Chess and the Law: An Anthology of Anecdotes and Analogies

CHESS AND THE LAW:  An Anthology of Anecdotes and Analogies.  By Andrew J. Field.  Law & Chess Press, 269 pages.  $24.95 (2019).

For years we have grown accustomed to hearing about "Law and …"  We are familiar, for instance, with Law and Economics, Law and Literature and Law and Medicine.  Make room for one more:  Law and Chess.

Comparisons between law and chess are common enough.  "Of all the metaphors lawyers use to describe their profession," wrote one lawyer in 2007, "chess is probably the most popular."  Many articles have explored that metaphor and explained how the two fields are similar—up to a point. The literature is full of such analyses. But such studies are typically no more than short articles. Now we have a new book on the subject, and it is a good one.

You know you like a book when you wish you had written it yourself. That is how I felt while reading "Chess and the Law" by Andrew J. Field. It is, in Field's words, a survey of "the many interesting and unusual ways that the game of chess has intersected with the practice of law in the United States."

Field's book is many things at once. It is creative, it is wise, it is funny, it is philosophical, and it is easy to read. Perhaps most important of all, it stimulates thought.

"Chess and the Law" is fundamentally creative in two respects. First, it joins and sees connections between two apparently disparate subjects, and demonstrates in a new way their deep relationship. That, of course, is one definition of originality.

Second, Field uses a creative structure and style. "Chess and the Law" is not a dry academic treatise. Instead, it is a linked collection of fascinating stories, anecdotes and comments about chess and the law. Some come from law journals, some from court opinions, some from biographies and newspapers.

But don't let the book's accessible structure and style fool you.  They are the outer garments of much profound wisdom.  The various pieces, however brief, go deep in their analyses and perceptions.  In this book, provocative analogies between chess and law abound, and the reader is struck by them.

Such wisdom is leavened by a subdued laughter. One entry describes how in 1842 future U.S. president Millard Filmore advised his son, a law student, not to play chess. "It is too sedentary," wrote Filmore, and "so much sitting will make you crooked."

Field also cites a 1962 divorce case in which a husband accused his wife of having an affair with a man who played chess with the husband. The wife told the husband that the other chess player was a "better lover." According to Field, "Nothing in the [court's] opinion indicates whether the wife's paramour was also a better chess player, though it is clear he captured his opponent's queen."

And, yet, for all its quiet and wry humor, the book is seriously philosophical too. It treats with underlying theories of how law is or is not like chess. Legal philosophers H.L.A. Hart, Ronald Dworkin, John Rawls and Hans Kelsen make cameo appearances in these pages and add jurisprudential heft. Spirited quotations from law professors spice up the debate. All of this makes the reader think.

Readability enhances the book's qualities.  The device of using short entries makes Field's book easy for the reader to pick up and dip into at any point.  It is, as Field says in his Introduction, a "browsable" book that is "both informative and entertaining."

One of my favorite entries compares trial strategy to a chess game: "the trial is never going to go exactly according to plan, and things are going to go wrong and require adaptation and flexibility." This made me think of boxer/philosopher Mike Tyson's comment along the same lines: "Everybody has a plan until they get hit."  Many of us litigators have had that same experience.

Another entry that made me smile (if ruefully) comes from Judge Charles Clark, primary drafter of the 1938 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Clark predicted those rules would provide "litigants a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of their lawsuit, rather than a welter of moves in a judicial game of chess." Ahem! Those of us who daily deal with and depend on those rules, and how they are manipulated in practice, might find Judge Clark's comment unintentionally ironic.

The author of this book has the right tools and background for writing this delightful and provocative volume. A retired lawyer living in Arizona, Field has a degree in philosophy, was a prosecutor and then a staff attorney for various state courts out west. In his spare time, he plays chess and reads widely about the game.  He is an accomplished writer too, having previously published "Mainliner Denver," a true-crime book about a plane bombing.  In his new book, Field showcases his skills as a writer, thinker, lawyer, and cracker-barrel chess philosopher.

Such an amalgam of good qualities makes "Chess and the Law" a unique and extraordinary reading experience for anyone. For lawyers who also play chess, Field's book will deepen their understanding and stimulate their imagination. As I look at the under-used chess set in my office, I am thinking about Field's book.

Daniel J. Kornstein, a partner at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, plays chess with his grandchildren and usually loses.