Once in a while, I come across a half-joking remark in public discourse that chess are a racist game because White has the advantage of the first move. Let’s take this assumption seriously for a moment, look into history as well as the present, and try to confirm or refute it.

The advantage of the first move

So how was it with that first move? Did American slaveholders and plantation owners in the eighteenth century agree that in the noble royal game, White must begin as a symbol of the better and purer race? Are chess perhaps tainted by such interference from imperialists and colonialists?

All sources and knowledge of chess history indicate that this was not the case. You may even be surprised at how young this rule is. It is one of the youngest fundamental rules of chess, generally accepted only a few years before the introduction of chess clocks. In ancient chess history, the board was divided only into ranks and files, but it was monochrome. Only the pieces had colors, and either White or Black could start. The board itself acquired its colored division during the Middle Ages.

When we look today through the materials of the greatest player of the eighteenth century, Philidor, in the games White always begins. But let’s not be misled: these materials have been edited to match our present-day conventions. In the originals, either color could start even then, and games by Philidor have been preserved in which Black began.

From a chess point of view, the first half of the nineteenth century was dominated by the matches of Labourdonnais and McDonnell. According to contemporary sources, the latter was said to always play with the black pieces, but the advantage of the first move alternated.

When Anderssen played the famous Immortal Game in 1851, according to some sources he allegedly had the black pieces! And yet today anyone even slightly familiar with chess history knows that in the game he moved first, and today we replay it with Anderssen as White.

The second half of the nineteenth century brought an expansion and gradual professionalization of international chess; amateur clubs and associations were founded and books were written. It was necessary to unify the rules so that all recorded games could follow a uniform notation and so that chess theory could be written effectively. Chess historians place the introduction of the rule that White has the first move as late as the 1880s. That is, at the time when official matches for the World Championship title began (1886), long after the world chess scene had been ruled by players such as Staunton, Anderssen, and of course Morphy. 

And the reason why the color white was chosen? No sources state this, but it should be borne in mind that it was not introduced by some one-off declaration at a chess congress. It was a gradual, long-lasting process and trend, which more and more tournaments, players, and so on gradually joined. And this was especially in Europe, which was the main chess battleground and where the oppression of Black people or other minorities was certainly not as much of a topic at that time as it was in the USA.

Personally, I think it was simply necessary to choose one side or the other, and the choice has nothing to do with skin color. White is generally a more positive and perhaps more noble color, whereas black in our European culture is associated with death. These factors may have contributed to why it ultimately settled on White starting the game. After all, the pieces do not have to be only white and black. They can have different colors, and it is common practice that in such a case the lighter of them starts the game.

Why is there no Black chess player in the world elite?

It is an undeniable fact that you won’t find a Black person in top-level chess. Yet it certainly isn’t true that it is only a game for white people—among the top we find Indians, Chinese, Hispanics, Turks, anyone you can think of. How can this be explained?

From a historical perspective, it is because chess, from the beginning of the Middle Ages, flourished most in Europe. They are part of European culture, whereas, for example, they do not occur in African culture. This is also related to wealth and education. People have time for board games when they satisfy basic human needs and possibly attain education. Europeans and later Americans (but not Black slaves) ranked among the richest nations on Earth for several centuries. This argument holds despite the fact that today we find many Asians among the top. Proportionally to their share of the total world population, there are still several times more white people among elite chess players than there would be proportionally. India and China together have more than a third of the world’s population—their representation in the world chess elite certainly does not correspond to that. China, as one of the richest nations in today’s world, can afford to invest in chess. In Africa it is much harder. Moreover, the Chinese border Russia and for many years bordered the USSR. The Soviets in particular were obsessed with chess and even had a national chess program—they wanted at all costs to defeat Western capitalism on sixty-four squares and thus prove their intellectual superiority. Some of this chess culture naturally had to influence China over the years, whereas Africa was and is cut off in this respect.

As for African Americans in the USA, their small representation is due to the fact that their community historically was not interested in chess, because this game has, let’s admit it, a slight whiff of elitism. And the elite in the USA for centuries was—only white.

Sometimes, however, a spark is enough and within a few decades everything is different. A single inspiration to turn everything around. India is a typical example. Chess originated there many centuries ago, but then it completely declined. At the end of the 1980s, the first Indian in history managed to obtain the grandmaster title. This young man gradually worked his way up to world champion and one of the greatest legends in history. Today India has more than sixty grandmasters, another world champion, three players in the current top 10, and several others in the broader elite. The Indian public today, of course, devours chess, and after cricket there is perhaps no more popular sport in the country.

Perhaps it is only a matter of time before something similar happens in Africa or in the Black community in the USA. Perhaps one spark will be enough to awaken their worldwide chess mania. It would be about time.

In conclusion, I would like to reassure all doubters and jokers: No, chess is not a racist game.