The present post is simply a sort of by-trifle to The Ontology of Psychology. It might alternatively be dubbed “The
characterology of individual action in a multiperson structured setting”.
The unit of analysis
in Goffman’s accounts is
always the individual role-player
striving to effect his will
within a role-structuring situation.
-- Alasdair MacIntyre, After
Virtue (1981; 21984), p.
115
This put me curiosly in mind of the ‘sociology’ of chessmen.
(Here we speak, not of the vision of grandmasters, which is doubtless
far more holistic, but of patzers, which is the only one I know.)
Originally, the game was a metaphor or rather ‘video-game
representation’ for medieval warfare.
Thrilling stuff. And to a beginner, at least, it really
does feel as though individual pieces are venturing out, or ignominiously
retreating, issuing powerful
threats or just pushing pawnily along. Sometimes, a noble warrior even ventures to be ‘sacrificed’
for the greater good. I can
testify that, as a scrappy lad first learning the rudiments, the queen, rather
than just a factor among many, in a sort of multivariate algebraic equation, was dizzying in her potential power -- “Wait’ll
I sic my queen on ‘im!” It was
reminiscent of the culture of trading baseball cards -- Trajea a Mickle Mantle
for a Yogi Berra plus a Roger Marris.
An archive of
children’s chess-matches would
probably back this up, showing far more early-game forays by that dominating
dame, than in expert play.
Compare, from Nabokov’s chess-novel:
…palpable pieces whose quaint shape and wooden
materiality always disturbed him, and
always seemed to him but the crude, mortal shell of exquisite, invisible chess forces.
…
Luzhin removed and placed on the table beside him what was no longer an incoporeal force,
but a heavy, yellow Pawn.
… The weightiest elements on the board called to one another with trumpet
voices, and again there was an exchange, and again two chess forces were transformed into carved, brightly
lacquered dummies.
-- Vladimir Nabokov, The Luzhin
Defense (1964)
~
In Go, by contrast, the counters are all blandly
interchangeable in themselves.
They pop out of nowhere, one by one (indefinitely); and once placed, have
no power to move from the spot. A
holistic view is imposed even on the beginner.
No comments:
Post a Comment