Queen’s Gambit (TV Series) and why we love chess (Spoiler alert)

Lately i had been interested in cultural, historical and eventually philosophical dimensions of chess. When i dived into the world of chess classics, i've started to discover more than brilliantly played games. The moves that had been played were just as interesting as the life stories of those who played the moves. The biographies of past masters were so rich and their personalities were so unique that they could easily provide even more than movie or novel material: A Hollywood starlike World Champion, a math professor and a philosopher W.C. who was close friend with Einstein, a W.C. in exile who was wanted dead and was saved in last minute, a W.C. who was extremely good opera singer, a W.C. who was the youngest survivor of 13 children and reached to the top of the chess but later died in poverty... The list can go on forever. Despite the tremendous variety in the trajectory of all these past masters lives, one thing they all had in common was clear to me: They loved chess in some way or another. At least, something in this game of chess has captivated them so that they have developed such strong bond with the game that they even kept playing during the world wars or despite all kinds of tragedies in their lives. What was that "something" that made them devote significant part of their lives to the game? What is it that inherent ingredient in chess that makes the game so universally appealing, so that the game has not only survived over so many centuries, but is still being played enthusiastically by people from different background or cultures and all across the globe? What do we love about chess? In which ways does chess speak to our souls?

I was still pondering on the questions like why people loved or got obsessed with chess for so long, when Netflix has recently released a mini-show called "The Queen's Gambit" that tells us an intriguing life-story of a chess prodigy based on the Walter Trevis' Novel from 1983.

In the show every scene looks picturesque. Muted colour palette and low key lightning which dominates the majority of shots create a visually mesmerising vintage ambience. There were many creative transitions between the scenes that made me impressed with the artistic elements of cinematography and the rhythm in the editing. The show was full of real life references to 60s as well as to chess history and it also managed to portray the culture and Zeitgeist of that particular era quite well.

The drama in the show goes much more beyond 64 squares and it quickly becomes a thrilling visual journey into the world of a little orphan girl called Beth Harmon growing up and developing a special connection with the game of chess. Even though the protagonist is a fictional character, the show successfully touches the reality of human nature and psyche so that it got high praise in the receptions from even non-chess player film aficionados. And for chess enthusiasts just like me, it was simply a special treat.

I believe that the biggest success of "The Queen's Gambit" lies in the human element that the show masterfully managed to integrate it to the story. On surface, it is looks the show is about the road to chess mastery, particularly Beth Harmon hitting the top of the chess world. But essentially the story revolves about her personal journey going through all these emotional rollercoasters, about how she chooses to cope with her inner demons as well as with all the painful external challenges. She chooses chess as an existential shelter, as a company and a medium of self-expression. It is not primarily about the chess itself, but more about the dimensions of chess that reaches out to the human nature, how it touches the reality of our inner worlds and plays an instrumental role in our lives. With other words, it is fundamentally about how she finds her place in the society and connects with the world, discovers and realises herself. Chess acts as a bridge in this connection. Just as Kasparov has pointed out in an recent interview, the show does not depict chess as a game that drives people crazy at some point but something that can contribute our lives quite positively by helping us overcoming difficulties.

The amount of time and interest that chess has got from people in history made chess something more than a game by loading it with emotions and meanings. It has gained a cultural significance as a source of metaphors just as it has become a playground for human mind and psyche as a source of joy, sorrow, pride, disappointment, anger, fascination, self-realisation, envy, company and so on...

Beth Harmon was not an exception to the experience of emotional rollercoaster that chess has to offer. Her natural talent to the game, which has got a chance to manifest itself at a very early age, has even intensified all these experiences. It is a gift that is so powerful so that it can also be self-destructive. Mr. Shaibel, the janitor who has introduced chess to Beth Harmon, tries to prepare her for the future that awaits by telling her :

"People like you have a hard time. Two sides of the same coin. You've got your gift and you've got what it costs."

Beth Harmon is caught between these two unstoppable forces, immense talent and its destructive cost, and the way she tries to establish a right balance between these two sides of a medallion sets the base of the storyline. It is a tale of a queen, who is trying to overcome lots of external and internal factors, which are working against her, by means of her forceful determination, willpower, passion and enormous talent to reach her goal. All these powerful assets she has definitely help her to assert herself and her will to win. But is it all just about winning for her? She also finds a deeper meaning in chess:

"Chess isn't always competitive. Chess can also be beautiful. It was the board I noticed first. It's an entire world of just 64 squares. I feel safe in it. I can control it. I can dominate it. And it's predictable, so if I get hurt, I only have myself to blame."

Beth Harmon enjoying the world of 64 squares in tranquility of her hotel room

One can say that chess is like a miniature of an ideal world where free will triumphs and governs. Chess is basically a game of free will. On a purely theoretical level, there is no room for luck, at least the luck is not embedded in the nature of the game itself, but rather occurs due to the human element that plays the game. Luck is replaced by responsibility and ability to choose freely. The world of 64 squares offers a secret place to escape, where -unlike many cruelties in our reality and world- inequality and third party influence does not exist. As second World Champion E. Lasker once pointed out:

“Both players have an equal right of suffrage, and the opinion that is upheld is not the one that was voiced first but the one that triumphed in the debate."

In chess, these opinions manifest themselves in the form of moves, of which you have the full control, as long as they are within the rules of the games. No one can tell you what move to play, no one will charge you taxes for the pieces that you capture. You are free in your decisions. It is this underlying experience of freedom and self-determination that essentially makes her drawn into the game.

On the other hand, notion of freedom is substantially intertwined with the notion of expression. Chess in this sense offers itself as a medium of self-expression. We often speak of playing styles, we attribute personality traits to the chess moves or sometimes moves reflect character traits of the player. Former WC-Challenger David Bronstein once remarked:

“...and it is not only the momentary disposition, but also the individual character that shows itself in chess. The extra-cautious, the petty, the tricky, the opportunistic – these become easily recognisable...”

We can also observe similar phenomenon in Beth Harmon's playing style, when her decisions on the board sometimes look like a reflection of how she feels inside. She often launches a deadly attack on her opponents from the very beginning with such an aggression that reminds of a vengeful act of someone, who takes revenge back from the world and life for all the painful things that he/she undeservedly had to undergo. Her trenchant attacks turn soon into a demonstration of a power play and she definitely enjoys this experience of power.

Power can also be seen as a concentration of energy stemming from different layers such as motivation, passion, willpower or determination into a single force that helps one to reach her/his particular goal. So basically, power acts as a tool for accomplishment. With other words, intensity and scope of power depends on things like degree of passion and motivation, which are usually there until the achievement. This dependency and difficulty of sustainability of passion and motivation make the question "What's next?" inevitable.

"If you are World Champion at sixteen, what do you do with the rest of your life?"

Once a long-waited goal is reached, the insidious tragedy of pursuit of happiness begins. When Beth Harmon's 13-year old opponent shares his ambition to become world champion in just three years, she puzzles him by asking "If you win, what do you do next?". This unexpected and fundamental question leaves her young prodigy opponent speechless as he cannot make any sense of this issue. This scene is one of those moments in the Queen's Gambit, where the TV-Show transcends the game itself by blending chess in much deeper and fundamental context of our reality. The question posed is much more general in its nature and the issue can be applied to almost any of our dreams endeavoured by us. The paradoxical nature of pursuit of happiness is also addressed by Polish-British sociologist and philosopher Zygmunt Bauman in Art of Living:

“What is likely to puzzle contemporary seekers of happiness the most is the tacit assumption that happiness is (could be, should be) a state, perhaps even a steady and continuous state, unchangeable once reached. Once all the items on the list are acquired and collected, and once it has been ensured they can be 'had' perpetually, they can be expected (so Aristotle implied) to provide happiness to their owners day in, day out – in perpetuo. [...]

As Christopher Marlowe's Faust learned the hard way, wishing for a moment of bliss to stay 'the same' indefinitely is guaranteed to procure indefinite commitment to hell instead of indefinite happiness...”

Perhaps it was this "hell" that Beth Harmon was trying to warn his young opponent by making him aware of it as early as possible, perhaps it was a question she also kept asking herself and wanted to hear an answer. We'll never know. But what we can know is that this type of confrontation is something we all experience at some point in our lives.

The moment of astonishment and achievement. Realisation of "Im there now."

The need for constant challenge in our lives is an inextricable part of pursuit of happiness. Bigger the challenge, bigger the reward. (To define happiness as a form of satisfaction might be disputed philosophically, but for the sake of simplicity and practical reasons, i wont go into this debate in the article.) Challenge and reward coexist. Perhaps this existential issue goes much deeper and rooted in the need to create a meaningful, consistent life-story.

Chess is just one way among countless ways of challenging ourselves. In which way it challenges us is as various as it can be as it depends on the meaning and importance we see in the game and the goals we set for ourselves. When we try to win, we don't just try to win. I totally agree with Jonathan Rowson, when he says in his book The Moves that Matter:

“The game is never just about itself. Steeped in history and the accumulated wisdom of centuries of human experience, chess and its symbols can take on almost any character the player needs at that time; an encounter where we can express, discover, create and enjoy ourselves.”

When we try to win, we try to realise one or more of many deeper psychological urges and achievements that are dispositional to our human nature: these can vary from as simple as ego-gratification to as subtle as need for long suspension in "a heightened state of luscious cognition"(Rowson, The Moves that matter). Chess plays an instrumental role in this process of self-realisation. Perhaps, it is one of the core reasons that the game survived so long in our history as it has so many facets that can find a way to connect with some part of our broad palette of dispositional desires: Experience of mental power, control and domination over others, adrenalin of competition, seek for social acceptance or need for socialise, love for the abstraction and abstract beauty, love for the concentration, or even intense way of distraction from daily life and numbing the monkey-mind etc... The game can be very subjective as everyone can find something for her/himself, yet exactly for this reason -for its ability to be so subjective- it is very universal. No matter from which country or culture you are, no matter what age or gender you are, you can still find something for yourself in chess and therein lies the real beauty of the game. Chess is a "universal mix" as one of the most beloved World Champions Mikhail Tal says in an interview:

"For some people chess is creativity, for others, it is art, for some of them, it is a sport. And all of them are right! For me, chess is a cocktail, and every man mix it for himself."

Let me finish this essay with questions that made me start to write at all:

Why do you think we love chess?
What meaning does chess have for you?
Why do you love chess?

Thanks for your time and attention!

(Important Note: I do not own those images (obviously), all images used in this post belong to Netflix and used under Fair Use/Educational Purposes.)

(Note 2: I had written this post and published about a year ago on chess.com, but now that Lichess finally has blog feature, i wanted to have it here :) )