Pawns, Zugzwangs and Sacrifices

How Democrats Can Play Politics Better, Using Chess Analogies

I love chess. It’s a relatively simple to understand game once you understand how the pieces move. Once set up, to begin the game (commonly referred to as “the opening”) there are only 10 pieces that can possibly move, and 20 possible moves in total. On the second move there are 400 possible chess positions. With the fourth move, there are 8 possible checkmates out of 197,281 possible positions. After 7 moves there are nearly 3.2 BILLION possible positions. Don’t even get me going on how high the numbers go after that; it’s why no matter how good I get, I’ll never be a grandmaster. In fact, I’m better than a novice but usually get crushed by anyone who takes the game even a little seriously.

Now, understanding how the pieces move and the possible positions is one thing; in fact, that’s how most people also understand and talk about politics. They get the gist of it, talk a lot about “what if..” and “if so and so does this…” but what they really lack is an understanding about strategy. It’s what most good players get and understand that casual players don’t. They understand and recognize the “Queen’s Gambit,” the “Ruy Lopez” and the “Caro-Kann Defense” and the way to counter them and good moves to adjust to them.¹ Most of us just see the pieces not knowing we’ve been set up and three moves later we’ve been ambushed and lost our Queen. Some of this I get on a basic level, but people who really play the game understand it at it’s core.

And a few reasons they get it are that they understand some basic premises about the game that some of us are reluctant to apply to politics. Granted, one is just a game while the other is real life. However, there is a reason why politics is often analogized as a “chess game” or “4-d Chess”; the strategies are easily applied and can be used to describe what is actually occuring.

So here is some political advice, from someone who understands politics, provided in the context of chess analogies:

• Lay the groundwork early on. In chess this is called “creating a pawn structure.” This is your best defense but helps define the playing board and how everything moves. In politics, this is about deciding what issues to put into play and building up a grassroots organization to compete. The more you move pieces out ahead of your pawns, without regard to building up the structure needed, the faster you’re just going to lose.

• Compete for the middle of the board. The middle of the chessboard is where the action is, and being able to control it usually results in whether someone wins or loses. The competition usually begins with the very first moves of the game. Likewise, you should always be competing for the middle of the electorate in politics. If you’re spending your time catering to the Rook columns (these are called the “a” and “h” columns, as they go in alphabetic order from left to right from the perspective of the person playing white) or shifting too far to the left or the right, you’ve already likely lost. That leaves a lot of negative space on the board for your opponent to maneuver without fear of losing anything. If you spend your time catering to your base in the backrow, or too much to the left or right flanks, you’re not winning, you’re cowering and you’ve already lost.

• Sacrifices will have to be made. If a piece is under attack, and it’s inevitable that you are going to lose it, don’t compound problems and make your position worse defending it and losing more pieces. Sometimes, accepting the loss is necessary. The same in politics. Some issues aren’t good to keep defending.² If you try and defend everything as equally important, it’s just easier for your opponent to pick you apart one piece at a time until you are easily defeated. Some positions have to be sacrificed for the good of the side, so that you can place yourself in a more secure position, better for attacking and in a better position to win. The important thing in both chess and politics is understanding what sacrifices need to be made and what ones don’t.

• Understand if it is a “closed” game or an “open” game. When both sides are dug in, have strong pawn structures and it’s hard for pieces to move, it’s often referred to as a “closed” game. In cases like that, knights are more valuable as they can navigate around a little easier, between and around the pawns and open things up. When rows and columns and diagonals are more open, that’s when bishops and rooks are more valuable.³ When talking of politics, this goes to what issues matter and how you attack them. Sometimes, you have to have a more nuanced, roundabout approach where you pick and choose your issues and positions and at other times the lanes are wide open for huge sweeping attacks and counterattacks. Understanding the game, and how to employ the right people and approaches to deliver the message can decide the outcome.⁴

• Be wary of traps. Sometimes, you can get your opponent to go to a certain square by placing a nice bait on it for him to take. It’s only after the move that they realize that was a trap and now you can take a better piece because of it. In chess, this is can be done by fork, skewer, x-ray attack, or discovered attack. In politics, this is done by setting up an issue that you know the other side wants to play on, but what’s really being done is a set-up to get something you want. Democrats do a great job of this whenever there is a government shutdown. Republicans want to cut taxes, cut spending and gut government, but by throwing the government into shutdown, Democrats become the defenders of everything good government does, like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Education, etc.. Republicans often play traps on cultural topics that Democratic activists are often all too eager to jump into without thinking. Instead of leaping right in full speed ahead, players should be cautious and skeptical prior to moving on it.

• Force zugzwangs. I know what you’re thinking—what the hell is a zugzwang?⁵ It’s when any move you make puts you in a more disadvantageous position. When it’s a game that just goes back and forth, sooner or later you’re going to get to a point where you have to move, and whichever way you go is not as good as where you are. It’s usually in times like this things can go from “it’s bad but not too bad” to “holy shit this is a catastrophe” really quick. In politics, you don’t “have” to move per se. It’s easy to get comfy and not have to make too many moves, reap the benefits of coasting without any blame for anything. But that in itself is a decision; complacency can be made into a detriment. The idea is to create situations where action is needed or there has to be some need for addressing the issue, but every choice they make is varying degrees of bad. The more they have to do, the more blame they get.⁶

• See the whole board. It’s harder to do than you might think. In the middle of the heat of the game, it’s really easy to be fixated on that piece or on ways to attack the King. It’s usually at that point you lose a major piece because you didn’t pay attention to the square you were putting yours on or your opponent’s movements on the other side of the board. When it comes to politics, you need to always be aware of how things look from other places on the chessboard. Push too hard on one issue, and you may lose constituents elsewhere. Close down the borders, you may lose a large part of your seasonal agricultural workers. Push for LGBTQ issues, and you may lose religious supporters.⁷ There are always trade-offs that need to be understood and assessed. It’s always important to see the big picture and understand what you’re potentially giving up by moving forward.

• Lastly, always keep your eyes on checkmate. It’s the goal of the game. It doesn’t matter how many pieces you’ve captured or the quality of the pieces you have left on the board, if you get checkmated, you lost. The number of times I’ve played solid games only to be checkmated seemingly out of left field have been many. I’ve gotten better, and am more cognizant of it all the time in my playing now. Always keep your eyes on the prize and always consider how the other side is doing the same. When we talk about elections, it’s always about getting to 50%+1, whether its in total votes or Electoral Votes. Never take your eyes off it. Democrats need to absorb that better, particularly at the Presidential level. Quit arguing about getting rid of the Electoral College, which isn’t going anywhere. Instead, make informed decisions about making viable paths to victory, and compete for every vote, every where, all the time. You never know what might happen and it’s important to plant those seeds often, early and come back to them time and time again.

Now, when it comes to games and real life, there is always one thing that I always come back to; in games, eventually it is over, there is a winner and a loser. In real life, the game continues; either you start a new one or the game never really ends. How you play one game now can impact how you play in the future, and how your opponents think you are going to act and react. Lose one game, you may just be setting them up for a huge loss the next time. And when we get to that point, that’s when we are truly playing 4-D chess.

PurpleAmerica’s Recommended Stories

Because of it’s simplicity in gameplay, programmatic way of analyzing, and endless variations in how the game can proceed, computers have become far better at chess than the greatest of human players. The consequences of that are somewhat interesting.

One change is that there is now an increased focus in “blitz” games. These are games where the amount of time you have overall is very low, so it’s important to move quickly and constantly, with little or no thought. This prevents reconsideration and outside communications, and presents far more opportunities for mistakes.

Also at the upper levels of chess play, you’re seeing many more attempts and more people caught cheating using computers than ever before. One notable example included the lowest ranked player at a tournament defeating the highest ranked player in the world:

The Hans Niemann vs. Magnus Carlsen is arguably the most controversial and popular chess scandal that shook the entire community. The controversy started in 2022. Niemann, at that time, the lowest-ranked player in the tournament, shockingly broke Carlsen’s 53-game unbeaten streak using the Nimzo-Indian defense.  The defeat led to Carlsen withdrawing from the tournament without any explanation. Soon, Carlsen would publish a cryptic tweet, which naturally led people to believe that he was accusing Niemann of cheating. Niemann was quick to address the controversy and admitted to cheating as a teenager but not against Carlsen. The rumors spread like wildfire, with popular media outlets, like the Independent, calling it “The biggest scandal in chess history,”. Tournament organizers were quick to increase their anti-cheating measures, but the damage was done. Niemann boldly proclaimed that he was willing to play naked to prove his innocence in an interview. Now, you might be wondering, how can someone cheat during chess and why would being naked have anything to do with it? Well, according to some interesting (but weird) speculations, some believed that Neimann used vibrating anal beads (yes, you read that right) to receive move commands from an outsider. 

Then there was also this event:

Sébastien Feller, who became a grandmaster in 2007 at the age of 17, faced cheating accusations during the 2010 Chess Olympiad. What stands out about Feller’s scandal is its sophistication and the fact he enlisted two highly rated chess players as accomplices. He enlisted grandmaster Arnaud Hauchard and international master Cyril Marzolo. Their strategy was simple yet clever. While Feller was playing, Marzolo, who was in France, was checking for the next best move for Feller with a chess computer. Marzolo allegedly sent the next moves in coded pairs of numbers by text to Hauchard, who was in the hall. As soon as he had the next move suggestion. He would shift his position and stand behind one of the chess player’s tables in a predefined coded system. A total of 200 text messages were found during the tournament. But Feller was quick to deny any cheating allegations and released a statement to defend himself. Sadly, for Feller, FIDE took severe disciplinary actions, and he lost his GM title as punishment. Furthermore, he received a three year ban from all FIDE Tournaments. In 2019, the correctional tribune of Thionville sentenced Feller to six months in prison for cheating at the Chess Olympiad. As of now, He has completed his sentence and has returned to playing chess.

One reasons the algorithms are so much better than humans is that they routinely employ non-conventional tactics that most grandmasters don’t regularly consider. AlphaZero, an AI Chess algorithm that essentially taught itself to play by playing an endless series of simulations against itself, often plays uncharacteristically dynamic moves that the great players don’t consider and never practice against. Another reason is that as the game continues, the algorithms assess probabilistically what is the best move to be played next. Coincidentally, BOTH of these practices are usually surefire ways to cause suspicion of someone cheating. Well, that and apparently going to the bathroom too frequently as was found here:

Gaioz Nigalidze, the Georgian chess grandmaster, thought he could cheat during a tournament by hiding his phone in a lavatory - under toilet paper. The scandal erupted during the 2015 Dubai Open, where Gaioz Nigalidze was up against Tigran L. Petrosian, who found Nigalidze’s frequent lavatory visits strange and suspicious. Petrosian promptly voiced his concerns to the arbiter, and the toilet was subject to a search, where a mobile was discovered clumsily stashed away under some toilet paper. The chess scandal quickly made media headlines as it was a high-profile case. A chess grandmaster had been found cheating during a tournament is headline news after all.

Although Nigalidze denied ownership of the phone, officials found a social media app registered to him on the device. One of the chess applications on the device was analyzing the game, and he used that to make his next moves. Nigalidze became the first player subject to investigation and punishment by FIDE. He was stripped of his grandmaster title and banned from the game for three years. 

PurpleAmerica’s Obscure Fact of the Day

If you place one grain of rice in the first square of the chessboard, and then double it in each successive square on the board, at the end you will have 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 grains of rice. That’s roughly 18 and a half QUINTILLION grains of rice.

That’s nothing compared to the number of possible chess positions, something referred to as “Shannon’s Number” after Claude Shannon, the person who discovered it in the 1950s when contemplating making a chess program. The number is over 10^120⁸ or written out is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible position combinations.

That’s a lot.

PurpleAmerica’s Final Word on the Subject

“Good game.”

LIKE WHAT YOU SEE? MAKE SURE TO SUBSCRIBE AND SHARE!!!

Footnotes and Fun Stuff

1. These standard strategies are why whenever you watch Grandmasters play one another, the first 10 or so moves are so very familiar, programmatic and rote. With every move, they understand the concept of the move, the strategy being employed, the countermoves necessary, and how to play in response. So of the first 20 possible moves in the opening, it’s why in practice there are usually only 7 or 8 that actually make sense. And it continues by the book until someone chooses one option over another, and from there (“what is called “the middle game”) the jockeying for position and potential checkmate begins in earnest.

2. A good example of this is the trans sports issue. Most people immediately recognize formerly male athletes (now women) who have had a lifetime of testosterone building up muscle, competing in women’s sports as inherently unfair. Democrats defending that issue only compound their problems. It’s better for them to say “Yes, it’s unfair” and move onto more beneficial issues to their cause.

3. Rooks are more valuable at the end of the game, so they usually don’t come out early on. It’s better in the openings and the middle game to use bishops rather than rooks.

4. A recent excellent example of this was Trump’s deportation issue. By mindlessly deporting people without due process it was only a matter of time before an American citizen like Abrego Garcia was wrongfully deported. When it happened, Chris Van Hollen going to El Salvador, and Democrats making this a priority issue, hit Trump between the eyes on an issue he made a cornerstone.

5. I love just saying this word.

6. One of the things about Trump’s first term I find perplexing is that people give Trump so much credit for how great the economy was. It was really the economy Obama had set up and Democrats let Trump pretty much coast on it. Trump didn’t really do that much in the first year of his first term, and didn’t even pass a tax cut until his second year. Democrats should have made it much more difficult for him on the economy than they did. Instead, they focused on personal/cultural issues, which Trump leaned into, even set up.

7. This played out hugely against Democrats on the Palestine issue. A large contingent of Democratic supporters are Jewish, and it gives them the appearance of being too much in favor of Israel. This is also a group Republicans would love to pick off. Another group Dems cater to are youth vote and social warrior crowd; these two contingencies were put in conflict when college campuses showed sympathy in favor of Palestinians in Gaza. n

8. For comparison a “googol” is 10^100, which is 1 followed by 100 zeroes. This is bigger than THAT.