The Morals of Chess

In 1999, Benjamin Franklin was inducted into the U.S. Chess Hall of Fame, in recognition of his role in popularizing the game, as one of the first chess players and writers in the western hemisphere. We know from his autobiography that he was playing chess at least as early as 1733:

”I had begun in 1733 to study languages. I soon made myself so much a master of the French as to be able to read the Books with ease. I then undertook the Italian. An acquaintance who was also learning it, used often to tempt me to play Chess with him. Finding this took up too much of the Time I had to spare for study, I at length refused to play any more, unless on this condition, that the victor in every Game, should have the Right to impose a Task, either in parts of the Grammar to be got by heart, or in Translation, &c, which task the vanquish’d was to perform upon honor before our next Meeting. As we played pretty equally we thus beat one another into that Language.”

Ralph Hagedorn's 1958 book Benjamin Franklin and Chess in Early America: A Review of the Literature collects the evidence we have for Franklin's interest in chess. We know that, like Napoleon, he played against the famous Mechanical Turk, a machine that purported to be a chess computer, but in fact contained a skilled chess player concealed inside who could follow the moves by the use of magnets underneath the board. Created in 1770 by Wolfgang von Kempelen, it seemed to defeat anyone weaker than the concealed player, who could amuse spectators with the knight's tour as well. Since Franklin's result against the machine was not recorded, we can assume he lost, but his grandson said that he enjoyed the game, and we know that he later bought a book about the machine.

There are many other stories about Franklin and chess. On one occasion, the story goes, he was so absorbed at the board in the bathing room of Mme. Brillon that she was stuck in the tub, and on another occasion, at the house of a French minister, he refused to receive an important message from Congress until the game had ended. Apparently he used chess with Lord Howe's sister as an excuse to enter into clandestine peace talks with the real admiral. But he is most famous for having written an essay about chess, which was published in the Columbian Magazine in December 1786. He wrote to the editor:

"Sir: Playing at Chess, is the most ancient and the most universal game known among men; for its original is beyond the memory of history, and it has, for numberless ages, been the amusement of all the civilized nations of Asia, the Persians, the Indians, and the Chinese. Europe has had it above 1000 years; the Spaniards have spread it over their part of America, and it begins lately to make its appearance in these northern states. It is so interesting in itself, as not to need the view of gain to induce engaging in it; and thence it is never played for money. Those, therefore, who have leisure for such diversions, cannot find one that is more innocent; and the following piece, written with a view to correct (among a few young friends) some little improprieties in the practice of it, shows at the same time, that it may, in its effects on the mind, be not merely innocent, but advantageous, to the vanquished as well as to the victor."

Franklin himself mentions that chess was popular in Spanish America, and we know that in 1533, the Inca Chief Atahualpa played the game with his captors before they executed him. For exactly 200 years, until 1733, we know the name of no other chess player in the Americas. Franklin seems to have had an exact contemporary, however, in the Hugenot minister Lewis Rou, who is documented as playing in New York City in 1734. It was long thought that Franklin's essay was the earliest publication about chess in the Americas, but in 2003 the English professor David Shields discovered a Latin poem about chess that was published by the Rev. Lewis Rou in 1744. John McCrary wrote an article about it, along with an English translation, in the December 2003 issue of Chess Life (page 32).

Although Rou's poem is now considered the earliest published work on chess in the Americas, it is still unclear who wrote first. It is likely that Rou wrote his poem as early as 1935, but we have the following outline in one of Franklin's own notebooks from 1732:

“The Antiquity and universality of it Has been practis’d by the most famous Men
Usefulness. Wrestling of Bodies strengthen them, this a W of minds
In the Conduct of Life
Caution & Circumspection
Foresight in looking for Advants and discovering Disadvs
Consideration of Consequences
It teaches the Consequences of Rashness, of Inattention to our Affairs, of Neglect of
Circumspection-tis a constant Lesson of Morality-Nothing shows so much as the”

It breaks off in mid-sentence, and it doesn't mention chess explicitly, but it anticipates some of the themes and diction of Franklin's essay on chess. Furthermore, there is a book on checkers, published in 1756, which seems to echo Franklin's language about chess already found in this outline. It's possible, therefore, that Franklin had written and circulated the essay long before it was published in 1786.

Rou's poem is an impressionistic vision of the inner workings of a chess club in New York City. Even if it were shown with certainty that Franklin wrote afterward, his essay is the earliest American writing to reflect on the game itself. Like much of Franklin's work, it is focused on the morality of a chess player. It is worth knowing not only for its influence on American chess, but also because the Russian translation in 1791 is the first chess publication in Russia, so it is part of that long and influential tradition as well. Here is the entire essay for your own enjoyment:

The MORALS of CHESS.

The game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement. Several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired or strengthened by it, so as to become habits, ready on all occasions. For life is a kind of chess, in which we have often points to gain, and competitors or adversaries to contend with, and in which there is a vast variety of good and ill events, that are, in some degree, the effects of prudence or the want of it. By playing at chess, then, we may learn:

1. Foresight, which looks a little into futurity, and considers the consequences that may attend an action: for it is continually occurring to the player, “If I move this piece, what will be the advantages of my new situation? What use can my adversary make of it to annoy me? What other moves can I make to support it, and to defend myself from his attacks?

2. Circumspection, which surveys the whole chess-board, or scene of action, the relations of the several pieces and situations, the dangers they are respectively exposed to, the several possibilities of their aiding each other; the probabilities that the adversary may make this or that move, and attack this or the other piece; and what different means can be used to avoid his stroke, or turn its consequences against him.

3. Caution, not to make our moves too hastily. This habit is best acquired by observing strictly the laws of the game, such as, if you touch a piece, you must move it somewhere; if you set it down, you must let it stand. And it is therefore best that these rules should be observed, as the game thereby becomes more the image of human life, and particularly of war; in which, if you have incautiously put yourself into a bad and dangerous position, you cannot obtain your enemy’s leave to withdraw your troops, and place them more securely; but you must abide all the consequences of your rashness.

And, lastly, we learn by chess the habit of not being discouraged by present bad appearences in the state of our affairs, the habit of hoping for a favourable change, and that of persevering in the search of resources. The game is so full of events, there is such a variety of turns in it, the fortune of it is so subject to sudden vicissitudes, and one so frequently, after long contemplation, discovers the means of extricating one’s self from a supposed insurmountable difficulty, that one is encouraged to continue the contest to the last, in hopes of victory by our own skill, or, at least, of giving a stale mate, by the negligence of our adversary. And whoever considers, what in chess he often sees instances of, that particular pieces of success are apt to produce presumption, and its consequent, inattention, by which more is afterwards lost than was gained by the preceding advantage; while misfortunes produce more care and attention, by which the loss may be recovered, will learn not to be too much discouraged by the present success of his adversary, nor to despair of final good fortune, upon every little check he receives in the pursuit of it.

That we may, therefore, be induced more frequently to chuse this beneficial amusement, in preference to others which are not attended with the same advantages, every circumstance, that may increase the pleasure of it, should be regarded; and every action or word that is unfair, disrespectful, or that in any way may give uneasiness, should be avoided, as contrary to the immediate intention of both the players, which is to pass the time agreeably.

Therefore, 1st. If it is agreed to play according to the strict rules, then those rules are to be exactly observed by both parties; and should not be insisted on for one side, while deviated from by the other: for this is not equitable.

2. If it is agreed not to observe the rules exactly, but one party demands indulgencies, he should then be as willing to allow them to the other.

3. No false move should ever be made to extricate yourself out of a difficulty, or to gain an advantage. There can be no pleasure in playing with a person once detected in such unfair practice.

4. If your adversary is long in playing, you ought not to hurry him, or express any uneasiness at his delay. You should not sing, nor whistle, nor look at your watch, nor take up a book to read, nor make a tapping with your feet on the floor, or with your fingers on the table, nor do anything that may disturb his attention. For all these things displease. And they do not show your skill in playing, but your craftiness or your rudeness.

5. You ought not to endeavour to amuse and deceive your adversary, by pretending to have made bad moves, and saying you have now lost the game, in order to make him secure and careless, and inattentive to your schemes; for this is fraud, and deceit, not skill in the game.

6. You must not, when you have gained a victory, use any triumphing or insulting expression, nor show too much pleasure; but endeavour to console your adversary, and make him less dissatisfied with himself by every kind and civil expression, that may be used with truth, such as, You understand the game better than I, but you are a little inattentive; or, You play too fast; or, You had the best of the game but something happened to divert your thoughts, and that turned it in my favour.

7. If you are a spectator, while others play, observe the most perfect silence. For if you give advice, you offend both parties; him, against whom you give it, because it may cause the loss of his game; him, in whose favour you give it, because, though it be good, and he follows it, he loses the pleasure he might have had, if you had permitted him to think till it occurred to himself. Even after a move or moves, you must not, by replacing the pieces, shew how it might have been played better: for that displeases, and may occasion disputes or doubts about their true situation. All talking to the players, lessens or diverts their attention, and is therefore unpleasing; nor should you give the least hint to either party, by any kind of noise or motion.— If you do, you are unworthy to be a spectator.— If you have a mind to exercise or show your judgments, do it in playing your own game when you have an opportunity, not in criticising or meddling with, or counselling, the play of others.

Lastly. If the game is not to be played rigorously, according to the rules above mentioned, then moderate your desire of victory over your adversary, and be pleased with one over yourself. Snatch not eagerly at every advantage offered by his unskilfulness or inattention; but point out to him kindly that by such a move he places or leaves a piece in danger and unsupported; that by another he will put his king in a dangerous situation, &c. By this generous civility (so opposite to the unfairness above forbidden) you may indeed happen to lose the game to your opponent, but you will win what is better, his esteem, his respect, and his affection; together with the silent approbation and good will of impartial spectators.