strategy possible.

Now we shall not under any circumstances, as unfortunately even
great chess masters have done, seek in outward similarities
justification for transferring to chess the teachings of the
strategy and tactics of war. It sounds pretty enough to say:
Chess is a game of war--the various pieces represent the various
kinds of forces: the pawns represent the infantry, the Knights
take the place of cavalry, the Rooks do the work of heavy
artillery, sweeping broad lines; the different ways in which the
pieces move find a parallel in the topography of the theatre of
war, in that the various battle-fields are more or less easy of
access. But it is quite unjustifiable to assign to the Knights
the functions of scouts, and to say that Rooks should stay in the
background, as heavy artillery, and so on. Such pronouncements
would not have the slightest practical value. What we take from
the science of warfare is merely the definition. In each game the
strategy of chess should set us the tasks which must be
accomplished (in order to mate the opponent's King), and tactics
point the way in which it is possible to solve such problems.
Correct chess strategy will only set such tasks as are tactically
possible, and, if we wish to expound the principles of chess
strategy, we cannot exclude chess tactics from the field of our
observations. If here and there the results of our deliberations
bear some analogy to actual warfare, we may certainly give way to
a kind of aesthetic satisfaction in that our own occupation has
some parallel in real life, but we must never fashion our
principles in accordance with such fortuitous circumstances.

Having surveyed the problems we have to solve, we can now plunge