Sorry, totally random comment... I read your entry about 'Master of Doom' about 5 minutes ago and thought "that looks and interesting book". As I work in a Library (not a Librarian - just running a project for them), I thought - I wonder if we've got a copy.
Now I wasn't expecting much - hell I'm in New Zealand and this Library supports a population of barely 50 thousand people - but what do you know they had a copy! What are the chances of that!
Man, this is a fantastic post. And I'm half surprised, having read Nizam al Mulk, that the vizier wasn't the same kind of overpowered piece as the queen.
The actual details of game-making still elude social scientists, which is a shame because it's often struck me that RPG world design is anthropology approached from the other end, and that sometimes the two disciplines cross over.
You might take a look at Jane McGonigal and Signtific Labs. She's a game designer very into anthropology and psychology. I loved her *World Without Oil*, and if I knew anything about video recording/editing, I'd be playing *Top Secret Dance* (Dancing? Dance Off?) this month.
What I find interesting is that Chess has managed to remain settled for so long. Despite attempts by Fischer and Capablanca, to name two, the game hasn't changed permanently in a long time.
And have you found a better general history of chess than Lasker's? I figure you must have read a couple of them.
As the author of "Birth of the Chess Queen," I appreciate your insightful comments on my book. My only disagreement is your statement that the relationship between the chess queen's evolution into the most powerful piece and Isabella's political power happened "only by serendipity." The San Francisco Chronicle reviewer was more convinced with my argument when he wrote: "Yalom has written the rare book that illuminates something that always has been dimly perceived but never articulated, in this case that the power of the chess queen reflects the evolution of female power in the Western world." Thanks for your reflections on this issue. Marilyn Yalom
Re: chess queenrobin_d_lawsMay 22 2009, 17:52:16 UTC
I don't want to exaggerate the extent of my disagreement with your point, or downplay my enjoyment of your book.
I agree with the Chronicle reviewer as far as the quoted statement goes, but reflection is not causation. Since we don't know who changed the rules and why, we can only infer the intent that put those changes in motion.
That leaves us with the game designer thinking that rules changes must have been made primarily to alter game play, and the feminist cultural historian thinking that they must have been made first and foremost to mark changing cultural attitudes toward female power.
Comments 10
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Now I wasn't expecting much - hell I'm in New Zealand and this Library supports a population of barely 50 thousand people - but what do you know they had a copy! What are the chances of that!
Anyway - thanks for the recommendation!
Reply
Reply
The actual details of game-making still elude social scientists, which is a shame because it's often struck me that RPG world design is anthropology approached from the other end, and that sometimes the two disciplines cross over.
Reply
Here via cheetahmaster.
Reply
And have you found a better general history of chess than Lasker's? I figure you must have read a couple of them.
Reply
Reply
Marilyn Yalom
Reply
I agree with the Chronicle reviewer as far as the quoted statement goes, but reflection is not causation. Since we don't know who changed the rules and why, we can only infer the intent that put those changes in motion.
That leaves us with the game designer thinking that rules changes must have been made primarily to alter game play, and the feminist cultural historian thinking that they must have been made first and foremost to mark changing cultural attitudes toward female power.
Reply
Leave a comment