I am re-reading Eales’s: Chess the History of a game, as chess history is supposedly my thing, and I did accidentally throw the thing away four years ago 😦 . New copy came through the post before the woeful summer commenced!
The first paragraph of the preface is as follows:
A history of chess is firstly a history of chess players, and as such I hope it will interest modern players who realize that in taking up the game, they are entering on a rich inheritance built by their predecessors. But it is also an account of the changing background against which chess has evolved, the forces which have caused it to be sometimes respected and encouraged, sometimes disapproved of, or even made illegal. The long development of chess has led through many different cultures and societies. It has been variously described as a game, a sport, a science or an art. At different times its social appeal has been seen as primary noble, intellectual, or even proletarian. In literature it has served as a metaphor, for order through its ranking of distinctive pieces. For these reasons I hope the book will also interest those who do not play chess well (or at all), because it deals with many important historical issues, though from an unfamiliar point of view.
pg. 9
I have to say, as something of an admirer, what does the final clause in the final sentence mean? ‘…an unfamiliar point of view’? probably that it is based on discourse. I may be wrong but some explanation would have helped.
McCreadyandChess 