~external/ superficial appearance - setup - rules evolution viz terminology - pieces asleep (movement past, perpetual check)
Is Chess of value to military theory?
Whether the game of Chess is useful as an abstract study for honing an appreciation of military matters is a vexed (much debated) question. Inference from the types of persons who become Chess champions would seem to hold against the idea, but the same is true for the type of person one could expect to find as a clerk at a wargames shop. The invariable logicality of Chess seems to be a far cry from a vehicle that can depict fighting a way out of a tough spot, or demonstrating valor, yet some of the best known early Chess pieces are, of all things, Viking artifacts.
One of the iconic images of the time of the Crusades is of a captured Frankish knight being instucted in the game of Chess by his Saracen captor.
~value= appreciation that a preparatory move is still a move and subject to a countermove: chess player/ commander watching for "prep" moves to exploit - hypermodern fianchetto characteristic involves weakening pawn move (ex. game from duMont p.158)
("Fairy") Chess variants
~long- range pieces (only ones affected= Bishop, Rook & Queen) restricted to moves of 2 squares or less - Castling as usual: King's move is significant, Rook just accomodates - greater pertinence to maneuver/ military sim