Styles & Influences
The most substantial stylistic bifurcation which can be made of chess artifacts is that between representational, or figurative, chessmen, and abstract chessmen. Artifact examples of abstract chessmen come primarily from Muslim cultures, in which the artistic representation of living figures was historically regulated by religious law. This aniconism was a pressing matter for the earliest Muslim interpretations of chess: when the Rashidun caliph Ali came across men playing shatranj in Persia, his immediate concern was with their use of graven images. It is with such prohibitions in mind that artisans developed a tradition of abstract chessmen such as those below.
Stonepaste, 12th century.
This is among the oldest surviving examples of a (nearly) full chess set, attributed to 12th-century Iran. The king and vizier pieces take the form of thrones rather than men, while the knight has a single pointy bump for a nose and head. While eliding directly represented figures, the set’s maker finds ways to use small protrusions and variations to identify its pieces, balancing practical distinction with artistic abstraction.
Silver, early 18th century.
This set, originating in India, takes the abstraction of form very seriously. The differing roles of the pieces on one side can be identified only by the height and size of their ornamental ridges, a puzzle which surely increases in difficulty when seen from above. To make matters worse, the opposing sides’ pieces are the exact same colour and shape! Pieces must instead be identified by their engraving: large flower petals and relative smoothness for one side, detailed petals and leaves on the other.
Interestingly, the role of women in the legendary histories of the game begins long before the appearance of the queen piece. In an origin tale recorded in both India and Persia, it is said that the game was developed to explain the tragedies of war to a grieving mother and queen. Much later, in the legend of “Dilaram’s Problem”, a puzzling position is solved by the wife of a player, saving herself from being the game’s prize. It was not until the introduction of chess into Europe that the vizier piece slowly became the queen. The queens shown below are from two of Europe’s earliest surviving sets.
Queen, ivory, 12th century.
Long alleged to have been a gift to Charlemagne from Harun al-Rashid, the “Charlemagne” chessmen are actually dated to the 12th century, likely manufactured in Italy. The presence of a queen is one of the ancient set’s most unique features. Other pieces that would later be transformed in Europe, such as the bishop and castle-shaped rook, remained as elephants and chariots. Even the queen’s arrival was not instant, however: the first mention of the queen comes in the 10th century but some, such as Geoffrey Chaucer, refer to the piece as a Fers as late as 1369.
Queen, walrus ivory, 13th century.
The emergence of the queen piece has been linked with several dubious influences, such as the prominence of Joan of Arc, or the conflation of “fierz” with “vierge.” Broadly, the permanent adoption of the queen can be understood in the context of the actual political and cultural prominence of queens in European monarchism. This artifact is one of several queens found among the “Lewis chessmen,” a collection of game piece artifacts found in Scotland in 1831. These artifacts, including pieces from several chess sets and other game pieces, were composed of walrus ivory in the 13th century.
Chess sets often take quite direct inspiration from contemporary events and conflicts. Representational chessmen in the form of contemporary armies are narratively limited, as they are necessarily bound by the game to be near-equals, with near-equal chances of victory and defeat. Whatever the perspective and allegiance of the artist is, he has no say in the outcome that will be displayed. Just as the logic and rules of the game allow one to consider and represent the strategy of a conflict, the art of the game may allow one to contemplate that conflict’s peoples and lived histories. It may also serve as a template for hostile or racist propaganda, the chess game being a format in which the enmity of two parties is taken for granted.
Wood, 1917, by Max Niemeier.
Carved in 1917 during the First World War, this set by a German artist contains detailed figures of prominent wartime leaders of both the Central and the Allied Powers. The pawns are portrayed as soldiers from those same powers. As this collection of carvings pushes the limits of practical legibility for play, the intended position of non-pawn pieces is marked on their base.
Ivory, late 18th century.
This chess set’s two opposing armies are represented as British and Indian, with Brit red-coat chessmen on green bases, and Indians with green tunics on red bases. The use of red and green to distinguish chessmen was historically common in many parts of the world. In addition to culture and attire, the details on these figures may carry historical perceptions about conflict. For example, it can be observed that while the red-coat pawns carry muskets, their Indian counterparts carry small swords.