Evening star., 1928-05-14
THIS AND THAT
BY CHARLES E. TRACEWELL.


Napoleon Bonaparte. contrary to pop
ular opinion, was not a good chess
player. His secretary Bourrienne, says
on this point in his memoirs:
"Bonaparte played at chess, but very
seldom, because he was only a third
rate player, and he did not like to be
beaten at that game, which. know not
why Is said to bear a resemblance to
the grand game of war. AT this latter
game Bonaparte certainly feared no
adversary,
This reminds me that when we were
leaving PasSeriano he announced his in
tention of passing through Mantua. He
was told that the commandant of that
town. believe, Gen. Beauvoir-waS a
great chess player. and he expressed a
wish to play a game with him.
Gen. Beauvoir asked him to point
out any particular pawn with which he
would be checkmated, adding that II
the pawn were taken he (Bonaparte)
should be declared the winner. Bona
parte pointed out the last pawn on the
left of his adversary.
"A mark was put upon 1t, and 1t
turned out that he actually was check
mated with this very pawn. Bonaparte
was not very well pleased at this. He
liked to play with me because, though
rather a better player than himself. /
was not always able to beat him. AS
soon as game was decided in his
favor he declined to play any longer,
preferring to rest on his laurels."
Had Bourrienne lived a century later
he might have revised his opinion con-
cerning the relationship OF chess and
war.
The resemblance of the indoor game
of chess TO the grand game Of war has
been noted for thousands Of years. Ishe
Romans were fond of so regarding 1t,
and certainly no peoples made war IN
any better style. Surely they should
have known what they were talking
about.
1t remained for Bostonian, how
ever. to demonstrate the parallelism be-
tween the two. THE Minor Tactics of
Chess" by Franklin K. Young (and
Edwin G. Howell. was issued in 1894
by Roberts Bros. (The copyright has
since been transferred to Little, Brown
g. Coz
This book so far as We know. was the
first attempt to work out what the wor' i
had hitherto merely thought, namely,
that chess certainly does seem TO re-
Semble war.
Following the publication OF the
Minor Tactics" Mr.. Young went ahead
resolutely by himself to work out the
theory. In the course of this work he
developed THE Major Tactics OF Chess"
and The Grand Tactics of Chess" large
and formidable volumes. yet of tremen-
dous interest to chess players.
%
'In this contribution to the literature
Of chess the authors have attempted to
present the elements Of new theory
of play" declares the preface TO The
Minor Tactics of Chess"
They have confined themselves in
the main to the exposition of that part
of the system which governs the Open
ing of the game BY suggestion, how
ever II not by definite statement, they
hope to have laid before the reader at
least the spirit of the complete theory.
''Leibnitz pronounced chess an exact
science. Petroff placed 1t on level with
the integral calculus. and the great
Andersen declared that its intricacieS
we're more abstruse than the most pro-
found mathematics. The authors of the
new theory. agreeing with this trio OF
distinguished scholars. are tempted to
go still further. and to assert, even at
the peril of being considered somewhat
visionary, not only that chess Is real
science, but that 1t may not unreaSon-
ably be regarded as symbolical OF the
supreme science--the science of force.
''If this be true. the study OF chess