The board, the pieces and the moves as elements of a relational space

Geographical thinking is rarely mentioned as a skill that chess players possess. But, disguised by other names such as positional understanding or calculation, we will argue in this article that chess is a game firmly rooted in the comprehension and analysis of space and its ensuing relations.

In recent years, geography welcomed a new interpretation of space that is, as many argue, its core concept. Gone are the days of understanding space as an inert vessel for human action, or of understanding space solely by its concrete components. Space starts with the fixed aspects that we stated previously, but is also permeated by actions and relations (Cresswell, 2012). As Santos (1996) argues, space is an inseparable union of systems of objects and systems of action. A disregard for action as a component of space ignores that the existence of any particular object is realized through action. There's no system of objects without a corresponding system of actions.

This is also true for chess in our view. There's a very concrete element to any given chess position: the board and the pieces. But they alone do not constitute a chess game. They constitute a chess game through the correct use of the rules by the players and through the action of playing; in other words, by moving pieces correctly according to the rules. Furthermore, it is only by a subjective set of actions and processes of thought that chess players gain an understanding of the position. Or should we say, an understanding of space?

Our proposition is that any given chess position can be analyzed and evaluated by a unified understanding of the system of objects and the system of actions. In more chess-appropriate wording: we can judge a position by its pieces and their positions on the chessboard (the objects), and their potential and legal moves available (the actions).

Our approach proceeds as follows: first, we need to identify what constitutes the position when it is our move to play. This includes the scope and role of the pieces, the safety of the kings, and the spatial occupation of the board—that is, where the pieces are concentrated, who has more space available for their pieces, and where on the board it is more or less crowded. This initial assessment is based on the understanding of the fixed (for now) elements of a position, the elements that make this position unique in a sea of possible chess positions.

Only then can we start to meditate on the second aspect of space: the actions, in this case, the potential moves and resulting positions. Calculation is an activity based on the accurate assessment of possible actions. Here, the fixed elements described above become alive; their kinetic possibility is at the center of our concerns. A bad bishop, far from the action that is happening on the board, can be decisive if, in one single move, it pins the queen to the king. Going deeper, a bad bishop—a bishop with the same color complex as the pawn structure—is only bad because of its relations with the pawns, which limit its scope. Another example is the knight in the corner being worse than a centered knight; this only applies because of the knight's relation with the chessboard, as in the corner it lacks the space that's available to a centered knight. Therefore, there's no absolute value for pieces in practical play, only in their coordination with other pieces, both ours and the opponent's, on the chessboard. The objective here is to transcend the dualism between positional understanding and the calculation of variations, as they are both essentially intertwined in chess analysis. There's no positional understanding without valuing the potentiality of the pieces, their dynamic components. Likewise, there's no calculation without valuing the fixed aspects of the position; in chess, there's no dynamic thinking without a concrete position, no action without an object.

Concluding our proposal, the decision-making aspect of chess should be guided in the same way people or a collective of people orient themselves in space. If you find yourself in an unknown place, you do not ask yourself only where you are but where you go based on where you want to be. Similarly, in an unknown position, you first ask yourself where you are and then how you get to a position more advantageous than the one that is on the board. By the action of calculation, the chess player is guiding their pieces from a fixed framework of static objects to the unlimited world of variations, presented here as possible actions. The conjoined analysis of the system of objects (the pieces and where they are on the board) and the system of actions (where the pieces can be and the new system of objects that arises from this configuration) facilitates the interpretation of any chess position. This is not to say there's more merit in thinking about chess in this geographical framework, but we do believe in its consistency as a possible and reasonable process for understanding a position and making good moves.

References
Cresswell, T. (2012). Geographic thought: A critical introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
Santos, M. (1996). A natureza do espaço (The nature of space). Hucitec.