Board To International Diplomacy: Can Chess Be India’s Soft Power?

Hushed silence descends as two opponents engage in a battle of wits, memory and strategy. The atmosphere becomes more tense with each shuffle of a pawn or sweeping arc of the queen. The drama is palpable, but there can be only one winner. This year – at the 45th Chess Olympiad finals in Budapest – it was India, whose players won both men’s and women’s gold medals and four individual golds, signalling a new era of Indian domination.

Chess has become more than just a game. The recent upholding of the bans on Russian and Belorussian players from international competition by the International Chess Federation (Fide) is an example of the soft power of sanctions as a geopolitical tool against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This ban has been welcomed by the US and Ukraine, among others, although Fide was divided on the issue, with 41 delegates voting to uphold the ban while 21 countries favoured lifting the ban and 27 abstained or were absent.

Over the centuries, chess – which has its roots in military strategy – has become a symbol of geopolitical competition made peaceful. The game’s first incarnation has been traced back to 6th-century India, as military generals sought a pastime to exercise strategic thinking.

The original game of chess was named chaturanga, which translates from Sanskrit into “the four military divisions”. The game allowed leaders to simulate conflict by using reasoning and logic to contemplate future battles. The term “checkmate” itself derives from “shah mat”, which loosely translates to “the king has lost” in Persian and Sanskrit.

Cold war rivalries

Chess was to become the focus of international, cultural and political competition during the cold war. It captured the world’s political imagination as a symbolic battleground between east and west. The Soviet Union supported promising chess players by establishing chess schools. Soviet grandmasters were unbeatable national heroes, from Mikhail Botvinnik to Tigran Petrosian and Boris Spassky. Their victories were framed as evidence of socialist intellectual superiority.

But American grandmaster Bobby Fischer disrupted 24 years of Soviet dominance when he beat Spassky at the 1972 World Chess Championships in Rekjavik, Iceland. It would become a critical moment in the cold war.

For years chess had been seen by both the Soviet Union and the US as a proxy for superpower military competition. Unlike US-Chinese “ping-pong diplomacy” – when goodwill between US and Chinese players in the early 1970s was followed by enhanced diplomatic engagement between the two countries – Fischer’s defeat of Spassky ended more than 20 years of Russian domination of chess.

The prospect that Fischer might win was seen as so important by the US government that the then secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, personally called Fischer to urge him to go to Rekjavik.

Years later, Russian former world champion and dissident Garry Kasparov recalled that: “This event was treated by people on both sides of the Atlantic as a crushing moment in the midst of the cold war. Big intellectual victory for the United States, and you know, a hugely painful, almost insulting defeat for the Soviet Union.”

A game for dissidents

Chess does not exist in a vacuum. It is shaped by and reflects historical rivalries, the rise of new power and contemporary geopolitics. And along the way, their refusal to maintain the national status quo and instead articulate their concerns about their societies has led to several grandmasters from various countries having to go into political exile.

Garry Kasparov’s pro-democracy advocacy and criticism of the Russian state led him to flee Russia with his family to New York in 2013. He was chairman of the Human Rights Foundation from until 2024, and has since been added to Vladimir Putin’s terrorist blacklist.

Kasparov is in good company. Six of Iran’s female grandmasters have been forced to leave their country, fleeing their country’s oppressive patriarchal regime after being barred from national competition for playing without a headscarf.

Sara Khadem fled to Spain with her family after refusing to wear the hijab during a match in Kazakhstan in 2022. Her family have since gained Spanish citizenship. However, women who cannot find citizenship elsewhere pay a steep price as their talents are not nurtured and they cannot play professionally. Mitra Hejazipour waited three and a half years to gain citizenship. In 2023, she consecutively became a French citizen and the French national women’s champion.

Ukrainian players continue to use chess as a platform for resistance against the Russian invasion. Prominent players who have spoken out include Vasyl Ivanchuk, Anna Muzychuk and her sister Mariya. Anna has consistently used her global social media following to condemn the invasion and advocate for peace in Ukraine.

Projects in Rwanda, Uganda and Palestine have demonstrated that chess is more than just a game by bringing together disparate communities. So by sanctioning Russia and Belarus, the International Chess Federation has made an important statement.

Chess can be a form of cultural diplomacy, a symbol of non-violent conflict resolution, and a platform for dialogue and understanding between people and nations. Chess is its own universal language. It requires no common tongue or expensive kit, yet it offers a formidable tool to promote critical thinking, international cooperation and conflict resolution.

This article by Becky Alexis-Martin, Peace Studies and International Development, University of Bradford, was first published in The Conversation.