When I was much younger and in high school and college, I used to play chess.
I recently found my way to some Youtube blogs about the current world of chess.
After many, many years, I found that I could still follow and understand the games that were played.
Even after all this time had passed since then, my memory of the game rules and strategy had not been lost. But the way that the game was played had changed and perhaps evolved.
I found that I had some catching up to do.
One of the changes that I noticed was that many players in parks, clubs, and even on line, were using digital clocks and playing five minute games!
They all used a system of recording the games that lent itself to the digital age.
The system they were using to record their games, which was beginning but not in favor when I had played before, was now prevalent, and the only system of chess notation that was accepted by the national and international organizations or accepted at tournaments.
The new system, named algebraic notation, that uses the same names of the squares for both sides, or players, makes a lot more sense in the digital age.
When I played in the 1960’s I never used a clock, and games, at least for me, were much slower.
If we recorded our games, we used a descriptive system of notation in which each side described the board as beginning from their own side.
(This system is used in the excellent TV series ‘The Queen’s Gambit’.)
White started from their side, counting the board spaces from one to eight, with eight being the far side of the board. Black did the same, beginning from their side.
As in the Bibical story of the ‘Tower of Babel’, they both spoke different languages!
In more recent times we now use the system of algebraic notation to describe the board spaces, with both players counting from the White side, beginning with ‘One’, and counting toward ‘Eight’ on Black’s side.
Moving laterally across the board, the rows are labeled with letters (algebraic style), from ‘a’ on White’s left, to ‘h’ on White’s right.
The most important part of this change (of notation system) is that both players, on opposite sides of the board, are now speaking the same language!
In a digital age, this certainly allows for a much simpler way for a person or a machine to logically follow each game.
Also, the use of the clock, while not actually changing the game itself, both quantifies and objectivises the time parameter as well.
The possibilities engendered by all of this, as one might say, boggles the mind!
It suggests the taking of a larger, more encompassing and more quantifiable view in which both sides might become part of a larger whole, and might even suggest solutions that allow both sides of any conflict to at least see, and maybe start to empathize with the opposite side, in new, perhaps more accomodating and less polarized ways.
Although one player might start on this path in order to gain advantage, the insidious Trojan Horse embedded within the process might also engender a recognition of the similarities shared by both sides, and perhaps cultivate some appreciation of one’s opponent that might foster a decrease of the polarization.
The seeds of a perception of commonality might grow into something positive.
Shifting into the language of T’ai Chi, the lessening of tension between parts of the larger perceived organism might help both sides to more effectively present their case to the opposite side.
My apologies if the above discourse seems somewhat obtuse.
These are somewhat challenging and difficult ideas for me to put into words.
My intention is to perhaps provide insight into how we might be able to work with views diametrically opposed to our own by finding some kind of common ground.
Blessings to All,
Daniel
