Chess as a metaphor for life

As a chess grandmaster, author of over 200 books on chess and mind sports, and someone who has dedicated his life to the intricate dance of 32 pieces on 64 squares, I have come to appreciate the profound lessons that chess can teach us about strategy, foresight, and the human condition. I now wish to share with you how we can use the chessboard as a lens to predict and navigate our collective future, particularly in the realm of the global financial system.

The Chessboard of Life

Chess is not merely a game; it’s a mirror reflecting the complexities of life and the human mind. The approximate number of possible unique chess games, known as the Shannon number, is estimated to be 10 to the power of 120. This number is named after the famous computer scientist Claude Shannon, known as the father of information theory. His 1950 paper , “Programming a Computer for Playing Chess”, was the first to anticipate today’s development of strong engines that can exceed the human ability to calculate. I knew Shannon personally and he helped me to organise the Computer Games Olympiads of the late 1980 s and early 1990 s . 

To put this astronomical figure into context, it’s said that there are only about 10 to the power of 86 atoms in the observable universe. Some people have queried this number. Surely chess cannot have vastly more variations than there are atoms in the universe ? Surely , as the universe expands, the quantum of atoms must be increasing .

Well, no. The number of atoms has been static since the Big Bang, since the universal expansion has been in distance, not in mass. However, to make assurance doubly sure, I contacted the former Master of my old college, Trinity College Cambridge, where I had occupied Lord Byron’s lodgings, sharing accommodation for a year with our future King Charles III. Lord (Martin) Rees, for it was he, assured me in the most helpful and witty of terms, that I was on the right track. What more impressive endorsement could one get, than approval from the Astronomer Royal himself . So, Chess 1 – Universe 0. Lord Rees’s response, in all its amusing and speculative glory, is appended at the conclusion of this contribution. *

The unimaginably vast number of options in chess vividly illustrates the magnitude of possibilities and the importance of strategic planning in the face of complexity—a scenario that mirrors our global financial system.

In 1986, 1993 and 2000, I had the privilege of organizing the World Chess Championships here in London. These events were more than just competitions; they were global spectacles that brought together nations, cultures, and minds. The financial orchestration behind such events was immense, involving intricate sponsorship deals, international regulations, and economic forecasts. This experience taught me firsthand, the delicate balance required in managing complex financial systems—a balance that, if disrupted, can lead to significant consequences.

Strategic Foresight and the Financial System

Consider the 2008 financial crisis—a stark reminder of how interconnected and fragile our global economy can be. Much like a miscalculated move in chess, poor decisions in the financial sector led to a cascading effect, resulting in a global recession. Had we applied the strategic foresight and risk assessment inherent in chess, could we have anticipated and mitigated the crisis?

One of the key lessons from chess is the concept of “zugzwang”—a situation where any move a player makes will worsen their position. In the global financial system, nations can find themselves in similar predicaments, where policy decisions, whether action or inaction, can lead to unfavourable outcomes. Recognizing such positions early is crucial. For instance, with global debt calculated in the World Economic Forum’s  Chief Economist’s Outlook to surpass $300 trillion in 2022, we must question whether we’re approaching a financial zugzwang and how we can strategically navigate out of it.

The Exponential Growth Parallel

The exponential growth exemplified by the grains of wheat on the chessboard problem is reflective of our current economic challenges. If you recall, placing one grain of wheat on the first square and doubling it on each subsequent square results in an astronomical number—over 9 quintillion grains by the 64th square. This exponential growth parallels issues like inflation, population growth, and resource consumption. The global money supply has seen significant increases, with M2 money stock in the United States reported to be growing from around $4.6 trillion in 2000 to over $21 trillion in 2023. Such growth begs the question: Are we prepared for the long-term implications of this financial expansion?

Technology and the Financial Game

In my writings, I’ve often explored the intersection of chess and artificial intelligence. The historic 1997 match, where IBM’s Deep Blue defeated the then World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov, was a watershed moment. It wasn’t just about a computer beating a human; it was a demonstration of how technology can outpace human intuition in specific domains. Today, algorithms govern significant aspects of our financial markets. High-frequency trading algorithms execute transactions in microseconds, making decisions faster than any human can comprehend.

This brings us to a critical juncture . How do we ensure that these technological advancements serve humanity’s best interests and do not lead us into unforeseen pitfalls? Chess and technology have spectacularly intersected in the work of Demis Hassabis, godfather of the DeepMind software family, which now reigns supreme in all Mind Sports, even Wei Chi or Go, for many years thought to be impervious to Silicon conquest. Programs such as AlphaZero (Chess) and AlphaGo (Go) have raised the performance bar for all these previously regarded touchstones of the human intellect. For his offering AlphaFold, that predicts the possible permutations of protein combinations, Demis has been rewarded with the CBE, a Knighthood and now the Nobel Prize, which makes me all the more proud that I defeated him in our sole chess game (when he was eight ).  

Reflections on My Journey

Reflecting on my own journey, I’ve witnessed the evolution of chess from a purely human endeavour to one deeply intertwined with technology. Similarly, our financial systems have evolved, embracing digital currencies and blockchain technology. As of 2023, it is thought that over 420 million people worldwide use cryptocurrencies, with the global blockchain market projected to reach $67.4 billion by 2026. This shift towards decentralisation and digital assets challenges traditional financial institutions and regulatory frameworks. It presents both opportunities and risks—a new chessboard with unfamiliar pieces. Other factors propelling chess into the future include AI, the amazingly popular Netflix series Queen’s Gambit and the attraction of playing online 24/7 during the Covid restrictions. According to market leader chess.com, 16.83 billion games were played online between September 2016 and February 2023. Recently former world chess champion Magnus Carlsen sold the equity in his online chess business for $80 million US dollars.

Valuing Every Piece

In chess, understanding the value of each piece is fundamental. A pawn may seem insignificant, but it can become a queen if it reaches the other side of the board. In economic terms, this is akin to investing in emerging markets or technologies. Small investments or innovations can yield significant returns if nurtured correctly. The rise of tech giants like Apple, which became the first company to announce a market capitalization of $3 trillion in 2022, exemplifies how visionary strategies can redefine industries.

But with great power comes great responsibility. Just as a queen on the chessboard must be wielded wisely, dominant corporations and financial institutions must act ethically and sustainably. It has been reliably reported that the 2016 Panama Papers leak, revealed over 214,000 offshore entities were used to conceal wealth and evade taxes, highlighting systemic issues in financial transparency. Such revelations underscore the need for integrity and accountability—principles that are as crucial in chess as they are in finance.

Strategic Moves for the Next 50 Years

As we peer into the next 50 years, we must ask ourselves: How can we apply the strategic principles of chess to create a more resilient and equitable global financial system?

1. Embrace Holistic Thinking

In chess, a good player considers the entire board, not just individual pieces. Likewise, financial decisions should account for global impacts, environmental sustainability, and social equity. The rise of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investing, suggests in excess of $40 trillion in assets globally in 2022, indicating a shift towards more responsible investment strategies.

2. Foster Adaptability

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated digital transformation across industries. Remote work became the norm for millions, and e-commerce sales were thought to have soared by 27.6% globally in 2020. Those who adapted quickly not only survived but thrived. In finance, embracing fintech innovations can enhance accessibility and efficiency, but we must also be prepared to address cybersecurity threats and ensure data privacy.

3. Prioritise Collaboration

Chess teaches us the importance of learning from others—studying games, analysing strategies, and even collaborating in team events. On the global stage, international cooperation is vital to address systemic risks like climate change, which was calculated in 2021 by Insurance giant Swiss Re, to cost the global economy up to $23 trillion annually by 2050 if unaddressed. Collective action can turn the tide, much like a well-coordinated strategy can turn the game in chess.

Unusual Insights and Thought-Provoking Questions

Allow me to share an unusual insight from the realm of chess that holds relevance to our discussion. The concept of “hypermodernism” in chess, introduced in the 1920s, challenged traditional principles by controlling the centre of the board with distant pieces, rather than occupying it directly. This revolutionary approach transformed the game. Similarly, might unconventional strategies in economics—like circular economies or universal basic income—be the hypermodern ideas that reshape our financial future? Universal basic income strikes me as being overtly similar to the tsunami of precious metals (gold and silver) which flooded into the 16th Spanish imperium, following the impact of the Conquistadors of Latin America, such as Cortez and Pizarro. The result was, according to Munro’s 2008 paper, hyperinflation. Circular economies are easy to understand. All basic precepts start with RE: recycle, repair, reform, reuse… I feel this is a sounder concept. One wild card which I would like to throw into the mix would be the decriminalisation of all drug use. While raising useful tax revenue for the state monopoly, it would put drug gangs out of business and free up valuable resources from the current futile war on drugs, which can never be won. If a crime is committed under drug influence, let the law take its course (as is currently the case with alcohol) but otherwise do not legislate against drug use, a curiously modern twist, which had never been enacted in the previous thousands of years of human civilisation. Back to the future is a commonly uttered paradox. I suggest that the path with drugs should be: forward to the past .

I pose this question: In a world of exponential complexity and rapid change, are we willing to challenge traditional paradigms and explore innovative solutions to global challenges, societal, financial and otherwise?

Conclusion

In conclusion, the chessboard offers us more than just a game; it provides a framework for strategic thinking, adaptability, and foresight. By applying these principles, we can navigate the complexities of the evolving global financial system and work towards a future that is prosperous, equitable, and sustainable.

I’ll leave you with two thoughts  from former World Chess Champion Emanuel Lasker: “When you see a good move, look for a better one.” As we face the challenges of the next half-century, let’s not settle for the obvious solutions. Let’s delve deeper, think further ahead, and strive for the best possible outcomes.

Lasker also wrote: “ Lies and hypocrisy do not survive long on the chessboard.” To me this represents a command to think for yourself : aude sapere — dare to know — was the war cry of the 18th century European Enlightenment, adopted by Immanuel Kant from the Roman poet Horace. This commandment requires us to search for the truth oneself , rather than blithely accept bogus ideologies, false beliefs or propaganda issued by so-called authorities. There is far too much subservient acceptance of received opinion and thinking for yourself in chess helps as a corrective antidote. 

I  look forward to the strategic moves we’ll make together in shaping our future.

In the games of Lasker and Capablanca in the pre-First World War period, there appeared to be a rash of situations, where the White queen was deflected to a7 in pursuit of a lonely pawn, while the main action took place elsewhere. 

Now let us take a deeper dive into the prime exemplar of this particular queen deflection on a7, where Black’s deft touch and deep insight, remain instructive even today. The comments are based on updated evaluations of notes I co-wrote with the immortal Viktor Korchnoi, for my book,  Learn from the Grandmasters. 

Siegbert Tarrasch vs. Emanuel Lasker

World Championship Match, 1908, Duesseldorf, rd. 2

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O d6 5. d4 Bd7 6. Nc3Be7 7. Re1 exd4 8. Nxd4 O-O 9. Nxc6 Bxc6 10. Bxc6 bxc6 11. Ne2 Qd7?

 A careless move which leads to great difficulties for Black, as the d7-square should have been left free for the knight! Stronger is 11… Re8 12. Nd4 c5 13. Nf5 Nd7 and Black develops his pieces without difficulty.

12. Ng3 Rfe8 13. b3 Rad8

It is still not too late to retreat the queen to c8; however, Grandmasters do not like to retreat: better to carry out a wrong plan logically than to have no plan at all.

14. Bb2 Ng4

Lasker’s vast technical talent finds the only way of complicating the game. An astute psychologist, he does not mind material loss in order to escape from the positional pressure being exerted by Tarrasch. True, it is dangerous: White might gain a strong attack, but then Tarrasch is by no means as strong an attacking player as he is a positional player.

15. Bxg7

Of course! If 15… Kxg7 16. Nf5+ Kh8 17. Qxg4 with an increased advantage to White.

15… Nxf2

16. Kxf2

Tarrasch’s contemporaries criticized him for this move, and justifiably. Stronger is 16. Qd4 Ng4 17. Nf5 Qe6 18. Qxa7 d5 19. h3 Nf6 20. Nxe7+ and whatever Black replies, 21. exd5 gives White a winning advantage. The move chosen by Tarrasch also wins a pawn, but after the exchange of the important g7-bishop for the knight, Black succeeds in creating counter-chances.

16… Kxg7 17. Nf5+ Kh8 18. Qd4+ f6 19. Qxa7 Bf8 

White now tries to regroup his forces and rescue his Queen from its distant outpost on a7. 

20. Qd4 Re5 21. Rad1 Rde8 22. Qc3

And so White has an extra pawn and central squares for his pieces, and that amounts to good winning chances. It is true that Black also has some advantages: his rooks are actively placed on the e-file, attacking the weak e4-pawn, and the position of the powerful knight on the f5-square is unsafe because of the threat of …d5. With his last move White declared his intentions; he will try to tie Black down to the defence of the weak pawns on c6 and f6, transfer the knight to a safer position on f3 or c4, and finally at an appropriate moment begin to advance the passed pawn.

Yet in the game itself all this never happens. Tarrasch apparently was short of time, met a stubborn and resourceful defence, and played very weakly in the final part of the game, gradually conceding the centre.

22… Qf7 

White’s coming retreat is feeble. Tarrasch is evidently losing his nerve.  

23. Ng3 Bh6 24. Qf3

 Both now and on the following move it is possible to return the knight to the f5-square with chances of a win. But one has the feeling that Tarrasch has lost the strategic thread of the position.

24… d5 25. exd5 Be3+ 26. Kf1 cxd5 27. Rd3?

Here again 27. Nf5 is necessary, even though after 27… d4 the active positions of the Black pieces would be enough for equality. Now despite White’s material advantage, his position is very difficult. 

27… Qe6 28. Re2 f5 29. Rd1 f4 30. Nh1 d4 31. Nf2 Qa6

Lasker conducts the attack with great energy. First he gains control of the centre, and now he wins back a pawn at the same time effectively breaking into the enemy camp. All the following White moves are forced. The immediate threat is 32… Bxf2 with a forced win.

32. Nd3 Rg5 33. Ra1 Qh6 34. Ke1 Qxh2 35. Kd1 Qg1+ 36.Ne1 Rge5 37. Qc6 R5e6

38. Qxc7 R8e7 39. Qd8+

39. Qc8+ would have offered longer resistance, but does not save the game.

This is confirmed by our invaluable non-carbon companion, who opines that 39. Qc8+ might be better than the text, but White still remains very much worse after this: 

39… Re8 40. Qc4 f3 41. gxf3 Qg6 with either,

a) 42. a4 Bf2 43. Rxe6 Rxe6 44. Kc1 Rxe1+ 45. Kb2 Rxa1 46. Kxa1 d3 47. cxd3 Qf5 48. Kb2 h5 49. Qc7 h4; or 

b) 42. Rb1 Bf2 43. Rxe6 Rxe6 44. Kc1 Rxe1+ 45. Kb2 h5 46. a4 Rxb1+ 47. Kxb1 d3 48. cxd3 Qf5 49. a5 Qxa5, both on the cusp of a Black victory.

39… Kg7 40. a4 f3 41. gxf3 Bg5

After 42. Rxe6 Rxe6 43. Qa5 Qe3, White will be mated and therefore, White resigns 0-1

The next example shows Capablanca developing a fierce initiative, while her avaricious White majesty is marooned on the aforesaid square.

Aron Nimzowitsch vs. Jose Raul Capablanca

St. Petersburg, 1914, St. Petersburg, rd. 1

position after 13… O-O

White to play

14. Qa6 Rfe8 15. Qd3 Qe6 16. f3 Nd7 17. Bd2 Ne5 18. Qe2Nc4 19. Rab1 Ra8 20. a4 Nxd2 21. Qxd2 Qc4 22. Rfd1Reb8 23. Qe3 Rb4 24. Qg5 Bd4+ 25. Kh1 Rab8 26. Rxd4 Qxd4 27. Rd1 Qc4 28. h4 Rxb2 29. Qd2 Qc5 30. Re1 Qh5 31. Ra1 Qxh4+ 32. Kg1 Qh5 33. a5 Ra8 34. a6 Qc5+ 35. Kh1 Qc4 36. a7 Qc5 37. e5 Qxe5 38. Ra4 Qh5+ 39. Kg1 Qc5+ 40. Kh2 d5 41. Rh4 Rxa7 42. Nd1  White resigns 0-1

The  final example, again, from the very same tournament, features a White queen banished to the perimeter of the board. It also illustrates my theme of the advantages of thinking for yourself and not blindly accepting received opinion.

In the diagram, Capablanca sacrificed  a piece and eventually won after a complicated combination. Since then, numerous commentators have praised Capablanca’s sacrifice. 

Alexander Alekhine vs. Jose Raul Capablanca

St. Petersburg, 1914, rd. 6

position after 23. Rd2

Black to play

23… Nxg2 24. Kxg2 Qg4+ 25. Kf1 Qh3+ 26. Ke2 Rxe3+27. fxe3 Qxe3+ 28. Kd1 Qxe1+ 29. Kc2 Qe4+ 30. Kb3 Qc6 31. a4 d5 32. a5 Qb5+ 33. Ka3 Rb8 34. Ka2 h6 35. a6 Qb3+ White resigns 0-1

Misplaced praise, simply because it was played by Capablanca. In fact, Black could have won at once with 23… Qg4 24. f3 Qe6, when White’s position collapses on the spot.

Pancho, our perennial silicon companion, confirms this analysis, but as all too often, insists on the final word, as it is claimed that even stronger than 23… Qg4 is 23… Qc4+.

If White proceeds with 24. Kg1, there follows 24… Nxg2 25. Ree2 (25. Rf1 Qe4 is deadly, as is 25. b3 Qg4; whereas the appalling 25. Kxg2 leads to a mate in 4 after, 25… Rg5+ 26. Bxg5 Qg4+ 27. Kf1 Qh3+ 27. Kg1 Rxe1#, or 26. Kh1 Qe4+ 27. f3 Qxf3+ 28. Rg2 Qxg2#) 25… Nh4 26. f4 R5e7 and whether now White defers the inevitable with 27. b3, or bows to it immediately with 27. Qxe7, it is all over, bar the shouting.

So, based solely on the fact that Capablanca played the move, generations of commentators have praised the knight sacrifice, when in fact it complicates the path to victory and is only the third best choice in the position. Once again, chess proves that sycophantic hero worship is no substitute for concrete analysis. 

The response to my earlier query  *  from Lord Martin Rees,  Astronomer Royal : 

Dear Ray

Your estimate of the number of particles is I think OK. The ‘observable universe’ could mean what actual telescopes can observe, or within the ‘horizon’ from beyond which no information can be received. This is model dependent, and could change with time — but these are just refinements.

It’s amazing how the numbers in combinatorics always win. One result which might amuse you concerns the familiar claim that monkeys will eventually write the works of Shakespeare. It’s true of course in an infinite universe. But what surprises people is this;

Suppose that there are a billion galaxies and each contains a billion Earth like planets. And suppose that on each such planet there  is a population of a  billion monkeys who type  randomly non stop for a billion years, would that be enough? The answer is that the best they could do is reproduce 3 lines of a sonnet!

Best wishes

Martin

Ray’s 206th book, “  Chess in the Year of the King  ”, written in collaboration with Adam Black, and his 207th, “  Napoleon and Goethe: The Touchstone of Genius  ” (which discusses their relationship with chess) are available from Amazon and Blackwells. 

A Message from TheArticle

We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation.