Truth or History

In chess I am also a staunch supporter of classical clarity of thought. The content of a game should be a search for truth, and victory a demonstration of its rightness. No fantasy, however rich, no technique, however masterly, no penetration into the psychology of the opponent, however deep, can make a chess game a work of art, if these qualities do not lead to the main goal—the search for truth.

—V. Smyslov. 125 Selected Games. Page 5.

Of course one shouldn't forget that the game of chess, for all its radiance, artistry and deep fascination, is essentially a trivial pursuit. It is without content. Thus the "history" of chess is of no more intrinsic interest than the history of punting or thumb-twiddling or nose-picking. But it does have a history, and so books about it will continue to appear. The subject already has the peaceful glow of scholastic futility. One of the great things about chess is its refusal, not its readiness, to serve as paradigm for anything else, as Freudians, Marxists et al. have frustratingly found. Chess is what it is and not another thing, it is only a game.

—Martin Amis. Observer. 23 December 1984.

From Kings, Commoners and Knaves: Further Chess Explorations. Edward Winter. 1999. Chess Notes 502 and 902.