How the Parthenon has inspired the most iconic Chess Knights

How the Parthenon has inspired the most iconic Chess Knights

When Nathaniel Cook designed the Staunton knight in 1849, he wasn’t just trying to make a pretty chess piece: he was chasing an ideal. In the midst of Britain’s neoclassical revival, London revered Greek art as the ultimate model of balance and reason. The Parthenon friezes, newly installed at the British Museum, became a visual bible for sculptors, architects, and designers. Among the gods and procession scenes, the horses of the Panathenaic procession stood out: taut, elegant, with arched necks and lively gazes—a marvel of movement frozen in marble.

Parthenon frieze exhibited in the British Museum of London

Original Staunton (1849)

Look at them for a few seconds, and the connection is unmistakable. The Staunton knight, with its inclined head and firm jawline, captures that same mix of restrained strength and nobility that Phidias sculpted over two millennia ago. It was a deliberate departure from the fanciful or caricatured knights of earlier chess sets: for the first time, a chess piece was modeled with sculptural intent, not merely decorative purpose.

Original Stauton design (1849 by Nathaniel Cook)

The result is a piece that breathes classicism even in miniature. Its tense neck, slightly open muzzle, upright ears, and subtly suggested mane echo the forms carved on the Parthenon’s pediment—translating the ideal of balanced beauty into wood or ivory. This is why the Staunton knight succeeded: it wasn’t only functional and stable, it also conveyed intelligence and dignity. It was a horse of reason, not of fury.

Today, this may seem like a minor detail, but in that choice by Cook and Staunton, two worlds converged: the chessboard, a realm of calculation, and classical art, a symbol of harmony. The result was so perfect that it went on to define the world standard for chess pieces. The Staunton knight, inspired by Greek marble, became the universal face of chess.

Dubrovnik 1950

By the mid-20th century, chess design had entered a new era. The Dubrovnik 1950 set, designed in Yugoslavia and famously favored by Bobby Fischer, took the classical inspiration of the Staunton knight and reinterpreted it for a modern sensibility. Yet, even in its cleaner, simpler lines, the echoes of the Parthenon are unmistakable.

Bobby Fischer’s fascination with the Dubrovnik set bordered on reverence. He once called it “the best chess set ever designed”, admiring its clarity, proportion, and the dignified calm it brought to the board. Decades later, when he returned to play his 1992 rematch against Boris Spassky in Sveti Stefan, Fischer insisted that the games be played with an original Dubrovnik set—not a replica, but one of the authentic 1950s pieces. For him, it wasn’t nostalgia; it was a matter of principle. The set’s serenity, rooted in classical harmony, matched perfectly with the timeless gravity he felt the game deserved.

Each Dubrovnik knight seems to channel a different horse from the friezes than Staunton did—perhaps one of the more serene, poised animals from the procession reliefs. Its neck is gracefully curved, yet the tension is subtle, not dramatic. The jaw is firm but softened, giving the horse a calm, almost meditative expression. The mane is reduced to clean, flowing shapes, emphasizing volume over intricate detail.

Original set from the Chess Olympiad of Dubrovnik 1950

What makes the Dubrovnik knight so compelling is its balance between tradition and modernity. It preserves the dignity, energy, and noble restraint of the Greek horse, but it translates those qualities into a form that is more legible and elegant on a mid-century chessboard. The piece feels alive, yet restrained; it communicates a quiet strength rather than the theatrical energy of some earlier designs.

In essence, the Dubrovnik knight shows that the Parthenon’s influence was not a one-time homage—it was a living model. By selecting a specific type of horse from the frieze and adapting its gesture, designers created a piece that resonated with both aesthetic and functional clarity. Its success, like that of the Staunton, stems from fidelity to a classical ideal: beauty, proportion, and balance that endure across centuries.

Varna 1962

By 1962, chess design had become even more experimental, yet the Varna set, created for the Chess Olympiad in Bulgaria, demonstrates that the classical inspiration of the Parthenon still had a strong pull. Unlike Staunton’s sculptural detail or Dubrovnik’s elegant simplification, the Varna knight embraces line, geometry, and abstraction, but never at the expense of the horse’s essential nobility.

B. Fischer at Varna Chess Olympiads (1962)

The Varna knight seems to reflect a third type of Parthenon horse—a more stylized, rhythmic figure from the procession frieze. Its neck curves smoothly, almost like a continuous line; the mane is suggested by a single elegant ridge; and the muzzle is simplified but retains a firm, controlled expression. Even in abstraction, the posture and flow of the horse capture the tension and balance that Phidias mastered.

Model designed for Varna Olimpiad in 1962

This is why Varna works so beautifully. It translates the classical ideal into a modernist vocabulary: less literal, more distilled, yet immediately readable as a horse and immediately evocative of grace, intelligence, and contained energy. Like its predecessors, its success lies in fidelity to the timeless proportions and rhythm of classical sculpture, demonstrating that even in the age of mid-20th-century modernism, the Parthenon remained a touchstone of beauty for chess design.

Looking at the Staunton, Dubrovnik, and Varna knights side by side with their Parthenon counterparts, it’s easy to see why these pieces have endured. Each designer, in a different century and context, returned to the same classical wellspring—not merely to copy, but to translate the essence of Greek beauty into wood and ivory. The tense elegance, the restrained power, the balance of proportion—these qualities are timeless, and they speak to more than technique; they speak to human perception of form, intelligence, and harmony.

Chess is a game of strategy and calculation, but these knights remind us that it is also an art. The board becomes a miniature stage where history, culture, and design intersect. When we move a Staunton, Dubrovnik, or Varna knight across the squares, we are, in a way, reliving the gestures of sculptors from 2,400 years ago, and carrying forward a conversation between past and present.

Perhaps that is the true secret of their success: they are functional, yes, but they are also vessels of aesthetic memory, enduring symbols of the classical ideal. And in a world that often prioritizes utility over beauty, they quietly remind us that elegance, proportion, and harmony are values worth preserving—even on a chessboard.

The iconic Lardy chess set of Reykjavik 72

The iconic Lardy chess set of Reykjavik 72

Lardy chess sets, manufactured in the Jura region of France since 1890, became iconic due to their robust, utilitarian design (most recognizable for the “blocky” knight) and their ubiquitous use in FIDE-rated tournaments during the 1960s and 1970s. Their status was cemented by the 1972 World Chess Championship in Reykjavík, where the set was famously featured in the iconic photograph of Bobby Fischer, and reinforced by its selection as the official set for the 1974 Nice Olympiad. This association with the “Match of the Century” and major international competitions transformed an affordable, practical tournament set into a highly collectible and historically significant piece of chess equipment, embodying a golden era of the sport.

Match Fischer – Spassky for the WWC, Reykjavik 1972

Iconic picture of Fischer with a Lardy in 1972

The iconic photograph of Bobby Fischer with a King chess piece in the foreground, partially obscuring his right eye, and a Knight piece in the second plane, was taken by renowned photographer Harry Benson in Reykjavík, Iceland, in 1972 during the World Chess Championship.
The specific chess set used in this photo is a Lardy set, which was popular at the time and used in many tournaments. Fischer was also known to have a personal preference for a different style of set (a Dubrovnik set), but the one featured prominently in this specific, famous photo is a Lardy.
The composition of the photo, with the King piece positioned over Fischer’s eye, has become one of the most recognizable images in chess history, offering a striking visual metaphor for his intense focus and singular pursuit of the world championship title.

Lardy Promotional for Nice 1974

Set of my personal collection mimicing the disposition of the promotional

The chess set used at the 1974 Nice Olympiad was indeed a Lardy set, very similar to the one used in the 1972 World Chess Championship (WCC) in Reykjavik.

The set used in Nice was not a completely new design but rather a standard “Club” model from the Lardy manufacturer, with some potentially minor tweaks or branding specific to the event 
  • Design Similarity to WCC 72: The Nice 74 set was functionally identical in design to the one in the famous Fischer photo. The pieces feature a simple, robust, and functional “French Lardy” style, which is a variation of the standard Staunton pattern, known for its practicality and durability in tournament play.

Chess set from my personal collection, accompanied by the First Day Cover of Nice 1974

  • Measurements: The King piece generally stood at approximately 9.5 cm (3.75 inches) tall, with a base diameter around 3.8 cm (1.5 inches). This is a standard tournament size.
  • Wood Types: Lardy sets were typically made from boxwood for the white pieces and sheesham (also known as Indian rosewood) or sometimes stained boxwood/beech for the black pieces. The quality of the wood was utilitarian rather than luxury.

Karpov playing at the Chess Olympiad Nice 1974 

  • Weighting: These sets were typically weighted (lead-weighted bases), which was a standard requirement for FIDE-approved tournament sets to ensure stability during play.
  • Special Edition: While the design was standard, the sets produced specifically for the 1974 Nice Olympiad may have had a special stamp or a specific box commemorating the event, but the pieces themselves were a production model.

In summary, the sets were reliable, unpretentious, and fit the FIDE requirements for international competition.

The Official Programme of the 1980 Chess Olympiad (Malta): documentary note

The Official Programme of the 1980 Chess Olympiad (Malta): documentary note

1. Tournament context

The XXIV Chess Olympiad took place in Valletta (Malta) from 20 November to 6 December 1980. The event confirmed the return of Soviet Union’s dominance in international chess after some year of reign of Hungary (Buenos Aire 1978) and USA (Haifa 1976): both the open (men’s) and the women’s teams finished at the head of the competition. The Soviet delegation included Anatoly Karpov and Mikhail Tal among the men, and the women’s team comprised Maya Chiburdanidze, Nona Gaprindashvili, Nana Alexandria and Nona Ioseliani. Viktor Baturinsky acted as team captain.

Soviet team (botton-up, left-right) Karpov, Geller, Balashov, Kasparov, Tal and Polugaevsky

Testimonials documented in OlimpBase reflect the situation lived there

The tension could not be higher and the excitement in the big hall required some controlling. At the last round both teams were winning with the same score. The attention therefore shifted to the encounter between the teams of Greece and Scotland. Everybody was watching how it would end for Makropoulos and another Greek, on whose results depended the possible win through a technical play-off between Hungary and the USSR. The most exciting moment of a remarkable Olympiad where the players felt the responsibility they had towards the end result of the games: the changing of the guard at the top and the defeat however honourable of the holders – Hungary!

It was really impressive to see players like Tal and Geller hugging each other with tears in their eyes when it became evident that that the Greeks were winning and the play-off would therefore not be required for the USSR to take the title. It must be remembered that for some years the soviet hegemony had been lost in the field of chess and the Magyar reign since the previous Olympiad threw wide open the door for newcomers. In retrospect this was possibly the beginning of a by far wider circle of potentially competitive aspect in the field of chess by other rising nations. It must be admitted that the win by the Soviet Union in this Olympiad was strengthened by that of the female team in their 9th Ladies Olympiad, when out of 42 ladies’ teams the Soviet ladies managed to shine from the very beginning, opposed again only faintly by the Magyars. The Soviets won on all fronts!

2. The object and its autographs

The programme under study bears the autographs of:

  • Anatoly Karpov (Men’s World Champion at the time),

  • Mikhail Tal (former Men’s World Champion),

  • Garry Kasparov (then a 17-year-old member of the Soviet team),

  • Viktor Baturinsky (team captain),

  • and the signatures of the entire Soviet women’s team: Maya Chiburdanidze, Nona Gaprindashvili, Nana Alexandria, and Nona Ioseliani.

Kasparov analysing with the USSR Olympic chess women team (1982)

3. What makes this document singular

Several elements confer exceptional documentary value to this programme:

  1. Concentration of world champions from both sections.
    The programme contains signatures of multiple world champions. In the open (men’s) section: Mikhail Tal (World Champion 1960–1961) and Anatoly Karpov (World Champion since 1975). In the women’s section: Nona Gaprindashvili (Women’s World Champion 1962–1978) and Maya Chiburdanidze (Women’s World Champion from 1978). In addition, Garry Kasparov, present among the signatories, would later become Men’s World Champion (1985–2000). Thus the artefact unites, on a single official tournament programme, multiple holders of the highest titles in international chess across both sexes, and a future world champion.

  2. Generational overlap and stylistic continuity.
    The signatures bring together distinct generational and stylistic profiles within Soviet chess: Tal (the imaginative, tactical genius of an earlier generation), Karpov (the methodical, positional dominant of the 1970s–early 1980s), and the emerging Kasparov (the dynamic figure who would transform late-20th-century chess). On the women’s side, Gaprindashvili’s long tenure as champion and Chiburdanidze’s then-reigning status embody successive phases of Georgian dominance in women’s chess; Alexandria and Ioseliani complete a team whose international results and internal depth were characteristic of the Soviet system.

  3. Kasparov’s formative milestone recorded contemporaneously.
    Garry Kasparov made his Olympiad debut at Valletta at age 17, in which he obtained the Grandmaster title. The programme therefore links his formal accession to chess’s highest title and his earliest major team appearances with autographs of his immediate predecessors.

  4. Institutional provenance through the captain’s signature.
    Viktor Baturinsky’s autograph situates the object within the official activities of the Soviet team, increasing its archival reliability as a piece produced and used in the context of team operations rather than in casual collecting circumstances

4. Conclusion

The Valletta 1980 programme documented here is more than ephemera: it is a concentrated witness to a precise historical constellation — the coexistence of past, present and future world champions and the institutional framework that sustained them. The corrected roster, which includes both Nona Gaprindashvili and Maya Chiburdanidze among the women signatories, heightens the programme’s rarity and its documentary value for the history of modern chess.

A Battle in Babenhausen: Fighting the London System

A Battle in Babenhausen: Fighting the London System

Hello, chess friends!

Today, I played an exciting game in Babenhausen, located in the heart of Hessen, Germany. It was part of the Starkenburg 2024/2025 Tournament. Playing as Black, I managed to secure a hard-fought victory. I’d like to share this game with you and walk you through some of the key moments, as well as my thought process during the match.

In this game, I faced the popular London System, an opening that has gained significant traction recently, thanks to its adoption by elite players like Magnus Carlsen and Vladimir Kramnik. While the London is known for its solid structure and flexibility, it can also become a double-edged sword if White becomes too passive or careless. By countering quickly with active piece play, precise pawn breaks, and exploiting inaccuracies like 6. b3, I was able to seize the initiative early. This approach highlights how Black can effectively challenge the London’s setup, turning White’s positional ambitions into weaknesses and gaining a decisive advantage.

[Event "Starkenburg 2024/2025"] [Site "?"] [Date "2024.12.08"] [Round "?"] [White "Bongardt, Torsten"] [Black "Del Pino, Ricardo"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "A46"] [WhiteElo ""] [BlackElo "1860"] [Annotator "Ricardo, del Pino"] [PlyCount "90"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bf4 c5 4. e3 Nc6 5. Be2 Qb6 6. b3 $2 {An inaccuracy, allowing Black to take the initiative.} Nd5 7. Bg3 cxd4 8. Nxd4 Bb4+ 9. Nd2 $4 {A mistake, giving Black a strong advantage.} Nc3 10. Qc1 Nxd4 11. exd4 Nxe2 $2 {A missed opportunity. Better was 11... Ne4, with a winning attack for Black.} (11... Ne4 12. Bf4 Qxd4 13. Be3 Bxd2+ 14. Bxd2 Qxf2+ 15. Kd1 Qxg2 16. Rf1 e5) 12. Kxe2 Qxd4 13. Rd1 Bc3 $6 {A slight inaccuracy. Better was 13... d5, simplifying into a clear endgame advantage.} (13... d5 14. c4 O-O 15. Kf1 b6 16. cxd5 exd5) 14. Rb1 d5 $1 {A strong move, restricting White's knight.} 15. Nf3 Qe4+ $6 (15... Qc5 16. Qe3 b6 17. Qxc5 bxc5 18. Kd3 Ba5) 16. Kf1 b6 17. Nd2 Qf5 $6 (17... Ba6+ 18. Kg1 Qb4 19. a3 Qe7 20. Nf3 Rc8) 18. Nf3 Ba6+ 19. Kg1 O-O $5 {The black king steps aside from the dangerous semi-open files and completes development. With a strong pawn center, the bishop pair, and an extra pawn, Black should win the endgame.} 20. Nd4 Qf6 $6 (20... Qe4 21. Qf4 Qxf4 22. Bxf4 Rfe8 23. Bc1 Rac8 {Winning another pawn, leading to a winning endgame.} 24. h3 Bxd4 25. Rxd4 Rxc2) 21. Qe3 Bxd4 $2 {A dubious exchange. Better was 21... Rac8, maintaining the pressure.} (21... Rac8 22. Bd6 Rfe8 23. Ne2 Rc6 24. Nxc3 Rxc3 25. Qd2 Rec8) 22. Qxd4 Qxd4 23. Rxd4 Rfc8 {Placing the rook on f8 was better, to avoid issues along the a-file.} (23... Rac8 24. Ra4 Bb5 25. Rxa7) 24. Rc1 Rc3 25. Rd2 f6 {Taking away the important e5-square from the white bishop and starting expansion in the center with the king's support.} 26. Bd6 Rac8 27. Bb4 R3c6 28. a4 Bb7 29. Kf1 a5 {Further restricting the white bishop's mobility.} 30. Ba3 Rc3 $6 (30... Ba6+ 31. Kg1 b5 32. axb5 Bxb5 33. f4 a4) 31. Ke1 e5 $1 {Opening up the center for the black bishops and pawns.} 32. Bb2 R3c7 33. Ba3 d4 $1 {Crushing White's central control and clearing the way for the powerful black bishop on the dark squares.} 34. f3 Kf7 {The next goal: centralize the king.} 35. Ke2 Rc6 $6 {Time trouble begins. I was worried about the bishop jumping to d6, but direct expansion on the kingside was stronger.} (35... Ba6+ 36. Kd1 g5 37. Bb2 Kg6) 36. Bb2 R6c7 {This move may look more natural, but I wanted to avoid obstructing the dark-squared bishop.} (36... R8c7 {Also possible, but I didn't want to block the long diagonal.} 37. Kd1 Ke6 38. Ke1 g5 {The attack begins!} 39. Kf2 h5 40. g3 Rd7) 37. Kd1 Ke6 38. Ke1 g5 {The attack begins!} 39. Kf2 h5 40. g3 Rd7 $2 {A mistake. Better was to open the g-file first.} (40... g4 41. fxg4 hxg4 42. Ba3 Bd5) 41. Re1 Kf5 (41... h4 $1 42. Ree2 hxg3+ 43. Kxg3 Kf5) 42. h3 g4 (42... Rdc7 {Putting more pressure on the c-file first was stronger.} 43. Rc1 g4) 43. hxg4+ (43. fxg4+) 43... hxg4 44. fxg4+ Kxg4 45. Rh1 $4 Bxh1 {White resigns. The bishops and active rook dominate completely.} 0-1

Back to Active Chess – Joining TEC Darmstadt and New Beginnings at EUMETSAT

Back to Active Chess – Joining TEC Darmstadt and New Beginnings at EUMETSAT

I’m excited to announce that after a break from regular competitive play, I’m back on the chessboard, and it feels amazing! I recently joined TEC Darmstadt, a dynamic chess club in the area, and I’m already getting the chance to dive into tournament play. Just this past week, I had the opportunity to play my first match on the club’s first team against Roßdorf. It was a fantastic experience to feel that tournament intensity again, to engage in strategic battles, and to rediscover the excitement of live competition.

In parallel with my journey at TEC Darmstadt, I’m also working on a project that’s close to my heart—establishing a chess club at EUMETSAT. Chess has a surprisingly strong presence within our staff, with a considerable number of colleagues showing interest in the game and even looking forward to organizing events and tournaments. The enthusiasm is contagious, and I’m thrilled to help create a space where we can connect over the board, share ideas, and compete.

[Event "Starkenburg 2024/25"] [Site "Roßdorf"] [Date "2024.11.03"] [Round "2"] [White "del Pino, Ricardo"] [Black "Theoball, Fabian"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO ""] [WhiteElo ""] [BlackElo ""] [Annotator "RdP"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventCountry "Germany"] 1. d4 e6 {Black opens with the French Defense setup, typically seen in 1.e4 lines, but adapting here to 1.d4.} 2. c4 d5 {Transposing into a Queen's Gambit Declined structure.} 3. Nc3 b6 {Black chooses a Tarrasch-style Defense with b6, likely aiming to develop the bishop via b7.} 4. cxd5 exd5 {White opens the center; Black responds by maintaining pawn symmetry.} 5. Nf3 h6 ({Here, the usual move would be} 5... Nf6 {continuing with standard development.}) 6. Bf4 Nf6 {A natural developing move. White has managed to bring out the bishop to an active square before blocking it with e3.} 7. e3 Bg4 {Black develops the bishop actively, putting pressure on the knight on f3.} 8. h3 Bh5 {The bishop retreats, maintaining some pressure on White's kingside.} 9. Qa4+ Qd7 {White pins the queen and forces Black to defend.} 10. Bb5 c6 {This move is forced to cover the check. However, it weakens the b5 pawn and the center.} 11. Ne5 cxb5 {Black takes the pawn, but White has a strong tactical continuation.} 12. Nxb5 Qe7 {The queen moves to protect the knight on d8, but White has a powerful follow-up.} 13. Nc7+ Kd8 {Black is forced to move the king, exposing it.} 14. Nxa8 Qb7 {White captures on a8, winning a rook. The Black queen now tries to counterattack on the queenside.} 15. g4 {White begins an attack on the kingside.} g5 {Black tries to block White's advance, but this weakens the f5 pawn and allows White to keep attacking.} 16. Bh2 Bg6 {The black bishop tries to take an active square, but White clearly has the initiative.} 17. Nxg6 fxg6 {White captures on g6, further weakening Black’s kingside position.} 18. Nc7 {White threatens to bring the knight to the center, increasing the pressure.} Nc6 {Black attempts to activate his pieces, although his position is already very weak.} 19. Ne6+ Ke7 {The black king is forced into an uncomfortable square.} 20. Nxf8 Rxf8 {White captures on f8, simplifying the position and maintaining material advantage.} 21. Rc1 {White centralizes the rook, preparing to apply pressure along the c-file.} Na5 {Black tries to find counterplay, but it’s too late.} 22. Rc7+ {White delivers check, and Black is lost. If} 22... Nd7 {then} 23. Qxd7# {is mate.} 1-0

With both TEC Darmstadt and the potential new club at EUMETSAT, I’m eager to embrace the competitive and community aspects of chess once more. I look forward to playing more matches, building new friendships, and seeing where this renewed journey takes me. Stay tuned for updates on upcoming tournaments, events, and progress on the club at EUMETSAT!

El caso Niemann y el Ajedrez 2.0

El caso Niemann y el Ajedrez 2.0

h

Tabla de contenido

$

Introducción

$

¿Qué ha podido pasar?

$

Posibles Soluciones

$

Conclusiones

$

Referencias

Indroducción

El mundo del ajedrez lleva semanas conmocionado desde que el pasado 14 de Septiembre de 2022, el campeón del mundo Magnus Carlsen abandonara el torneo Sinquefield Cup sin dar explicación alguna. Desde entonces, ha sido mucho lo que se ha especulado sobre la posibilidad de haber sido una víctima del juego tramposo, pero ha día de hoy ninguna prueba definitiva se ha hecho pública.

Si bien es cierto que en la conciencia colectiva se tiene al ajedrez como juego noble y de honor, donde el juego tramposo no tiene cabida, ya desde los primeros éxitos de las computadoras de ajedrez, allá por los años 90 y el famoso DeepBlue, no han sido pocos los que han intentado imponerse a sus rivales abusando de su “ayuda”. No obstante, siempre habían sido detectados, o eso pensábamos hasta hoy.

Con independencia del resultado de la investigación de la Federación Internacional de Ajedrez (FIDE) ha iniciado de oficio, sin entrar hacer juicios paralelos que podrían arruinar la carrera y la vida de presuntos inocentes, en este artículo me dispongo a hacer un análisis de cómo la tecnología podría estar poniendo en peligro el noble deporte-arte-ciencia que es el ajedrez, pero a su vez podría ser su salvación.

¿Que ha podido pasar?

Durante toda esta polémica una voz ha llamado especialmente la atención, elevada por el altavoz de las redes sociales, y no ha sido otra que la del magnate norteamericano Elon Musk. En los primeros momentos, amparado por la efímera volatilidad inherente a estas forma de comunicación, sugirió la posibilidad de que Hans Niemann estuviera usando unos dispositivos alojados en su interior. No voy a entrar en más detalles, ya que el mismísimo autor de tal conjetura ha eliminado cualquier tipo de rastro que pudiera quedar en su cuenta de Twitter. Sin embargo no debemos dejar pasar sin más lo ocurrido, como simple broma, ya que podría ser una pista razonable a seguir.

No obstante, la interpretación que podría hacer de aquella sugerencia iría mas bien en otro sentido. Desde 2020 el magnate norteamericano ha hecho público su proyecto para implantar dispositivos en el cerebro, que conectados vía inalámbrica podrían servir a un amplio abanico de aplicaciones. Me estoy refiriendo a Nuralink. Si bien la tecnología necesaria para hacer realidad este proyecto de forma segura y efectiva, en términos de coste, está hoy lejos de ser una realidad, a nadie se le podría ocurrir una manera mejor de lanzar su prototipo que usando el ajedrez. Tal y como en su día hiciera John von Neumann (el autentico, no el de World Open 93), ¿por qué no podría estar esta tecnología detrás de un hipotético caso de fraude deportivo?. Es cierto que el implante cerebral no ha demostrado ser seguro aún para su uso en humanos, y mucho menos se ha a aprobado por los organismos competentes.

Pero, ¿podríamos estar ante el uso de implantes en partes del cuerpo más seguras, que estimularan nervios de con la idea a codificar una notación algebráica que informara de la mejor jugada en cada momento? ¿por ejemplo dedos de la mano [2] y pies, u otras extremidades? ¿Podrían implantarse con el fin de estimular el tacto en dedos dedos de pies y manos con el fin de codificar filas y columnas? ¿Que pasaría entonces con la identificación de la pieza a mover? ¿Como se codificaría? ¿Sería aceptable quizá para un maestro no tenerla codificada? Una cosa está clara, la rapidez de ejecución de jugadas durante la partida induce a pensar que el mecanismo usado es, cuanto menos, ágil.

Estimulación focalizada del tacto basada en implantes

Es curioso como en la siguiente partida, que enfrentó a Hans Niemann con Milos Perunovic en febrero de 2020, el movimiento 23. …, Dc5 de las negras es especialmente extraño y lo que correspondía en esta posición tal y como recomienda Stockfish, es 23 …, Tc5. ¿Podría esta dudosa jugada haber sido fruto de las limitaciones de un sistema de codificación y comunicación de jugadas mediante implantes en dedos?

[Event "Marshall Chess Club GM 2020"] [Site "New York"] [Date "2020.02.28"] [Round "3"] [White "Perunovic, Milos"] [Black "Niemann, Hans Moke"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B69"] [WhiteElo "2591"] [BlackElo "2459"] [Annotator "TA"] [PlyCount "143"] [EventDate "2020.02.27"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventCountry "USA"] [SourceTitle "playchess.com"] [Source "ChessBase"] [SourceQuality "1"] {[%evp 22,143,54,50,64,45,51,41,35,19,18,14,36,12,52,45,46,42,27,45,39,14,0,0, 10,10,74,65,100,84,79,79,85,14,100,74,67,72,60,71,80,66,82,92,81,97,129,0,0,0, 0,0,0,-35,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,29,34,253,253,238,245,210,141,131,133,123,85,124,34, 77,77,77,80,77,77,87,0,39,0,100,16,108,12,13,13,13,13,986,930,1194,1211,1061, 425,463,0,1135,1088,1041,1000,948,956,12841,12842,12842,12843,12843,12843, 12844,12844,12845,12845,12845,12846,12847,12847,12849,12849]} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 a6 8. O-O-O Bd7 9. f4 Be7 10. Nf3 b5 11. Bxf6 gxf6 12. Kb1 b4 {B69: Sicilian: Richter-Rauzer: 7...a6 8 0-0-0 Bd7 9 f4 Be7 10 Nf3 b5 11 Bxf6.} 13. Ne2 h5 14. Ned4 Qb6 {White is slightly better.} 15. Bc4 Na5 {[%cal Bc6a5,Ba5b7,Bb7c5][%mdl 32]} 16. Bd3 Nb7 { [#]} 17. Rhe1 $146 ({Predecessor:} 17. Qe2 Nc5 18. Bc4 a5 19. Bb5 O-O-O 20. f5 Kb8 21. Bxd7 Rxd7 22. Nb3 Nb7 23. fxe6 fxe6 {0-1 (47) Matsenko,S (2534) -Demchenko,A (2645) Konya 2017}) 17... Nc5 18. Bc4 Rc8 19. Nb3 Nb7 20. Qe2 a5 21. Nbd4 (21. f5 $5) 21... a4 22. Bb5 Bxb5 23. Nxb5 Qc5 (23... Rc5 $11 24. Nbd4 Na5) 24. f5 $36 {[%mdl 2048] White is more active.} e5 25. Rd5 Qc4 26. Qxc4 Rxc4 27. b3 (27. Nd2 $16 Rc5 28. c3 Rxd5 29. Nc7+ (29. exd5 bxc3 30. Nxc3 Rg8 $14) 29... Kd7 30. Nxd5 bxc3 31. Nxc3 (31. bxc3 Nc5 $14)) 27... Rc5 (27... Rc6 $11) 28. Rxc5 ({Reject} 28. bxa4 $6 Kd7 $11) (28. c3 {seems wilder.} axb3 29. cxb4 bxa2+ 30. Kxa2 Rc6 31. Re3) 28... Nxc5 29. Nc7+ Kd7 30. Nd5 Rb8 31. Nd2 Bd8 32. a3 bxa3 33. b4 Kc6 {aiming for ...Nxe4!} 34. Ka2 (34. Rd1 $16) 34... Nxe4 $1 $11 {[%mdl 64] Remove Defender} 35. Rxe4 Kxd5 36. Kxa3 {[%mdl 4096] Endgame KRB-KRN} Kc6 {And now ...d5 would win.} 37. c4 Ra8 38. Rh4 d5 39. cxd5+ Kxd5 40. Rxh5 e4 41. Rh8 {Threatens to win with Re8.} Rb8 (41... e3 $5 { [%cal Re3d2]} 42. Nf3 Rc8 $11) 42. Re8 e3 $2 ({Black should play} 42... Bc7 $1 $14 43. Nxe4 Rxe8 44. Nxf6+ {[%mdl 64] Double Attack} Kc6 45. Nxe8 Bxh2) 43. Rxe3 $18 Bc7 44. Rd3+ ({Don't play} 44. Kxa4 $6 Ra8+ 45. Kb3 Bxh2 $16) 44... Kc6 45. Kxa4 Ra8+ 46. Kb3 Bxh2 47. Nf3 Bc7 48. g4 (48. Nd4+ $1 $16 Kb6 49. Nc2) 48... Rg8 49. Rd4 Bb6 50. Rc4+ Kd5 51. Nd2 Bd4 52. Nf3 Bb6 53. Nd2 (53. Nh4 $14 ) 53... Bd4 $1 $16 54. b5 (54. Nb1 $1 $16) 54... Rg7 (54... Re8 $11) 55. Rb4 ( 55. Nb1 $1 $16) 55... Rg8 $11 56. b6 Bc5 57. Ne4 Be7 $2 {[%mdl 8192] Black is on the road to losing.} (57... Bd4 $11) 58. Nc3+ $1 $18 Kd6 {[#]} 59. Rd4+ $1 Ke5 60. Re4+ (60. Rd7 $142 Bd6 61. Nb5) 60... Kd6 {Black hopes to continue with ...Rb8.} 61. Rd4+ (61. Kb4 $142) 61... Ke5 $1 {[%cal Re5d4]} 62. Rd7 { White is clearly winning.} Bd6 63. b7 Bb8 64. Nd5 Rxg4 65. Rd8 Ba7 66. Ra8 Kxd5 67. Rxa7 {KR-KR} Rg3+ 68. Kb4 Rg1 {[#]} 69. Ra3 $1 ({Not} 69. Ra5+ Kc6 $16) 69... Rg4+ 70. Kb5 Rg1 71. Ra4 Rb1+ 72. Rb4 {Accuracy: White = 72%, Black = 66%.} 1-0

Pero esta no tendría por qué ser la única posibilidad. La tecnología de dispositivos audífonos inalámbricos ha mejorado notablemente en el último lustro. Hoy día existen micro auriculares que insertados en el conducto auditivo, podrían estar recibiendo señales inalámbricas, y que gracias al IoT (de las siglas Internet Of Things) podrían conectar con cualquier lugar del mundo. Nada impediría por tanto a un observador externo, enviar jugadas ganadoras a un tramposo.

Posibles soluciones

Por supuesto tenemos que afrontar el problema de forma constructiva y mirar siempre hacia el futuro. Buscar aquellas soluciones alternativas para adaptarnos a la nueva situación que genera el crecimiento exponencial de motores de ajedrez y bases de datos. Estoy convencido de que existen mecanismos eficientes para combatir el juego sucio.

La tecnología es un medio, no un fin en sí mismo. No sería lógico, ni de justicia, acusarla de acabar definitivamente con el ajedrez. Mas bien, podríamos intentar usarla para combatir el juego sucio. Prevenir aquellos artificios que, aunque ingeniosos, estarían rompiendo para siempre la magia de esa gran batalla del intelecto que es el juego de las 64 casillas. El uso de inhibidores de frecuencia o incluso salas de juego recubiertas por mallas metálicas, a modo de Jaulas de Faraday, podría ser una solución para evitar comunicaciones inalámbricas indeseadas, sin embargo esto no resolvería el problema para competiciones en la modalidad online, tan en boga hoy día tras dos años de pandemia.

Otras soluciones basadas en el uso de algoritmos y estadísticas que caractericen el rendimiento humano versus máquina, identificando así progresiones inusuales en jugadores a lo largo del tiempo, podrían también servir para mitigar el riesgo del juego tramposo en el futuro, no solo por su eficacia al detectar casos sino como elemento disuasorio.
No obstante el ajedrez se enfrenta a muchos otros problemas. Este es uno más. La mayoría de grandes maestros hoy en día reconocen que el nivel de juego actual desembocará en unos pocos decenios a una superespecialización que abocará el juego rey al aburrimiento más absoluto. ¿Merece la pena entonces aplicar paliativos, o deberíamos buscar remedios más audaces y aceptar la nueva realidad?

Viene al caso recordar que esta no es la primera crisis a la que se enfrenta en el ajedrez. Ya Capablanca, en la década de los 20 del siglo pasado, creyó prever que el ajedrez había llegado a su máximo desarrollo, y observando el número de tablas en el que él mismo incurría (su estilo así lo favorecía) propuso una evolución del juego radical. Ésta incluida pasar de 64 a 100 el número de casillas, y aumentar el número de piezas. Algo parecido a lo que se conoce como Ajedrez Omega. Por supuesto, luego llegó Alekhine y la historia ya sabemos cómo acabó.

Este no ha sido el único intento, Bobby Fischer recuperó un vieja modalidad de juego y la dotó de reglas modernas para la práctica de torneo, esta modalidad es el conocido Fischer Random Chess (FRC o Chess960). Ésta se basada en una disposición aleatoria de las piezas al comienzo de la partida, con el fin de evitar que el ajedrez se apoyara tanto en la teoría de las aperturas y que el medio juego fuera un territorio inexplorado, que favoreciera más la creatividad y la dotes innatas de los jugadores. Dicha modalidad sigue jugándose hoy por hoy en torneos online, y con más fuerza que nunca, de hecho hay hasta un campeonato mundial organizado por la FIDE, que lo ha reconocido oficialmente como modalidad (algo sin precedentes hasta la fecha).

Sin embargo los motores de ajedrez no se han quedado atrás, estos tienen codificadas los criterios esenciales de evaluación de posición y una capacidad enorme de cálculo de variantes. Pero el uso del FCR los hace más humanos, y les quita una de sus mayores bazas: la memoria.

Pero no todo queda ahí, falta el elemento esencial que conecta el uso del FCR con el caso Niemann. ¿Cómo podría ayudarnos en este caso?. Pues podría, y mucho. No cabe duda de que desmontaría cualquier intento de justificación basado en una fortuito, pero oportuno, estudio previo de la linea o variante, o incluso del contrincante. Eliminaría de golpe el factor preparación, y por consiguiente sería mucho más fácil identificar tramposos mediante el uso de análisis y caracterización de jugadas humanas.

Conclusión

Es muy posible que el ajedrez, tal y como lo conocemos hoy, esté abocado a una crisis de dimensiones históricas. Es posible que estemos ante un cambio de era y nuestro presunto inocente este haciendo historia sin saberlo. Una cosa esta clara, en mi opinión: No debemos quedar anclados, sino avanzar y transformar los desafíos en oportunidades de mejora. Todo el acervo generado hasta ahora por la ingente cantidad de mentes brillantísimas que ha dado este maravilloso juego no queda en el olvido, serán nuestros clásicos del mañana. Será la base para desarrollar un método de estudio y aprendizaje. Pero hemos de mirar al futuro. Quizá solo afecte al ajedrez profesional o se extienda también a competiciones entre amateurs, quien los sabe. Abracemos el futuro, que ya es presente.