Chess is more than just a game. It is a reflection of society and life, and therefore, holds within it an inner beauty and the key to understanding many of life’s situations. However, the application of chess to life falls short when there are certain complexities introduced into the situation. For although chess is a good model, it is not without its shortcomings, and those must be considered when one compares chess to life. A well planned attack in chess or a beautiful sequence of moves can be appreciated not only for achieving their ultimate purpose, but also for the beauty in achieving the ultimate goal.

However, with every well-planned attack, whether in chess or in real life, there will always be those who are going to be lost or sacrificed along the way. The difference is that in chess, the only objective of a player is the capture of his opponent’s king, whereas in real life, winning, though the ultimate goal, is not to be achieved at any price. There are acceptable and unacceptable losses. Another big difference between chess and life is information. In chess, there is perfect information, and there is a certainty as to the opponents capabilities. In life, where one does not have perfect information and must rely on intelligence gathering and even educated guesses.

Although there are obvious similarities between chess and life, those similarities get muddled when one starts to deal with terrorism. Terrorists operate by a different system of rules. In many aspects of life, your opponent’s objectives are usually clear and obvious, whereas in terrorism, there are more complexities that make the terrorists final goal difficult to ascertain. Sometimes, the terrorists might just want publicity for their cause. Other times, however, the terrorists might want revenge or freedom for their comrades.

Let us take a look at the hijacking of Air France flight 139, which was hijacked at a stopover in Athens after taking off from Ben Gurion Airport in Israel. The plane was re-routed to the Entebbe airport in Uganda. There, the terrorists held the Jewish passengers, they had already released the non-Jewish passengers, and demanded the release of other terrorists. This situation, encompasses all of the conditions that we had just mentioned, whether or not there was perfect information, acceptable and unacceptable losses, motives, and the well planned rescue attempt that was executed to near perfection.

The first condition that the Entebbe situation encompasses, is one of perfect information. The terrorists had perfect information about the airplane when they attempted to capture it, much like the opening move of a chess game. When the whole game is going to be dictated by how white opens the game. Will he open with a gambit, giving up a piece for positional superiority? Or will he lead the game into a sharp tactical position by opening 1.e4. kings pawn opening? And of course white can always opt for a more strategic and slow position with a queens pawn opening of 1.d4. When the terrorists hijacked the plane, they initiated the entire situation according to their desired outcome. It was one of sharp tactical consideration, where the slightest mistake by either side would be disastrous. The terrorists knew the flight schedule and the flight security safeguards. This gave them the complete advantage of perfect information in the beginning game. They also knew where they wanted to tale the plane after they captured it. In other words, they knew all they needed to know in order to capture the airplane.

On the other side of the board, the Israelis knew what had happened, but that was all they knew for sure. They knew that any mistake they made could be disastrous, and that they were in a precarious tactical situation. This is a condition that never arises in a chess game since all pieces can be seen at all times. In other words, nobody has a queen hidden up their sleeve. The Israelis, however, could not be sure what the Terrorists wanted, what kind of means they would resort to, and did not even know if the hostages were still alive. This put them at a severe disadvantage and limited their options. Before they could do anything, they had to find out what capabilities the terrorists had, where the hostages were being kept, if they were alive. Any rescue attempt would not only have to be swift, but effective and deadly in order to ensure the safety of the hostages. This essentially handicapped the Israelis and remembering what happened in 1972 at the Munich Olympics, they certainly did not want the hostages to die due to a botched rescue attempt. In chess terms, the Israelis knew that the risky defense that was used last time against a similar opening, was ill-conceived and resulted in the loss of the game, i.e., the hostages dying. Any similar defense would have to be well thought out, well planned, and above all else, well executed.

Acceptable and unacceptable losses needs definition. Terrorists are fundamentalists and have no limit of losses. Any amount lost was acceptable as long as their goals were met. They were willing to sacrifice their lives and the lives of the hostages in order to accomplish what they thought was necessary. In chess, this is tantamount to an all out assault on the opponent’s king wherein any amount of losses are acceptable, as long as the final capture is achieved.

From the Israeli’s side, there was most certainly a very finite limit on the amount of losses that they deal with. An attack would have to ensure not only the safety of the commandos involved in the attack, but also the safety of the hostages. The Israelis would certainly be dissatisfied with the loss of a large portion of either the hostage population or the attacking commando unit. In a game of chess, this is comparable to the attack of a minor piece or a queen. The attack must be well executed and thought out, but at the same time, there is a limit to how much a person is willing to sacrifice in order to accomplish that objective. A player would not sacrifice all of his minor pieces and rooks just for a queen, while looking for ways to eliminate the opponent’s queen.

Lastly, we have the rescue attempt itself to deal with. The terrorists chose what they considered to be a safe location to hold the hostages. They went to a country of their choice, and held the hostages in a building surrounded by guards. The terrorists felt that they had secured the hostages in an impenetrable location. In chess, this is equal to the idea of castling. The king is safely tucked away behind a nice barrier of pawns, where it is away from enemy forces and safe from any immediate danger. The Israelis, however, quite effectively countered this maneuver.

The Israelis knew the hostages were being held in the building at the airport. The Israelis also knew that the only way to rescue the hostages was to land the plane containing the commando team at the airport. They therefore negotiated with the terrorists and told them that they were going to concede to the terrorists demands and release the prisoners that they had captured. Once the plane was on the ground, the Israelis mounted a successful attack on the building to rescue the hostages. The only lose that the Israelis incurred was the death of the commando leader, Yonaton Netanyahu. He was killed by a lookout whom the Israelis had shot and presumed dead, but the lookout was able to get off one final shot before dying, killing Netanyahu. The attack was one that can be appreciated by military experts for the flawless execution and planning. Using a chicanery to get the commando team on the ground, then a near flawless execution of a well laid plan, the Israelis met their objectives and rescued the hostages. The Israelis used a trick first perfected by the Greeks with the Trojan horse. In chess, this is comparable to the offering of a piece for an opportunity that could result in the annihilation of your opponent. When the terrorist believed that the plane that was landing contained their captured comrades, they had fallen for the Israeli’s trick. They learned the lesson: Beware of Israeli’s bearing gifts.

All these conditions show that chess, although a good model for human behavior and conflict, is limited in its application. In chess, one cannot take into account the complexities of a situation where there is no perfect information. Chess also assumes that all means are acceptable to meet the ultimate goal of capturing the king, whereas in real life, the price is sometimes too high.

The Real World

Back to Society