Varning för schack

Vuxna brukar oroa sig över barnens spel. 1859 varnade tidskriften Scientific American för ett förföriskt spel som var "ren underhållning av ett väldigt lågt slag" och som distraherade barnen från studier och kroppsaktiviteter. Spelet var schack.

- Johan Norberg: Alla experter har fel om unga nu för tiden, Aftonbladet, 26 september 2017

Har Norberg rätt? Nästan. Det stämmer att SciAm 1859 publicerade en artikel som kritiserade schack. Anledningen var den schack-våg som brutit ut i landet sedan den unge Paul Morphy, en av de främsta schackspelarna någonsin, turnerat i Europa och besegrat allt den gamla världen kunde visa upp. Schack var helt enkelt inne i USA.

... Chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while at the same time it affords no benefit whatever to the body. [...] Persons engaged in sedentary occupations should never practice this cheerless game; they require out-door exercises for recreation - not the sort of mental gladiatorship.

Vad Norberg diskuterar 2017 är synen på barn, men sådana tas inte upp i artikeln från 1859. De presumtiva schackspelarna är persons, en omnämnd är a young gentleman, och det är allt.

Huruvida artikeln har några poänger i övrigt, eller om den kanske rentav är ett sorts trollande, är en annan fråga. Här är den i sin helhet; varsågoda.

The achievements of our young contryman, Paul Morphy, in vanquishing the most distinguished chess-players of Europe, have excited in our people a very pardonable degree of national pride; hence they have exhibited a strong exultant feeling in welcoming him back to his native land as the Chess Champion of the World. He has been received with high demonstrations in several cities, and public testimonials of great value have been presented to him; while at the same time poets have sund, and sages have delivered orations in his praise. At some of these exhibitions there was a considerable display of "Buncombe," especially at the one held in Boston, where some of our scientific friends rather overdid the thing by their adulations; yet all this might be overlooked if such influences extended no further that the time and place when and where these effusions were uttered. But we regret to state that this is not the case, for a pernicious excitement to learn and play chess has spread all over the country, and numerous clubs for practicing this game have been formed in cities and villages. Why should we regret this? it may be asked. We answer, chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while at the same time it affords no benefit whatever to the body. 

Chess has acquired a high reputation as being a means to discipline the mind, because it requires a strong memory and peculiar powers of combination. It is also generally believed that skill in playing it affords evidence of a superior intellect. These opinions, we believe, are exceedingly erroneous. Napoleon the Great, who had a great passion for playing chess, was often beaten by a rough grocer in St. Helena. Neither Shakespeare, Milton, Newton, nor any of the great ones of the earth, acquired proficiency in chess-playing. Those who become the most renowned players seem to have been endowed with a peculiar intuitive faculty for making the right moves, while at the same time they seem to have possessed very ordinary faculties for other purposes. A game of chess does not add a single new fact to the mind; it does not excite a single beautiful thought; nor does it serve a single purpose for polishing and improving the nobler faculties. 

Persons engaged in sedentary occupations should never practice this cheerless game; they require out-door exercises for recreation?—?not the sort of mental gladiatorship. Those who are engaged in mental pursuits should avoid a chess-board as they would an adder’s nest, because chess misdirects and exhausts their intellectual energies. Rather let them dance, sing, play ball, perform gymnastics, roam in the woods or by the seashore, than play chess. It is a game which no man who depends on his trade, business or profession can afford to waste time in practicing; it is an amusement?—?and a very unprofitable one?—?which the independently wealthy alone can afford time to lose in its pursuit. As there can be no great proficiency in this intricate game without long-continued practice, which demands a great deal of time, no young man who designs to be useful in the world can prosecute it without danger to his best interests. A young gentleman of our acquaintance, who had become a somewhat skillful player, recently pushed the chest-board from him at the end of the game, declaring, “I have wasted too much time upon it already; I cannot afford to do this any longer; this is my last game.” We recommend his resolution to all those who have been foolishly led away by the present chess-excitement, as skill in this game is neither a useful nor graceful accomplishment.

- "Chess-Playing Excitement", The Scientific American, 2 juli 1859