When talking about famous dystopian literature, the first two names mentioned are inevitable 1984 and Brave new world. But Margaret Atwood’s The handmaid’s tale may well be the third. In fact, at this very point in time, it may even have usurped a top-two spot, because there is a popular and critically acclaimed series 1 streaming on Hulu. I haven’t watched it as, frankly, it’s not quite my cup of tea. But one of my readers pointed out to me that there is some chess in one particular episode — and that is exactly my cup of tea.
Since I didn’t watch the forty or so hours leading up to this scene, I cannot tell you who these people are, but it seems to be an older man teaching his granddaughter our royal game. Which isn’t dystopian at all! Have I been misled about this book? Is it just an idyllic feel-good story after all?
The position they have on the board was quite easily reconstructed. One or two pawns may be a square over to the left or to the right, but the main gist is correct:2
So yeah, it’s definitely dystopian. This poor girl is being brainwashed from such a young age that she will probably grow up thinking it’s normal to have a white corner square on your left, or to have two bishops of the same colour, or to scrunch up your pieces as much as possible to deter their proper development.3
Old man: “See, the horse, this is an underrated piece, the knight, because all the fancier pieces they draw all the attention, but a skilled player like you, Angela, take advantage of that weakness.”
The first thing to note is that he calls the noble knight a mere horse. The second is that this is a monster of a sentence. The third is that, of course, the knight is the fanciest piece: it has the most detailed carving, and it makes the most fanciful moves. Plus, everybody knows that knights are perhaps not the strongest but definitely the trickiest pieces.
So why is this man going on such a ridiculous monologue? I suspect it’s as a distraction from what he’s doing on the board. He takes the queen with this knight, which is perfectly normal and might lull you into a false sense of security. But then, after some more talk but without further moves, he takes the king with his knight! The future is depraved and ugly.
Realism: 0/5 After correcting for the wrong set-up of the board, the position would still be only barely legal. And moving twice in a row definitely isn’t.
Probable winner: White could have won quite easily with legal means. Taking the king is a needless perversity.
1. [Almost as acclaimed as the 1/ns series.] ↩
2. [In the dystopian future, perhaps there’ll be no diagram editors.] ↩
3. [Or to leave your queen vulnerable out in the open — but, from what I gather, that fits the story.] ↩