The Knight noticed first. His closeness to the front line and the concerns of the foot soldiers alerted him.
“Report, King’s Knight,” the Queen said.
“It’s the pawns, your Highness.”
“What of them?”
“Well, I’ve heard grumbling along the line…”
“Bring me not the grumblings of the peasantry. Of what concern to me are their vulgar utterances?”
The King’s Knight paused at this. He looked around for assistance. He had already gone to the King’s Bishop, who showed nary a concern for anything but his ridiculous, pointed hat. He came to the King next, his King. Before he uttered a word in that direction, the Queen maneuvered around to intercept. Sometimes the Knight wondered who held the power.
“Your Majesty, they speak of unhappiness, of unfairness. I fear they will no longer fight for us.”
“What?!” The Queen’s outrage shook the audience. The Queen’s Knight and Bishop looked up from their conversation, attending her Majesty. “Their purpose is to fight for our King.” She gestured toward her husband, who glanced up before lapsing back into a nap on his throne. “What goal do they seek that is greater than lying down in sacrifice for something greater?”
The Knight doubted himself in the presence of this lady. Her reach extended across the board and her will travelled faster than his horse could carry him and in straighter lines. “I cannot guess their purpose, my Lady, I only report their words. I’ve heard more as well, news of an alliance with the Black.”
“Ridiculous! I will hear no more. Send the Rooks to cross their lines. Teach them the danger of loose lips and idle minds. Ours is an eternal struggle and the rules shall remain unchanged. Battle begins at dawn.”
“Yes, Dear Queen. I shall do this at once.” The Knight returned to his place, the Bishop recommenced his preening, the King continued his nap and the Queen’s men renewed their conversation.
***
The next day, as every day, the battle was joined. The pawns marched first on the field. From the rear ranks nothing appeared unusual. However, no pawn, black or white, fell in front-line combat. The battle developed. Soon the rear guard joined the commoners. The Bishops fell first, locked in by their own troops, incapable of escaping the ponderous enemy. The Rooks and Knights fell. The Black Queen was toppled.
The White Queen stood alone but for her impotent spouse, sure now of the pawns’ secret revolt. She retreated to her first position only to be cornered by a Black Pawn. Her crown fell from her head as she fell.
The pawn’s journey across the file brought him to this moment. The Queen’s crown sat untended at his feet. To grasp that crown meant promotion and power in a world of pawns; to leave it meant an end to his usefulness. He surveyed his comrades. The board sat with sixteen pawns and two powerless Kings. He let the crown lie.
Benjamin Jacobson writes; everything else is optional.
GD Star Rating
loading...
loading...
Did you like this story?
A new and interesting story is posted every day.
A new and interesting story is posted every day.
Subscribe to the RSS Feed! (what is rss)
Don’t miss another story! Subscribe to Every Day Fiction via RSS.- Share on Facebook
19 Responses to “ANARCHO-SYNDICALIST ENDGAME • by Benjamin Jacobson”
Comments
« Podcast EDF050: It’s A Living • by Heather Holland Wheaton • read by Matt Cowens | Home | March’s Table of Contents »
February 28th, 2011 at 12:10 am
I don’t know enough about chess to know if the play you describe is accurate, but the narrative is charming.
Four stars.
February 28th, 2011 at 12:25 am
I enjoyed this right up to the last sentence. I would have left the audience wondering if the pawn picked up the crown or not.
Even so, a very relevant piece of work considering what’s going on around the Middle East at present with dictators toppling.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:22 am
Highly enjoyable and topical story. I didn’t understand the ending but I guess it will come with a little thought.
February 28th, 2011 at 6:34 am
I’m trying to remember my chess. If the black queen toppled first, doesn’t that mean the white queen won?
Enjoyed the story…but I don’t believe the pawns can win without some loss.
February 28th, 2011 at 6:46 am
I liked this story. (I gave it three stars) I like chess as well. I thought the the ending was great. Looking at the battlefield at the end of the game the pawn saw that it may be better to be a pawn than a King, as far as survival goes. Given all the uprisings (of pawns?) in the Middle East right now the story seems quite to date.
Way to write an allegory, man!
February 28th, 2011 at 6:48 am
oh, one more thing, what exactly does the title mean?
February 28th, 2011 at 8:12 am
Loved it, from opening move to ‘checkmate’.
The references to the pieces unique movements, especially the knight’s move vs. the queen’s was very cleverly done.
I also liked the queen’s crown left lying around for the pawn to pick up after she toppled.
I’m a hopeless chess player, but knowing the game well added tons to my enjoyment of this piece. I will be interested to read all the comments and compare how it fares with the non-chess players in our court.
February 28th, 2011 at 8:51 am
Just a note (out of interest, not to show I’m a clever clogs) on ‘checkmate’.
This term comes from the phrase ‘sheikh maat’, which in Arabic means ‘the king/warlord/autocratic leader is dead’.
Which makes this piece even more poignant today.
February 28th, 2011 at 8:54 am
I’m a hopeless chess player, but the beauty of the game fascinates me. I’m old enough to remember the Fischer-Spassky match in Reykjavik. We were all glued to our black and white tv’s back then (it was the Cold War after all). So, this story got me right away.
I found the premise the most interesting part. The idea of the black and white pawns consorting to overthrow the establishment on BOTH sides was genius. The ending was perfect. Nothing but victorious pawns and the two kings stripped of their armies, surrounded and without hope. That one pawn staying true to the idea of the revolt instead of being tempted to seize the symbol of power at his fingertips was in itself powerful.
Great story idea. Five stars for the idea, three plus for the execution.
February 28th, 2011 at 9:00 am
OOOOHHHH…both sides revolted! Please picture dimly-lit light bulb. Yeesh.
From now on I’m not commenting until Seattle has explained the story to me.
February 28th, 2011 at 10:02 am
Thank you Paul for sharing the
“Sheikh Maat” thingy with us
A good read, in view of present day
or any other for that matter
4 ****
February 28th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
What an enjoyable read! I’m far from a decent chess player, but I know enough about the game to recognize a cleverly written allegory when I see one. Competent writing and excellent voice–and the ending rocked, too! What’s not to like about this one?
[Cool insight on the checkmate thing, Paul! And don't feel bad, ajcap: it took me two...fine, THREE readings to "get it"! LOL!]
Nicely done, Benjamin! Thanks for sharing.
February 28th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
As someone who plays chess (badly) I enjoyed this tremendously.
Extra points for relevancy and a great title.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Hello everyone,
Thanks for reading my story. I actually wrote it a few years ago, so it’s more prescient than relevant, although this kind of thing does happen on a fairly regular basis.
Anarcho-syndicalism is basically a form of organized anarchy where the power is shared among the workers. It’s not something I myself ascribe to, but it might be if I were a pawn in a game of chess.
Again, thank you for the kind comments. I’m glad you enjoyed it.
February 28th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
[...] Power of the Pawn My new story, Anarcho-syndicalist Endgame, appears today at Every Day Fiction. Don’t let the title fool you. It’s a light and [...]
February 28th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Very clever! I love how the pawn lets the crown lie at the end.
February 28th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
A sweet ending. I wonder if constitutional monarchy / monarchical demoncracy is the political system closest to the end configuration.
The author’s by-line is very nice too.
March 1st, 2011 at 1:27 am
Paul A. Freeman wrote:-
Er… no, it doesn’t mean that in Arabic, though I have heard that it comes from Persian “Shah maat”.
I cannot vouch for the Persian, but from the little Arabic I know I can tell you for sure that “sheikh” means something different and lesser than “king/warlord/autocratic leader”. “King” is usually rendered as “malik” (literally “owner”), and “autocratic leader” – or “president” – as “rais” (metaphorically “head”). As for “dead”, hmmm… “qatala” is “he was killing”, so it may be something with a “qtl” root, perhaps “qital” or “maqtul” for “something killed”, but I can’t say for sure.
March 4th, 2011 at 5:36 am
Good going, even if you don’t play chess (which I don’t). It was quickly evident that there was a parallel process going on here with the anthropomorposed chess pieces representing real world conflicts so I was looking for how this was handled. And it was handled very well. ****