The Chariot Castle
by Adam | Monday 22 January 2007
For a newcomer, the rook appears like the least formidable piece on the back row; there is the misconception that the order of pieces from center [king through queen through bishop through knight through rook and forward to pawn] is the hierarchy in chess. It simply isn't true.
The rook anchors the chessboard corners. It is my favorite piece. It moves like a full-grown pawn, a peon or feudal serf emerging humbly from inconsequence into service of the king. The rook does not provide the sudden and precipitous gratification of the queen, bishop, or knight, all of whom can be placed into a position of attack after only one preliminary move at the start of the game. The rook requires at least three preemptive moves to threaten another piece at the onset of a game.
Where the queen is a dog, the rook is a cat. Early in a game, one queen is worth more than the two rooks, but by mid-game they are equal, and by late-game, two rooks are worth more than one queen. By point value, the solo rook (5 points) is third only to the queen (9 points) and the king whose value is infinite because all other pieces die with their king.
The king has the most special relationship with the rook. When the king is under duress or when a player wants to make the rook more central to play, their kinship is consummated by 'castling' (Rochieren/Rochada in other languages).
The king and rook essentially switch order on the back row. It is the only move in chess during which two different pieces can move, and can happen only if the king and rook have not yet been moved from their original places on the board. In other words, the two pieces must have waited for each other.
Depending on which rook is used, the king moves two or three spaces closer to the end of the row and the rook covers the king by taking the space right next to it, the space that separates the king from the center of the board.
There can be no other pieces between them and the move cannot be executed if it imperils the king by placing it in check. The rook, on the other hand, may be put into danger and often is, in sacrifice for the king.
The difference between the West and the East could be summed up (at least by partially) by the rook. The invention of chess is credited to the Persians, in whose language the word rokh means chariot, an aggressive name for such an unassuming piece. The rook came to mean 'castle' when chess spread west, after the word rocca , the Italian for fortress.
The Persian rook has its connotation of assiduous militancy (the chariot), for a piece which initially requires such deliberation and patience in its coordination. This aspect of the Persian legacy of measured and predeterminate boldness is one of the most recognizable traits of present-day Persia, by reading a newspaper alone this is perceptible, even if one cannot foresee the end result of the unfolding strategy because of its convolution. The Persian idea of the rook feels more based on the advance than on the loyalty to its king. Or maybe the advance into battle is in itself the actual embodiment of loyalty, in glorious battle and likely death.
The Western rook (the castle), of fortress and fortification, has its foundational intonation. The rook is the piece that holds the walls together, all other pages seemingly contained within the castle bookends on the board. The duty is to protect the king and preserve a way of life that is vulnerable and in need of defense, precariously placed across a board from would-be attackers.
Maybe what the rook represents or how it is used in play is not actually the difference between any specific region, person, or interpretation of history. But the differences between Eastern words and Western styles seem dense enough now, the enmity today seems deep enough, that it would be too kind or idealistic to say that the same game is still being played. We are beyond shared rules and beyond common standards for wins and losses.
The rook, with its lateral movements, is left to decide: strictly vertical (in advance) or strictly horizontal (in defense).
Comments (5)
"...beyond common standards for wins and losses."
Eloquent and interesting is how I would characterize this post. But I take issue with the line I have quoted above.
While we no doubt have moved well beyond any semblence of shared rules (i.e. values) - we very much share the notion of victory viz-a-viz defeat. That is, for one of us to win, the other must lose, and we all at some level concur that winning and losing is a question of the imposition of will. For the West to defeat the East, or vice versa, one must impose its rules (values) - i.e. way of life, or governance in a political context - on the other. Our current enemy seeks to impose Islam as Russia formerly sought to impose Communism, as Hitler sought to impose his Facism - while we seek to spread liberalism, republicanism, democracy and our notions of freedom and liberty.
I don't think I over simplify here, as it is a simple question that I have answered. And all the shades of grey that exist somewhere in between victory and defeat that incline one to complicate this picture are precisely that, and exist precisely there.
Posted by Otter425 | 24 January @ 17:08
I appreciate the compliment, but I do disagree with your presentation of the perspectives of victory and defeat. I'm not sure I was prodding quite as deeply as you give me credit for, but I must say that it is difficult to think that perceptions of winning and losing between West and East are as cut and dry as you do.
When the West does win, it will not be a total victory in our convention perception of it. There will be no peace treaty signed on an oak table at the official residence of any head of state. The best we will have is a convincing argument for countries to spurn terrorism because it is not in their best interest. Our glorious notion of victory is that we will face a much-marginalized threat of terrorism until we all drown in our homes from global warming.
Likewise, our enemy is not capable of gauging total victory against us because we are fighting an enemy that lists no tangible demands other than 'submit to Islam or die.' This isn't going to happen either. So while total victory is HIGHLY improbable, fighting against the West, dying in battle, killing soldiers/civilians, upending stable governments, launching terror attacks, and the like, are all smaller victories in the greater ethos of terrorist groups.
If terrorists actually topple the governments in say, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, then we'll probably have a much different conversation. Let's hope not.
Posted by Adam | 26 January @ 13:27
Again, the shades of gray have seduced you away from a clear understanding of what is at stake in this stuggle. So as not to be misunderstood, I will speak plainly, and without flourish.
Victory for the West means that the totalitarianism of radical Islamism is defeated - meaning that it no longer holds sway over nations, nor does it play even the slightest role in determining nations' futures.
Victory for the enemy means that precisely the totalitarianism described above is imposed (i.e. imposition of sharia on the West and all infidels, or their subjugation as dhimmis) and ideals democracy and liberalism bannished from the world.
Put slightly differently, for the West to lose is for the entirety of the European Enlightenment - and all the resulting "fruits" - to be erased from human experience.
Victory for the good guys (the West), therefore, will not yet be achieved even when these barbaric and totalitarian ideas are marginalized. For us to truly win, they must be erased. The bad guys need the same result (albeit inverted) to achieve their own victory. Note that this does not have to mean military style winning and losing - the same applies, perhaps even more strongly, in the realm of ideas.
We might win small battles here and there, but true victory or defeat are necessarily the total victory and total defeat I am describing. Anything less is a self-imposed delusion designed to make us feel better about the severity of our position.
The good news is, we have within our power and ability to win, we just have to recognize the terms of the war and then fight our battles accordingly (ok, that was a flourish).
Posted by Otter425 | 26 January @ 17:32
"Victory for the West means that the totalitarianism of radical Islamism is defeated - meaning that it no longer holds sway over nations, nor does it play even the slightest role in determining nations' futures."
This is not a role for the United States or the West to take, this is not a decision "we" will ever make for "them." We are simply too "advanced" a society to make that possible.
I think the delusion exists in the thought that we can possibly erase (or set out to achieve the erasing of) a set of ideas shared by millions of people, no matter how radical. I don't think that is my being defeatist either.
The realm of ideas and the shades of gray are the same place, it is where the world is going to right itself through conversation (or it simply isn't).
There is no power (not even ours) now or in the foreseeable future that is truly possible of erasing the ideas of the others (in the numbers of billions), simply because as long as there are beliefs, there will be radical beliefs.
Posted by Adam | 28 January @ 23:21
As the quotation you used idicates, I have not suggested that we erase any idea, rather that it become a footnote in the history of humanity, much like Nazism has virtually become. True, there are neo-nazis and others who believe in this sinister idealogy, but nazism no longer controls the destiny of peoples, communities, or nations. Rather, it is a nuisance for law enforcement to contain and put down.
As you have said, it is impossible to police thought and ideas, but it IS possible to change, or at the very least influence the ideas that hold sway in the corridors of power - be they on Capitol Hill or the chambers of Saudi palaces, or caves in Afghanistan.
It is very much our place to act so, because we have this power and, in my opinion, possess the clarity of reason and political processes to minimize abuse and maximize benefit. And, more importantly, our survival depends on it, for so long as we exist and are ruled by our ideas, we will be perceived as an existential threat to the enemy - and HE will not hide behind notions of multiculturalism or plurality of ideas when we are in his sights.
Posted by Otter425 | 30 January @ 15:11