Hello, and welcome to my blog!

Have you ever stopped to think about how many stories we are told and believe without questioning them? We often encounter them in childhood or when first exploring a new hobby, and it is only years later that we realize things were not actually quite like that.

Some classic examples of these myths are that you catch a cold if you walk in the rain, that humans only use 10% of the brain, that the Earth is spherical, or that the Great Wall of China can be seen from space. Although they survive for having some degree of truth, these statements are objectively false.

The world of chess is not immune to this problem. That’s why the aim of this post is to challenge some of the 'truths' we always hear about the history of the game, famous players, and other anecdotes.

Like any good myth, at least the ones that last the longest, they are not completely false, but often incomplete or superficial. Nevertheless, they spread because deep down, it is nice to believe in them. Join me as we discover together what the chess community has been misleading us about all this time.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 - Chess Originated in India

2 - The Wheat and Chessboard Legend 

3 - Isabella Changed the Move of the Queen

4 - Capablanca Didn’t Need to Study Chess

5 - Bobby Fischer Was a Lone Wolf

6 - Conclusion

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

Chess Originated in India

In chronological order, let's begin with the origins of chess. Most of you will probably have heard that a similar version of the game called chaturanga was invented in India around the 6th century. But how much evidence do we really have?

To be clear, although the Indian origin theory is the current consensus, the evidence is much weaker and more indirect than most chess players realize. While not necessarily wrong, we must recognize the nuances. It is not quite that simple.

Most historians still agree that chess originated in India and later spread to Persia, as Shatranj. This theory was popularized by H. J. R. Murray in his book A History of Chess (1913). However, some issues need to be addressed.

One of the strongest arguments brought by those who challenge the traditional narrative is that the earliest textual descriptions of chess originate from Persian sources. These sources describe the game arriving at the court of the Persian king from presumably India.

However, this is still a Persian text describing an alleged origin. So, are we looking at evidence from India, or evidence that the Persians believed it originated in India?

Another problem is that there are relatively few early references in India. Many historians have noted that they are sparse and ambiguous, nowhere near as abundant as people imagine.

So, what alternative theories exist? Without going into too much detail (please refer to the sources for more information), we can discuss three main ones.

Some Iranian scholars have argued that chess may have originated during the Sasanian Persian period, where we find much more documented evidence.

Another hypothesis is that the evolutionary path may have run from Chinese strategic games towards India and Persia. Supporters of this theory point out that China had sophisticated board games centuries earlier.

As the Silk Road was a two-way street, it is not absurd to think that the path may have run from east to west, rather than originating in India and spreading to both sides. However, the similarity between these Chinese games and modern chess is weak.

Finally, some historians even believe that chess emerged from centuries of cultural exchange, resulting in a “mix” of influences. According to them, elements from Indian military games, Persian court culture, and Chinese board games may have blended into what eventually became chess.

I’m not suggesting that the current explanation is incorrect, but that it is too simplistic and possibly incomplete.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

Bibliography:

1. [Edward Winter: The Origins of Chess]

2. [H. J. R. Murray, A History of Chess (1913)]

3. [The Origin of Chess and the Silk Road (Silk Road Foundation)]

4. [Chess Notes by Edward Winter]

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

The Wheat and Chessboard Legend

Next, let's discuss another story about the creation of chess. I'm sure everyone here has heard about it. The legend goes as follows:

A king was so impressed by the inventor of chess, presumably the ancient Indian mathematician Sissa, that he offered him any reward. Sissa asks for one grain of wheat on the first square of the board, two on the second, four on the third, and so on, always doubling the quantity.

The king laughs at this modest request until he realizes that there isn't enough grain in the kingdom, or perhaps even the world, to fulfil it.

"Vanessa, everyone knows this one is made up!"

You are right, dear imaginary reader, but my aim is not necessarily to “debunk” the myths. What we want to do is explore them further. In fact, this whole story is far more interesting than people realize. Do we know why, when, where, and with what goal it was first told?

Firstly, it is important to note that the anecdote was most likely never intended to be taken as historical fact, and the earliest versions of it emerged centuries after the supposed invention of chess.

Most historians view it as a mathematical fable, a teaching device, or perhaps even a moral lesson about arrogance and exponential growth.

Chess is not the point. The number is. Therefore, this thought process could be applied to many different examples, and the game was popular enough to fit into the fictional tale.

The myth survived not because it ever sought to explain the origins of chess, but because of the idea it communicates: Humans are terrible at understanding exponential growth.

When we see: 1, 2, 4, 8... It may look tiny at first, but after 64 iterations, the sum becomes astronomical. This is why it still appears in textbooks on economics, epidemiology, investing, and computer science. Chess? Just a detail.

Now for the fun part! What if there is a grain of truth behind it? Not that the king or the payment literally existed. Nevertheless, perhaps the story emerged around the time chess was invented.

The game almost certainly originated in a culture with an advanced understanding of mathematics. While historians doubt that the specific events occurred, it is possible that an early mathematical puzzle associated with chess inspired the later legend.

In other words, the story may be fictional but not entirely made up.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

Bibliography:

1. [Sissa (mythical brahmin) - Wikipedia Page]

2. [Wheat and chessboard problem - Wikipedia Page]

3. [THE MYTH OF SISSA]

4. [A. A. MacDonell, The Origin and Early History of Chess]

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

Isabella Changed the Move of the Queen

Now, we must talk about Queen Isabella I of Castile, whom many believe influenced the move of the queen in chess. Here, I will explain why, although the timing matches, the evidence is questionable.

First, the facts. In medieval chess, the queen was a weak piece, and then a powerful queen appeared in the game. At the same time, a powerful queen was ruling Spain, one of the most traditional chess-playing countries. So, the piece must have been inspired by her.

The problem is that there is little evidence to support it.

For some historical background, before modern chess, in Shatranj, the queen was usually called the fers (or vizier) and was very weak. It could only move one square diagonally.

Then, around the late 15th century, the piece acquired its modern powers and became the strongest one on the board. The change was so sudden that traditionalists started referring to it as the 'Mad Queen Chess'.

The timing is rather convenient. Isabella I of Castile ruled during the same period.  She was the most powerful woman in Spain and had a great influence on European politics. The link seems obvious. A powerful queen in the court resulted in a powerful queen in chess.

However, there is no document saying anything like that. Not a single source directly links the change in rule to her.  The evidence is circumstantial.

Because timing and symbolism are similar, the theory fits well, but things were already well documented at the time, particularly concerning the royal family. The absence of any written record raises questions regarding its veracity.

Another issue is that the new queen movement emerged in several other places, including Italy and France, chess powers that had no powerful queen in command.

If Isabella had personally inspired or demanded the change, we would expect to see clearer evidence of the idea spreading from Spain.

This is why historians prefer cultural explanations. The late Middle Ages saw stronger representations of queens in literature alongside a desire to speed up chess games. The strengthened queen may reflect broader changes rather than the actions of one specific ruler.

In conclusion, while Isabella may have been part of the environment that produced the new queen, the new rule seems less like a royal decree and more like a natural evolution of the game.

Therefore, the myth is, as usual, a simplified version of a more complex historical reality.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

Bibliography:

1. [Marilyn Yalom, Birth of the Chess Queen: A History]

2. [Queen (chess) - Wikipedia Page]

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

Capablanca Didn’t Need to Study Chess

Now that we have covered historical myths, it is time to talk about famous players. I will start with José Raúl Capablanca. However, this myth is not really about him, but about our tendency to romanticize exceptional people.

But why does this happen? Why do we believe that geniuses don't need to work hard, and what is the truth behind their brilliance?

Many chess players have heard that Capablanca never studied openings or read chess books, and barely practiced the game. In fact, it sometimes seems as if he simply sat down and won games.

The most famous example of this is perhaps when he defeated Frank James Marshall, who had spent months preparing the Marshall Attack to play against him. This event certainly fueled the myth.

At the same time, these stories make him sound almost supernatural.

Capablanca was undoubtedly one of the most naturally talented players in history. The myth is that talent replaces hard work. Obviously, he analyzed his own games, studied advanced ideas, wrote books, prepared for his opponents, and adapted his playing style throughout his career.

Someone who writes Chess Fundamentals clearly spends a great deal of time thinking about it. So why do people still insist on believing in the myth?

This is the interesting psychological aspect. He often said things like “I have never studied chess systematically” and “I dislike memorizing openings”. While these statements are partially true, they gradually evolved into the idea that Capablanca never studied chess.

One interesting historical detail is that Capablanca's playing style changed considerably. His early games were full of tactical attacks, and only later did he become famous for his endgames and positional play. This evolution demonstrates continuous learning.

The same applies to other brilliant people. Messi may be naturally gifted, but he also trains hard. Similarly, Mozart didn’t simply compose masterpieces by listening to other music, and Einstein did not discover relativity in a flash of genius.

Behind all this success, there is always a great deal of unseen study, effort, and dedication. Ironically, even geniuses are wrong far more often than they are right during their lifetimes.

So be careful, because society repeatedly turns extraordinary workers into effortlessly brilliant geniuses.

The greatest myth is not that Capablanca never studied chess, but that genius makes studying unnecessary. Even those with extraordinary natural talent need to spend a lifetime immersed in their craft to achieve excellence.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

Bibliography:

1. [José Raúl Capablanca, Chess Fundamentals]

2. [Miguel Sánchez, José Raúl Capablanca: A Chess Biography]

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

Bobby Fischer Was a Lone Wolf

Finally, let’s discuss the chess myth that I consider to be the most popular on this list. However, it is also unfair because it tells an incomplete story. Moreover, it overshadows the extraordinary people behind the success of Bobby Fischer.

The aim of this chapter is certainly not to diminish Fischer’s exceptional achievements, nor to suggest that he was not a genius. I would simply like to explore in greater depth the idea that he was a lone wolf fighting single-handedly against the entire Soviet chess establishment.

Let’s find out more about who helped him achieve his feats.

As usual, this myth is not entirely false, but history is once again oversimplified. Just as people want to believe that Capablanca won his games and tournaments effortlessly, they also want to believe that Bobby Fischer defeated the Soviet chess empire alone.

It is true that he was extremely talented and obsessively dedicated. He was probably the hardest-working chess player of his generation and defeated an unprecedented succession of elite Soviet grandmasters. However, there was also a team behind him.

During his career, Fischer worked with several people, including Larry Evans, William Lombardy, and Larry Kaufman, who often helped him with analysis and opening work. Most importantly, during the 1972 World Championship, Lombardy served as Fischer's official second. These people don’t usually get the recognition they deserve.

There is another fascinating twist. Ironically, Fischer benefited from the Soviet chess system that he was supposedly fighting against. Soviet players produced a vast amount of chess literature. They published lots of material, including opening analysis, tournament books, endgame research, and annotated games.

Although this knowledge was written in Russian, it was not exclusive to the Soviets.  Fischer studied them extensively and implemented the ideas he found in his own chess. So, can this not be considered indirect help?

In a sense, the Soviet chess school helped educate the man who would eventually defeat it. He was outside the Soviet system, but not outside Soviet chess. In fact, no one was.

Like Capablanca, this myth reveals something about us. We love lone heroes. A story is much more dramatic and appealing if one genius single-handedly defeats an empire. However, as always, reality is more complicated.

Even the most independent champions rely on teachers, sparring partners, analysts, and the accumulated knowledge of previous generations. Even the greatest geniuses do not reach the top without help and support.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

Bibliography:

1. [Frank Brady, Endgame: Bobby Fischer's Remarkable Rise and Fall]

2. [David Edmonds & John Eidinow, Bobby Fischer Goes to War]

3. [William Lombardy, Understanding Chess: My System, My Games, My Life]

4. [Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Volume IV]

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

Conclusion

Thank you very much for reading my post! I hope you enjoyed finding out more about the details and contradictions of the above myths. If you can think of any other examples, please share them in the comments section below. I am sure I only covered a tiny fraction of this subject.

Of course, my intention was not to suggest that we were fooled or that the stories are entirely false. I just wanted to show that there is much more to them than meets the eye.

After all, it comes quite naturally to us. The simplest and most epic explanations are usually the most enjoyable, memorable, and exciting to share with others. This is true of chess as well as virtually every other area of life. People prefer simple stories because they are easier to remember than reality.

However, it is important to emphasize that the world is much richer and full of detail, and that the real explanation is often more complex (and fascinating) than it seems at first glance. And honestly, between a cool, incomplete explanation and a more boring but accurate one, I prefer the latter.

That's all for today, everyone! See you again in 15 days!

Back to Top