2. A piece which cannot capture, does not exercise any threat of
capture; and
3. Consequently, a piece deprived of its right to move; which
cannot capture nor exercise any threat to capture, obviously and
by mathematical demonstration, cannot give check, inasmuch, as
“check” merely is the threat by a piece to move and capture the
adverse King.
Therefore, whatever may be the normal area of movement belonging to a
piece, whenever from any cause such piece loses its power of movement,
then,
It no longer can capture, nor exercise any threat of capture, upon the
points contained within said area; and consequently such points so far
as said immovable piece is concerned, may be occupied in safety by any
adverse piece including the adverse King, for the reason that:
An immovable piece cannot move; and not being able to move it cannot
capture, and not being able to capture, it does not exercise any threat
of capture, and consequently it cannot give check.
This incongruity of permitting an immovable piece to give check
constitutes the second mathematical blemish in the game of Chess, as at
present constructed.
This fallacy, the correction of which any schoolboy may mathematically
demonstrate, is defended, even by many who would know better, if they
merely would take time for reflection; by the inane assumption, that:
A piece which admittedly is disqualified and rendered dormant by all
the fundamentals of the science of Chess, and which therefore cannot
legally move and consequently cannot legally capture anything; by some
hocus-pocus may be made to move and to capture that _most_ valuable
of _all_ prizes, the adverse King; and this at a time and under
circumstances when, as is universally allowed, it cannot legally move
against, nor legally capture _any other_ adverse piece.
The basis of this illogical, illegal, and untenable assumption is:
The pinned piece, belonging to that force which has the privilege of
moving, can abandon its post, and capture the adverse King; this stroke
ends the game and the game being ended, the pinning piece never can avail
of the abandonment of the covering post by the pinned piece to capture
the King thus exposed.
The insufficiency of this subterfuge is clear to the mathematical
mind. Its subtlety lies in confounding together things which have no
connection, viz.:
Admittedly the given body of Chess-pieces has the right to move, but it
is of the utmost importance to note that this privilege of moving extends
only to a single piece and from this privilege of moving the pinned piece
is debarred by a specific and fundamental law of the game, which declares
that:
“A piece shall not by removing itself uncover the kindred King to
the attack of a hostile piece.”
Thus, it is clear, that a pinned piece is a disqualified piece; its
powers are dormant and by the laws of the game it is temporarily reduced
to an inert mass, and deprived of every faculty normally appertaining
to it as a Chess-piece. On the other hand, as is equally obvious, the
pinning piece is in full possession of its normal powers and is qualified
to perform every function.
To hold that a piece disqualified by the laws of the game can nullify the
activities of a piece in full possession of its powers, is to assert that
black is white, that the moon is made of green cheese, that the tail can
wag the dog, or any other of those things which have led the German to
promulgate his caustic formula on the Anglo-Saxon.
Hence, artificially to nullify the normal powers of an active and
potential piece which is operating in conformity to the laws of the game,
and artificially to revivify the dormant powers of a piece disqualified
by the same laws; to debar the former from exercising its legitimate
functions and to permit the latter to exercise functions from which by
law, it specifically is debarred, is a self-evident incongruity and any
argument whereby such procedure is upheld, necessarily and obviously, is
sophistry.
* * * * *
No less interesting than instructive and conclusive, is reference of this
question to those intellectual principles which give birth to the game of
Chess, _per se_, viz.:
As a primary fundamental, with the power to give check, is associated
concurrently the obligation upon the King thus checked, not to remain in
check.
Secondly: The totality of powers assigned to the Chess-pieces is the
ability to move, provided the King be free from check. This totality of
powers may be denoted by the indefinite symbol, X.
The play thus has for its object:
The reduction to zero of the adverse X, by the operation of the kindred X.
This result is checkmate in its generalized form. In effect, it is the
destruction of the power of the adverse pieces to move, by means of check
made permanent.
By the law of continuity it is self-evident that:
The power to move appertaining either to White or to Black, runs from
full power to move any piece (a power due to freedom from check), down
to total inability to move any piece, due to his King being permanently
checked, _i.e._, checkmated.
This series cannot be interrupted without obvious violation of the ethics
of the game; because, so long as any part of X remains, the principle
from which the series emanated still operates, and this without regard to
quantity of X remaining unexpended.
Thus, a game of Chess is a procedure from total ability to total
disability; _i.e._, from one logical whole to another; otherwise, from X
to zero.
Checkmate, furnishes the limit to the series; the game and X vanish
together.
This is in perfect keeping with the law of continuity, which acts and
dominates from beginning to end of the series, and so long as any part of
X remains.
Hence to permit either White or Black to move any piece, leaving his King
in check, is an anomaly.
* * * * *
Denial to the Pawn of ability to move to the rear is an accurate
interpretation of military ethics.
Of those puerile hypotheses common to the man who does not know, one of
the most entrancing to the popular mind, is the notion that Corps d’armee
properly are of equal numbers and of the same composition.
This supposition is due to ignorance of the fact that the multifarious
duties of applied Strategetics, require for their execution like variety
of instruments, which diversity of means is strikingly illustrated by the
differing movements of the Chess-pieces.
The inability of the Pawn to move backward strategically harmonizes with
its functions as a Corps of Position, in contradiction to the movements
of the pieces, which latter are Corps of Evolution.
This restriction in the move of the Pawn is in exact harmony with the
inability of the Queen to move on obliques, of the Rook to move on
obliques or on diagonals, of the Bishop to move on obliques, verticals
and horizontals, of the Knight to move on diagonals, verticals, and
horizontals, and of the King to move like any other piece.
* * * * *
Possessed of the invaluable privilege of making the first move in
the game, knowing that no move should be made without an object,
understanding that the true object of every move is to minimize the
adverse power for resistance and comprehending that all power for
resistance is derived from facility of movement, the student easily
deduces the true object of White’s initial move in every game of Chess,
viz.: