers, they are always controlling some square in every moment of the game. The framing of Square Controllers helps us to remember that, even though we are under an absolute obligation to take a turn, we know that our pieces are already doing something for our com-position. So, when we are looking carefully over our com-position, we should ask this: “Which squares are my pieces controlling? Which are they controlling alone? Which are they controlling together? Which squares are my opponents’ pieces controlling?” And so on.

Again, this is more than a subtle change in thinking. It’s thinking that begins first with a crucial recognition: the outcome of a game of chess—or Parallel Universe Chess for those who want to accelerate their board vision a bit—depends, on this view, entirely on which squares relative to the Little Aster (=King) are turned OFF, and whether one of those OFF squares happens to be the square on which the Little Aster is standing.

So, then, a definition of checkmate or disaster:

That state of affairs in which two facts obtain: (1) the Little Aster (King) sits on a square that is currently turned OFF and (2) the Little Aster may not be immediately placed on any ON square.

No doubt, this is an unconventional definition of checkmate (or disaster), but it is another instance to show how the Discourse of Placement is entirely sufficient to the needs of Parallel Universe Chess, and it’s entirely sufficient for any player who wishes to explore the game under another description in this universe!

 While this description is sufficient to talk about the game, there is one objection that may need to be overcome. When I discuss the character of Parallel Universe Chess for its pedagogical implications in an upcoming post, I will deal thoroughly with that objection.

Why This Framing Matters

There is no question that many strong, brilliant, and artistic players have been formed under the Discourse of Movement that conceptualizes the pieces as warriors capable of limited forms of movement. In other words, the pieces are movers. To emphasize a point made in my previous entry, I am not proposing any fundamental shift in the language of chess that shapes understanding of the game and adds a great sense of drama to our commentary, written or spoken. 

Still, the phenomenon, witnessed everywhere, of the player with potential whose bad habits leads to rushing into the next “move” calls for a breaking of what turns out to be a destructive cycle. In Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, patients are asked to see a clear connection between their Thoughts, their Feelings, and their Actions. Reframing Thoughts is a crucial first step to promoting more welcome and manageable Feelings to improve Actions.

While we seek improvement in our play (our Actions at the board), why not look more closely at our Thoughts? If we think of pieces as “movers” (thoughts) and we feel “under pressure” or “rushed” (feelings), and we “make moves” that end up as mistakes or blunders, maybe we can reframe thoughts to get the behaviors we desire—in this case, making better decisions in our games.

Again, the point of the thought experiment of Parallel Universe Chess is entirely aimed at instruction and improvement: many of the mistakes we growing players make are due to mismanaged thoughts and feelings. Statements on how to improve the psychology of our games abound, but I think this is where Rhetorica, who loves to range all around for all the available means of persuasion, has found something new to say. To be sure, she has always loved psychology, and this is why she inspired Aristotle to write at admirable length about the emotions and their causes in his Art of Rhetoric. Maybe Caissa needs a little refresher here.

Rhetorica knows that Caissa loves her warriors and her movers, and Rhetorica has inspired many a lively commentary within the Discourse of Movements. At the same time, Rhetorica also knows that many of Caissa’s devotees bring habits of thinking to the board that will not serve them. “Would you allow these players to improve under another, perfectly serviceable Discourse?” Rhetorica asks.

Tools for Teachers and Learners

References

Dennett, Daniel C. Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. New edition. MIT Press, 2015.

Seirawan, Yasser. Brilliancies. Everyman Chess, 2003.