The Unfair Square: Why Chess Teaches Us to Keep Playing When Life Isn't Level
One of the first major truths that hits you as you grow up is this: life is not fair.
It’s a harsh, inevitable realization. Some people are born with advantages you'll never have. Some get lucky breaks that bypass you entirely. Sometimes, the universe simply deals you a terrible hand for no good reason. It’s frustrating, demoralizing, and sometimes, it makes you want to sweep the board clean and walk away.
And this, surprisingly, is where the ancient, 64-square battlefield of chess offers some of the most profound, practical life wisdom. Because while the rules of chess are perfectly fair, the experience of playing it is a relentless simulation of life's inherent unfairness.
The Injustice of the Opening: The Early Deficit
Imagine this scenario:
You're playing a strong opponent. They're rated 300 points higher. You know they've spent thousands of hours studying theory that you can only dream of grasping. That's a life advantage – superior resources, training, and talent. Unfair.
You misremember an opening line. On move 7, your hand slips, or your mind blanks, and you play a suboptimal move, immediately giving your opponent a $\pm 0.8$ advantage. You haven't made a major blunder, but you've already ruined your position. Unfair.
The opponent plays an opening you've never seen. They spent the last week prepping a nasty King's Indian setup that perfectly exploits a known weakness in your Queen's Gambit Declined. You're forced to think on the fly from move one, while they’re just executing homework. Unfair.
In the first few minutes, you are already behind. You are struggling. Your position is cramped, your King is slightly vulnerable, and the computer evaluation line is whispering a small, but undeniable, negative number at you.
The game is not level. The game is not "fair."
The Response: You Must Still Play On
This is the moment of truth, the crossroad where the chess player and the person must make the same choice:
Tilt and Collapse: Get angry, frustrated, and play a wild, impulsive move just to force something to happen. Play the game with the sole purpose of proving that you should have won. (In life: quit the project, storm out of the meeting, lash out at a loved one.) Result: Swift, brutal defeat.
Acknowledge and Adapt: Take a deep breath. Look at the board, not with the eyes of a frustrated winner, but with the pragmatic eyes of a survivor. Accept the deficit.
The harsh truth of the board is: Your opponent does not care about your feelings. They will capitalize on every single advantage you give them. The universe is the same way. It does not pause to let you catch up.
The only reasonable response is to keep playing.
The Art of the Comeback: Reducing the Deficit
This is where the magic of "unfair" competition happens. When you are behind, you are freed from the burden of playing perfectly. Your goal shifts from "win cleanly" to "survive and muddy the waters."
Don't try to win a pawn back immediately. You will likely fall into a trap. Instead, focus on stabilizing your position. Fix the immediate tactical holes. Put your pieces on their best defensive squares.
Look for complications. When you are worse, clarity is your enemy. You want to introduce messy, uncomfortable situations where your opponent can also make a mistake. Look for a positional sacrifice, a tricky exchange, or an unexpected flank attack.
Force your opponent to think. Even the 2700-rated Grandmaster can overlook a simple tactic when they are under time pressure and facing an unconventional attack they hadn't considered. Your job is to make their life difficult, forcing them to spend precious time solving problems that you created.
The objective isn't to erase the $\pm 0.8$ advantage in one move; it's to reduce it to $\pm 0.7$, then $\pm 0.5$, then $\pm 0.3$. It is the slow, grueling work of chipping away at an unfair deficit.
Case Study 1: The Swindle and the Human Factor
One of the greatest lessons in playing from an "unfair" position comes from the countless swindles pulled off by masters like Grandmaster Simon Williams (known for his aggressive, sacrificing style). The computer might say a position is $-5.0$ (totally lost for Black), but what does a $-5.0$ actually mean?
It means Black has no defense against the engine's perfect, 30-move tactical sequence. It does not mean Black has no defense against a tired, overconfident, or distracted human opponent.
The Example: In a clearly lost endgame, the player who is down material might sacrifice their last useful piece to force a perpetual check or, even better, set a trap. They don't try to win; they try to make the game messy. They sacrifice a Bishop just to gain two crucial seconds on the clock and create a threat on the other side of the board. The opponent, seeing an easy win on the horizon, relaxes, rushes the calculation, and falls for the trap—perhaps a subtle move that forces a Stalemate or a devastating counter-check.
The unfairness in the initial position was simply material deficit; the new, human-introduced unfairness is the psychological pressure of a swindler who refuses to accept fate. This teaches us that even when our resources are depleted (low material, low energy, low funds in real life), our attitude and creativity can still be a powerful weapon.
Case Study 2: The Marathon of the Match
The most iconic example of fighting the long, unfair game is the 1984-85 World Championship match between Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov.
The format itself felt designed to be unfair: the first player to win six games would take the title. There was no limit on draws.
The Deficit: Karpov, the incumbent, jumped out to an overwhelming 5-0 lead. Kasparov, the challenger, was one loss away from a humiliating defeat. For a chess player, being down 5-0 is not just an "unfair" position; it is a catastrophic, near-terminal deficit.
The Grind: Kasparov didn't collapse. He didn't rage-quit. For the next 32 games, he played defensively, drawing game after game after game. He accepted the unfairness of the score and focused on the only thing he could control: not losing the next game. He made it clear that to win, Karpov would have to truly earn that final point.
The Comeback: Finally, in Game 32, Kasparov scored his first win. He then won Game 47 and Game 48. The score was 5-3, but Karpov was exhausted, demoralized, and losing momentum.
The match was controversially stopped by the FIDE president. Kasparov did not win the match, but he achieved the greatest non-victory comeback in history. He taught the world that when life delivers an "unfair" 5-0 deficit, the goal shifts: keep showing up, keep making your opponent work, and let resilience—not initial advantage—define your struggle.
The Final Lesson: It’s Not About the Score
Ultimately, whether you manage to draw or you end up losing the game, the lesson is learned in the struggle itself.
In chess, you will lose positions you never should have lost. In life, you will face setbacks that were entirely undeserved. You will be overlooked for a promotion, you will miss an opportunity due to bad timing, or you will be criticized unfairly.
The game is not fair. Life is not fair.
But the moment you accept that truth and refuse to quit, you gain an inner strength that your opponent (and your circumstances) can never take away. The quality of your character is not defined by the state of your opening position, but by your resilience in the middle- and endgame.
When the board is ugly and the clock is ticking, the only command that matters is: Keep going. Keep fighting for every square, every tempo, every tiny advantage. Because sometimes, all it takes is one small slip from your advantaged opponent for the entire game—or the entire situation—to flip.
Play on. The fight is the lesson.
Comments