chess playing as strategic activity - savie · what goffman (1997b) terms “ engrossment,” is...

Symbolic Interaction, Volume 26, Number 2, pages 263–284, ISSN 0195-6086; online ISSN 1533-8665.© 2003 by the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction. All rights reserved.Send requests for permission to reprint to: Rights and Permissions, University of California Press, Journals Division, 2000 Center St., Ste. 303, Berkeley, CA 94704-1223.

Direct all correspondence to Antony James Puddephatt, McMaster University, Kenneth Taylor Hall, Rm622, 1280 Main St. W., Ontario, Canada L8S 4M4; e-mail: [email protected].

Chess Playing as Strategic Activity

Antony James PuddephattMcMaster University

This article takes an interactionist perspective and explores how peopleengage in strategic activity in the context of a chess game. Based on partic-ipant observation in the chess community and interviews with twenty ama-teur chess players, it examines the most relevant issues to players as theyform their lines of action during play. It considers the following dimensions:incorporation of routine activity and style, role taking, impression manage-ment, engrossment, and composure. By examining these dimensions, wecan gain an understanding of strategic activity as a generic social process.Further, drawing connections from strategic activity in chess to other areasof human group life indicates directions for future research.

Although Goffman (1959) discussed the centrality of strategic interaction in every-day encounters, only limited sociological research deals explicitly with strategicinteractions in any speci�cally designated “here and now” situation. I attempt toremedy this shortcoming in the literature and illustrate that strategic action ineveryday life is a fundamentally sociological process, permeated by emotions, inter-subjective meanings, and the use of varying styles or patterns of thought. The gameof chess involves two people who strategically interact in ways that forward theirown goals and simultaneously resist or undermine the intentions of the other.Hence, the game of chess represents a perfect medium for studying the social pro-cess of strategic activity.

Working from the perspective of symbolic interaction (Blumer 1969; Prus 1996)and making use of participant observation and interviews with amateur chess play-ers, I examine the socially constructed dimensions of strategic activity. More specif-ically, I examine the following set of themes, based in part on Prus’s (1996) genericsocial process of “accomplishing activity”: (1) incorporating routines and styles ofplay (Strauss 1993); (2) taking on the role of the other (Mead 1934; Prus 1989); (3)managing impressions (Goffman 1959; Prus and Sharper 1991); (4) experiencingengrossment (Csikszentmihalyi 1975, 1993; Goffman 1997b); and (5) maintainingcomposure as these processes in�uence the players’ decisions and performances in

264 Symbolic Interaction Volume 26, Number 2, 2003

the game. By focusing on chess as a concrete instance of strategic action, I aim to il-lustrate key sociological dimensions of this process and encourage further studyinto strategic activity as a generic social process.

In the social sciences, psychologists have conducted most studies of chess. Instudying human capacities for memory, pattern recognition, and so forth, psycholo-gists have tried to determine what skills and thought processes are necessary inorder to play chess well (DeGroot 1978; Krogius 1976). A Freudian psychologisthas tried to explain the appeal of chess by discussing the symbolic representationsof certain pieces, such as the king and queen, and what they mean to the “ego”(Fine 1956). Carroll’s (1981) sociological analysis explored how the patterned rulesof chess mirrored Lévi-Strauss’s observations on the use of polar opposites in cul-tural constructions. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) considered how chess could elicit aeuphoric entrancement during play, which he calls “�ow.” His concept of �ow, orwhat Goffman (1997b) terms “engrossment,” is central to chess activity. However,none of these studies have explicitly examined players actively constructing lines ofaction with respect to the other, strategizing in the “here and now” of the game.Thus, my study complements the psychological literature regarding chess, as myanalysis offers insights about the game at a new conceptual level that examines stra-tegic activity explicitly.

A number of studies in the interactionist literature pertain to the meaning andexperience of leisure activities. Research has been conducted on such activities asLittle League baseball (Fine 1987), fantasy role-playing games (Fine 1983), magic(Prus and Sharper 1991), stand-up comedy (Stebbins 1994), survival games (Reeves1986), karate (James and Jones 1982), parachuting (Aran 1974), ballet (Dietz 1994),sur�ng (Irwin 1973), mountaineering (Mitchell 1983; Williams and Donnelly 1985),and rugby (Donnelly and Young 1985). Although some studies touch on the strate-gic considerations associated with activity (e.g., Mitchell 1983; Prus and Sharper1991; Stebbins 1994), none have treated gaming or leisure activities as a mediumthrough which to examine strategic activity explicitly. Chess gives players time toexercise re�ective thought in planning and decision making, providing an excellentcontext for exploring players’ thought processes and their associated experiences.

Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical model of social behavior most famously ad-dresses strategic action and in�uence work in human relations. Goffman shows thatpeople act so as to put up a good “front,” strategically enacting roles and forms ofbehavior that serve their best interests. Thus, this study attends to how chess playersproject various images to their opponents through their moves and demeanor, to le-verage more favorable positions. Recently, Prus (1999) conceptualized the study ofpeople engaging in “tactical enterprise” as a generic social process.1 His work en-courages researchers to study how people or groups try to promote their own linesof action, neutralize action set up against themselves, usurp agency from others, andso on. According to Prus, so-called micro-level tactical encounters resemble strategicventures of a greater magnitude, and studying the generic features found in every-day encounters can teach us a great deal about even the most large-scale initiatives.

Chess Playing as Strategic Activity 265

Thus, this study conceptualizes strategic activity generically and aims to go beyondthe world of chess and gaming to inform other similar (and potentially larger) stra-tegic processes found across the full spectrum of social life.

Stebbins (1992) compares recreational versus professional interactions in vari-ous leisure experiences and activities. Professionals tend to have more invested inthe leisure activity in question, hold greater identity involvements, and, as such,treat the game with more seriousness. Thus the game becomes de�ned as a form ofwork. Snyder (1994) draws similar distinctions between the various meanings recre-ational versus serious shuf�eboard players attribute to the game. Dawson and Prus(1991) observe that people designate laborious versus recreational meanings toshopping. Similarly in chess, serious players often view, experience, and enact vari-ous aspects of the game in different ways than their casual counterparts. I attend tohow the various processes considered in this study may be approached somewhatdifferently depending on the seriousness and skill level of the players.

My overall framework for this study derives from Prus’s call for attending to thegeneric qualities of social life. In this way, researchers may connect the “transitua-tional” and “transcontextual” qualities of the study with other relevant areas of eth-nographic work (Prus 1996:141). More speci�cally, a direct focus on Prus’s genericprocess of “performing activities” (Prus 1997:65) informs the conceptual frame forthis article. Using this framework, I provide a detailed analysis of the processualand emergent nature of strategy building in chess while paying close attention tothe intersubjective and multiperspectival elements that unfold. By focusing on theabstract and generic dimensions of strategic activity in chess, I aim to connect with,and inspire research on, other everyday situations.

METHODS AND DATA

The data for this study draw on open-ended interviews with twenty amateur chessplayers, participant observation of chess games in �eld settings between September1999 and March 2000, and my personal experiences playing the game. Those inter-viewed ranged from beginning-level recreational players to competitive-style tour-nament players from twenty-one to sixty years of age. My sample re�ects the lack ofaccessible female players in the area where I conducted the study, as well as thechess playing community as a whole.2 Ninety percent of the respondents were ofCaucasian descent. Because I relied heavily on research participants from a campuspopulation (all nonserious players and many club players were taken from a univer-sity setting), I could not obtain a diverse sample at the time of the research project.I observed a signi�cantly wider array of ethnic and racial diversity (and saw a fewfemale participants) at the city tournaments. Thus, biases are more evident in mysample of interviewees than in my �eld observations.

Each interview ranged between one-half hour and four hours in length. All inter-views were tape recorded, transcribed, and then coded into analytic categories. Theinterviews took place in whatever setting the respondents deemed comfortable. All


respondents signed consent forms ensuring anonymity and con�dentiality and out-lining possible ethical rami�cations of the study. Interviewees understood that theycould refuse to answer any questions asked and that they could conclude the inter-view process at any time.

Although I initially outlined concepts to explore before conducting the inter-views, I extended and added to them as the interviews ensued and kept the analyticthemes �uid and �exible as new information emerged. Thus, the interviews weresemistructured, in that I asked about all avenues of immediate interest but was fullyopen to allowing participants to lead the interviews in new and often unforeseen di-rections. I conducted three of the interviews while the interviewee and I actuallyplayed chess. Using this method, the interviewee could discuss his thoughts andideas regarding the game with a concrete reference point. I found the data collectedfrom these discussions exceptionally helpful in forming concepts related to speci�cstrategies associated with playing the game.

The participant observation was conducted at two university-based chess clubsand two city clubs from two medium-sized cities in Ontario, Canada. The universityclubs tended to be less serious and more social in character. Rarely did a formaltournament occur; rather players would talk with each other and play relaxed, non-competitive games. At the city level, the clubs usually hosted tournaments and Ca-nadian Federation of Chess (CFC) rated games. Therefore, these clubs tended to bemuch more competition oriented. The participant observation phase involved chat-ting with members of the clubs, playing friendly games, observing, and gettinginvolved in more serious tournament-level play. I attended the local university clubsixteen times over a �ve-month period, another university club three times, a localcity club ten times, and a distant city club twice. After a day or night spent at a givenlocation, I would return home to write down as much detail as I could rememberabout the various happenings and my own experiences in the form of �eld notes. Iwould code the notes and then �le them into the same conceptual categories as theinterview transcripts.

Playing in tournaments and games, as well as observing behavior at chess clubs,provided an invaluable addition to the interview material. By conducting partici-pant observation, I could test and verify independently much of what the inter-viewees told me. Moreover, processes in the game became much more evident oncethey could be directly observed and/or experienced �rsthand. Thus, participant ob-servation allowed me to understand what the respondents were telling me and situ-ate the data gained in context.3

CHESS AS STRATEGIC ACTIVITY

Players attend to a number of different issues that help them form their lines of ac-tion in planning tactics and strategies in chess. Schütz (1964) has shown that chessrepresents a form of communicative social interaction, in which players encountermessages (moves) from their opponents and respond within that same symbolic


framework (the rules of the game) in an attempt to resist the other. Subsequently,players attend to their own intentions and goals but also to those of their oppo-nents, and they make decisions based on the (often ambiguously de�ned) situationat hand. Players do all of this to overcome and/or resist their opponents’ intentionsin the interaction and, in turn, try to succeed with plans of their own. What we learnin the micro-processes of strategizing in chess (and the accompanying intersubjec-tive considerations) may help to inform similar social interactions, such as othergames, sports, business dealings, negotiations, and in�uence work more generally.

A player’s decisions in chess may merely re�ect his or her ability to computemove extensions and combinations effectively. Admittedly, this is often the case.However, in many chess situations several options arise, and which option a playerchooses often sparks much professional debate that can last for months or evenyears. Thus, a great deal of ambiguity often accompanies the ways players de�ne sit-uations in chess, especially under the constraint of �xed time allowances. Considerthe following excerpt from a strong tournament player.

This is why I’m not a master-level player. Because, that ability right there, to beable to see these positions for what they really are, and have a totally concrete,technical ability to �ip those pieces around in your mind, and see where they aregoing to end up—and then take the best route. (m, 25)

If players cannot reach a calculated solution due to the dif�culty of de�ning a situa-tion precisely, a purely rational choice of moves may not be feasible. As a result,other, more socially in�uenced decisions emerge in the construction of particularlines of action.4

INCORPORATING ROUTINES AND STYLES OF PLAY

As players learn chess, they begin to prefer certain approaches to the game and de-velop speci�c routinized styles of play. The particular style a player brings to thegame will often greatly in�uence how he constructs strategies and moves. For exam-ple, players may develop preferences for open or closed games, aggressive or defen-sive approaches, particular pieces or board positions, various types of opening rou-tines, and so on. Players’ styles tend to develop around the particular set of skillsthat favor them, or methods of play that have brought them success in the past. Thefollowing excerpts illustrate how various players have developed aggressive ormore defensive approaches to chess.

I lost so many games, man, the �rst �ve years I’d just sit there and get clobbered.No attack . . . just sit there and get clobbered (laughing) and then the lights wenton and I �gured I might as well start attacking. (m, 38)

I suppose I play a more defensive angle. I’m more reserved, I’m waiting for themto break their back, that’s the idea I’ve kind of learned to play with, just sit back,and establish everything well, and then when other people try and attack, justunchain their links and then get rid of all of their connections, that’s a big part of


the game. So it’s a pretty reserved style. Because I’m not used to playing veryhigh caliber players, just the various people from my hometown, anywhere frombeginner to nothing, and, when I play them, I usually just wait for them to makethe mistake. So that is largely how I ended up playing like that I suppose. (m, 21)

In addition to holding various meanings associated with certain overall ap-proaches to the game, players often interpret the value of more detailed aspects ofthe game, such as the same piece, position, or exchange, quite differently. The fol-lowing player describes his preferences for open, more simpli�ed positions: “I likeclearing up the board, so that I have a lot of room to move, I don’t like tight,cramped games. It becomes too complicated, it requires too much concentration,there are just too many variables to think of at once. I feel I can play a better gameif I keep things simple” (m, 23).

Other players in the sample, by contrast, mentioned that they preferred morecomplicated positions and avoided trading pieces. It seems that styles of chessemerge in great measure as repeated instances of success are experienced with thegame. Thus, if a player has had success with knights instead of bishops, he will likelyalways factor this bias into his decisions. He perceives an advantage in trying tohold on to his knights, which he learned, rightly or wrongly, from previous game ex-perience. Thus, as players develop meanings for certain pieces, moves, and overallapproaches to the game, these preferences become routinized and in�uence theway they perceive, judge, and make decisions in play.

Strauss (1993) has considered the centrality of routine action in everyday life.He writes, “Insofar as actions are repeated, they become over time so routinized asto fall mostly out of consciousness until something happens to call attention tothem” (p. 193). Thus, all thought and action enacted in daily life is to some extentmade possible by, and expressed through, learned routinized activity. In chess, rou-tine activity is equally central. At a basic level, all problems encountered in gamesfall into the larger subset of chess problems generally, which elicits a tacit routineof going through logical, calculative thought processes to make moves in the game.Beyond this, certain memorized rules of thumb, opening systems, strategic ap-proaches, particular problem solutions, and so on, provide the player with the toolsnecessary for de�ning speci�c situations appropriately and making more informedgame decisions.

Once players have achieved success with one set of preferences, or style of play,it becomes very dif�cult to switch to a new approach:

I’m trying to change the [defensive] style now. I guess it will change as I learn,and as I become more involved with more people, and I learn more about it, justnaturally, my knowledge of it will expand. But it’s very dif�cult to actually tryand play aggressively, because I’m scared. I don’t want to lose, that’s the bigproblem. (m, 21)

Players believe that if a mode of play has brought success in the past, a differentstyle will (at least temporarily) lead to failure. This stance resembles Kuhn’s(1962) notion of particular research paradigms constraining scientists’ activities.


Similarly in chess, taking a new approach to the game can prove extremely dif�-cult for players.

Routinized activity in chess is also enacted and actively taken advantage of at amore conscious level. The player, knowing that using speci�c routines will morelikely bring success, often puts them to use deliberately in game play. This strategyoccurs most often in opening theory, where some players use exactly the same, or asimilar, system of moves at the beginning of their games. Chess makes up an exten-sive body of esoteric knowledge, with millions of resources available to the avidplayer. More serious players, knowing the value of repetitive mental activity forstoring knowledge, often study chess literature, review old games, and do practiceexercises in an effort to routinize and make familiar a wider array of situations. Ifthese positions arise in matches and players are well versed in them, they will oftenknow the correct move almost automatically. As the following player explains, usingone’s own stock of knowledge to form routinized de�nitions and ways to handle sit-uations can create a major advantage.

Well, experience de�nitely comes in handy. I suppose that there are situationswhere most people have to think, and that’s the kind of situation that I strive toput them in. And if I’ve been there, it’s such a huge advantage, just to be familiarwith the territory that you’re covering. . . . There are certain situations that youwill have seen before, so you don’t even have to really think, you just know whatto play automatically. (m, 21)

By recognizing familiar positions on the board, players can make moves withoutneeding prolonged analysis, such that they can save time on the clock and rest theirminds for later stages in the game. Obviously, this sort of routinized knowledge,which leads to automatic responses in the game, is a formidable weapon in chess,especially during timed matches. However, not all routinized knowledge is neces-sarily helpful to players. Certain stylistic inclinations may well be ill advised. None-theless, habitualized reactions are a part of chess and in many cases help players tomake sense of, frame, and deal with the situations they may encounter.

TAKING ON THE ROLE OF THE OTHER PLAYER

Mead (1934) discusses the ability of people to “take the role of the other” and toimagine how the other may want them to act in social interaction. In his study ofsales and marketplace activity, Prus (1989) points out that salespeople will oftentake the role of the other when they begin the task of “qualifying” customers. Thesalesperson can then begin to construct lines of action (in this case, sales pitches)that are best suited to the customer in question. Similarly in chess, when playersgain more information about their opponents’ style of play, they can adapt theirplans around what they perceive the opponent’s ideas to be. Hence, by taking onthe role of the other, players attempt to determine their opponent’s speci�c goals,and from this they may formulate a way to resist or work around their intentions.This process is not only necessary in chess, but cuts across all instances of gaming


and sport, as well as many other social activities. The following excerpt explains theimportance of role taking in chess.

I know George says simplify, like that’s one of his ideas, when something getstoo complex, start trading off pieces. . . . But, I try not to do that, by making itmore complex, and not allowing him to do what he wants, preventing his simpli-�cation. I suppose you have to know your enemy to beat them, because youhave to know what it is that they want to do, and how to stop it, because if you canget somebody off of what they’re thinking, then they’re lost. (m, 21)

While many players adhere to the general viewpoint of “playing the man” (takingthe other players’ game preferences into account when making decisions), othersprefer to “play the board.” By “playing the board,” players feel that the most “cor-rect” move can be found in any given situation, and this move is what they shouldplay. These players’ strategies and tactics do not change according to whom theyplay. Rather, they always play what Mead (1934) would call the generalized other:“I would have to say that I always use the same general theory and overall ap-proach for every game and every opponent” (m, 24). These players believe that nomatter who the opponent is, the board position always dictates an “objectively bestmove.” Thus, for these players, gleaning information about the opponent, and tryingto exploit speci�c weaknesses in an opponent’s style, does not come into play.

When players wish to develop strategies consistent with a particular style of play,they must learn the opponents’ particular preferences, skills, and overall approachto the game. However, this procedure often proves dif�cult. In tournaments, for ex-ample, players may know little or nothing about the opponent. As a result, they tryto glean as much information about the opponent’s style and level of play as quicklyas possible. By observing an opponent’s mannerisms and watching the early combi-nations of moves that he or she makes, players gain rough ideas of the opponent’sstyle and overall skill.

The opening move usually tells a lot about the person, and you try and read whatthey’re trying to do right off the bat, like if they’re going for the pawn, and thentrying to hold that pawn advantage throughout the game, or if they want to tryand break you up and get into your king right away, if they’re aggressive, ifthey’re defensive, and whatnot. In a tournament, generally, it’s really just, you’vegot to take it as it goes, and feel them out really. You have to learn as much aboutthem as possible, as quickly as possible. (m, 21)

Taking the role of the other in play is important, as it allows for the potentialprediction of what sorts of game scenarios the opponent favors. In this way, thede�nition of the situation may take on a different meaning, depending on the op-ponent. Consider my re�ections while I played in an even game against a familiarplayer.

Well, I know that whenever Dan and I play, and the position is open like this, itusually goes in his favor. So, although I don’t usually mind open positions as ageneral rule, I had a sinking feeling that the game was going to go his way again.(Notes)


Although player preferences can vary widely, and cannot always be accounted forlogically, the added con�dence that accompanies preferred, as well as routinized,situations can be very helpful. Knowing this, the players attempt to discover whatsituations the other prefers in order to steer the game away from the opponent’sgame preferences and toward their own.

Players will also try to pick up hints through body language. Players stress thevalue of monitoring their opponent’s mannerisms, such that they might provideunintentional clues to their intentions in the game.

[I]f the other guy gets shaky or his face goes red or he’s twitching in his seat orany kind of body language, or if the other guy is walking around and he’s ner-vous, he might see something that you don’t see. So you just try and think it outand �nd it. What the guy does, and how he acts, can kind of be like a warning sig-nal to watch out. (m, 23)

Thus, by monitoring the opponent, players have the ability to see potential lines ofattack and avoid hazardous situations before it is too late.

MANAGING IMPRESSIONS

Goffman’s notion of “impression management” cannot be underestimated in itsrelevance and centrality to tactical activity in chess. Chess players know that theiropponents try to glean information about their own game preferences, intendedplans of attack, and so forth. As a result, players will do everything they can tomask their intentions from opponents in an effort to maintain the element of sur-prise. They make subtler, less alarming maneuvers over the board but also manip-ulate face-to-face interaction, so as not to give away various intentions, fears, andanticipations.

Prus and Sharper (1991), in their study of hustlers and magicians, provide agreat deal of insight into the process of deception and what they term “imagework.” They draw an interesting parallel between hustlers and magicians, as bothtry to create the illusion that nothing out of the ordinary is happening in the eyesof their respective audiences. While the audience has the false impression thateverything is as usual, these “professionals” manipulate various objects as theywish. For instance, hustlers switch dice or manipulate cards, and magicians manip-ulate their surroundings in an effort to reshape reality. This notion—“the illusionof the unexceptional”—is easily applied to strategy in chess. Players want to con-struct lines of attack that keep their long-term goals less obvious. By playing whatappear to be passive moves, players can hide their intentions and project a non-threatening image. To illustrate this, Waitzkin discusses the “quiet move” in attack:

There are many chess players who are incapable of making a simple slow movein a crazy position because they are so a�ame with the passion to crush their op-ponent. Desire is not enough. To win we must be better than our opponent, andthis often means showing class with a move that seems, to the impassioned eye,anti-climactic. (1995:153)


To gain control of the game, a player often selects moves that may seem unimpor-tant to the opponent. By building up enough “quiet moves,” players can progresssafely until they choose to “unveil” their attack by playing a more apparent move,once it is too late for the opponent to successfully defend. Another player explainsthe danger of being “too obvious” in planning strategic offensives.

You can’t be too obvious about what you’re doing. . . . The guy will see that com-ing a mile away before you’ve �nished it, and you’re gonna end up backtrackingfor the rest of the game. As a general rule, just don’t be too obvious, eh? You’llnever pull anything off if a guy knows what you are doing from square one. (m, 26)

If the opponent knows what the player is planning, he or she is much more likely tosuccessfully block the attack or, worse yet, set lethal traps for the unknowing strategist.

Players also stress the importance of hiding excitement or undue stress fromtheir opponent, so as not to give anything away. This tactic is consistent with Goff-man’s (1959) notion of impression management, as players must try to maintain agood “front” for their opponents and create the image that nothing extraordinary isat issue in the game. This strategy also relates to Prus and Sharper’s (1991) study ofroad hustlers (especially “shoot up men”), who convey an honest demeanor whilecheating people for their money. Similar skills are required in chess, especiallywhen “going in for the kill.” Players do not want to make gestures or give signs thatwill reveal their intentions.

A huge part of chess is the ability to hide your emotions, I think. Like if I see agreat idea on the board, it’s natural to get excited, but you can’t let the other guyknow you’re excited, or he may know to look for something. (m, 28)

You’ve got to have a poker face. If you don’t have a poker face you can giveeverything away. (m, 23)

Thus, impression management is an important facet of chess. This process is alsocentral to all sorts of other competitive settings. Consider, for instance, a baseballcatcher communicating in code to his pitcher before the throw, or the crafty andmisleading footwork of a basketball player as he or she sets up a shot.

EXPERIENCING ENGROSSMENT: FINDING THE “FLOW” IN CHESS

As recognized in the work of Strauss (1993), people may experience certain activi-ties in an embodied sense, such that the body directs action and perception in waysdistinct from conscious deliberation. In the chess world, players experience thesecorporeal processes as they become highly focused on the game at hand and virtu-ally block out the external world around them, processes that give rise to pleasureand tend to improve play. In part, this ability results from players’ various emo-tional reactions to the game and from the embodied process of focused conscious-ness that emerges in such intense intellectual and competitive activity. However,players can direct and actively encourage “engrossment” (Goffman 1997b) by try-ing to enact those dimensions that seem to give rise to more euphoric interactions.


Goffman’s concept of engrossment in gaming activities refers to a deep concen-tration in the reality frame that players construct and sustain. This experience of en-grossment both enhances the fun of the gaming experience and increases players’ability to participate in the given activity effectively. Goffman emphasizes that en-grossment is not something peculiar to games but is a generic social feature foundacross interactions of all sorts. Thus, a focus that players sustain through �nding in-trinsic joy can also emerge during conversations, parties, and work. Fine’s (1983)study of fantasy role-playing games has direct relevance to a consideration of chess.He argues that the best fantasy role-playing experiences occur when players suc-cessfully tune out the external world and concentrate as fully as possible on theexperience of the game.

Similar to Goffman’s notion of engrossment, Csikszentmihalyi (1993) considersthe concept of “�ow” as experienced in sporting and leisure activities but alsoacross many other engagements in everyday life. He explains the concept thus:

[It is] a subjective state that people report when they are completely involved insomething to the point of forgetting time, fatigue, and everything else but the ac-tivity itself. . . . The depth of involvement is something we �nd enjoyable and in-trinsically rewarding. This �ow experience is relatively rare in everyday life, butalmost everything—play and work, study and religious ritual—is able to produceit provided the conditions are conducive to deep concentration. (1993:59)

Csikszentmihalyi (1997) emphasizes studying and understanding this phenomenon,as he argues that it generally leads us to be happiest and most creative, ef�cient,and skillful at whatever activity we may be involved in. Like Goffman, he conceptu-alizes the notion generically, appreciating that �ow can be a central feature of anyor all activities found in everyday life. He describes the experience of �ow as losingtrack of time in an activity, losing awareness of external irrelevancies, merging offeeling, thought, and action, and losing a sense of self-consciousness. All of theseelements contribute to the synthesis of an “autotelic,” or intrinsically rewarding,experience.

In an earlier work, Csikszentmihalyi (1975) considers the experience of �ow inchess explicitly. He argues, and I agree, that chess contains signi�cant intrinsic re-wards. Players in his study report that they experience the most �ow during close,competitive games. They report that when caught up in �ow, their sense of timetends to speed up and that they almost entirely exclude from consciousness externalthoughts that are irrelevant to the game. Flow in chess, according to Csikszent-mihalyi, stems largely from the structure of the game itself, in that each move is im-portant in settling the game’s outcome. Thus, it not only invites, but requires a con-stant level of focus. Similarly, taking turns allows for constant feedback from theother throughout play, providing motivation for a deeper focus, enhancing the pos-sibility of experiencing �ow. Csikszentmihalyi mentions the fragile “permeability”of the �ow experience that his respondents report. Players in his sample discussedvarious outside distractions as obstacles to achieving focus, keeping some playersfrom effectively “digging in” to the game at hand (Csikszentmihalyi 1975:66). The


players I interviewed consider engrossment one of the great intrigues of the chessplaying experience.

It’s a kind of stress, but it’s a kind of positive stress. And it brings you even moreinto the game, so at the same time you’re stressed about the game, but you for-get about all of the things around you. Maybe it is even possible that somebodydies next to you, and you don’t realize it, because you are so focused . . . likebeautiful women around us, or else good friends sitting at the next table, and wedidn’t see them, because we were really into this game. Sometimes we would getup and go to the toilet, but when we got to the toilet we were thinking whatabout this game or what we should focus on. It was all about the game, nothingelse. That’s why I liked it. (m, 22)

Another player views the engrossing quality of chess as positive, in that it allowshim to escape from the stress of the external world. This notion of the �ow experi-ence as escape was likewise mentioned in Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975) study. Considerthe following excerpt from a player in my sample.

Everything, man. It all goes away. I don’t know what it is about the game. I don’tknow if it’s just sort of hypnotizing to stare at the checker pattern or what, andall the things that could happen, but it’s got so many dimensions to it. So, it’s greatthat way. If there’s anything on your mind, just get out the chessboard. (m, 24)

Players emphasize the importance of engrossment to chess activity. By maintaininga deep focus on the game, the worries of everyday life can be temporarily removedfrom consciousness, providing players with a somewhat euphoric escape fromeveryday concerns. But what makes chess more engrossing than many other pursuits?In the following, I consider the central dimensions in chess that are enabled by, butalso create and sustain, the �ow experience.

Excitement contributes to the engrossment found in chess. Csikszentmihalyi(1975) considers excitement a central feature of many �ow experiences encoun-tered throughout social life, including chess, and several of my participants concur.One man said, “Oh, yes, it gives you a de�nite rush, there’s no question about it. Myheart will just be pounding some games, especially when the game is crazy, the posi-tion is changing really fast, and you just don’t know what’s going to happen” (m,26). Although outsiders of the game often do not realize that chess is exciting, mostplayers agree that excitement is a signi�cant part of their enjoyment. It seems thatthe excitement experienced in games effectively concentrates a player’s focus andenhances the potential for increased levels of �ow.

In Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975) study of chess, players reported that the type ofenjoyment and �ow found in the game of chess could also be found (amongother areas) in artistic activities. Indeed, players observe the aesthetic qualitiesof chess through seeing multiple styles of play and creative initiatives in jointlycreated game con�gurations. This emergent aesthetic quality furthers players’engrossment. As players adapt the arrangement of their pieces to each other, asomewhat symmetric �t and intersubjective balance can emerge that many �ndappealing.


It’s kind of hard to see, but there’s beauty in it. The symmetry of the pieces andthe idea of threatening, sometimes it all just comes together and it gets distract-ing at points, but sometimes I really just sit back and go “Wow, look at thisgame.” It’s like a perfect balance, an absolutely perfect piece of art . . . for in-stance the idea of a checkmate that’s six moves away is just beautiful. (m, 21)

In some ways, this idea resembles two dancers with contrasting styles performing aroutine. Each dances with his or her respective style, yet each must adapt andrespond appropriately to the other. However, unlike a dance, the trail of moves re-mains visible on the chessboard, and if the game is relatively even, often a verycomplex and intricate symmetry is evident. This symmetry, if gained, generally re-sults from a great deal of careful thought and delicate balancing of pieces, an out-come of several moves (all made in direct relation to the other) and possibly hoursof play. I contend that the knowledge of what went into the making of a certain con-�guration leads to its aesthetic appeal. Consider Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson’sexploration of an appealing aesthetic encounter:

[T]he primary concern focussed on the activity of the artist making the work, onwhich features within the work provided a direct access to the art making pro-cess. Comments such as “Those are exciting pieces, the way you can see the art-ist’s hand” or “Look, look there I see his hand moving. Look how quickly!” werefar from unusual. (1990:33)

Chess players can also appreciate the work, effort, thought, and problem solving in-volved in creating the precarious balance that can be achieved in a game.

Many players consider the emergent variability of chess an intriguing quality ofthe game that also contributes to their experience of �ow. Mead (1938) recognizedthe idea that emergence was the key to originality and innovation in the mind’s in-teraction with nature. When something new emerges in unpredictable ways, themind locates the new entity in relation to the past, although situated in a fresh andoriginal way. Emergence allows creativity to happen; new thoughts, interactions, orstimuli are understood through a contextualization with the past, allowing �exiblycreative acts to be constructed in response to an emergent entity. Csikszentmihalyi(1975) does not consider emergence directly as a component of �ow, although hemaintains that activities containing constant feedback often give rise to a �ow expe-rience. Those involved with a highly interactive activity like chess constantly antici-pate feedback (which must be somewhat unpredictable or there would be no needfor anticipation), and that leads to increased concentration. What happens in agame situation often depends on what the opponent chooses to do; players seldompredict newly emerging con�gurations beforehand. Players tend to be somewhat�xated on the opponent’s initiatives, as one unexpected move by the opposingplayer may lead to a host of new calculations from the given position. In addition,while waiting for opponents to move, players predict opponents’ responses so thatthey can test out various move extensions and combinations. The following interviewexcerpt illustrates the complexity and uncertainty of the game: “The possibilities—it’s virtually in�nite, there’s so much that can go on, . . . and it requires so many


different things; it’s logic, it’s beauty, it’s intuition. It’s crazy . . . there’s so many puz-zles and it’s so overwhelmingly in�nite” (m, 24).

Many players �nd the extensive range of possibilities in chess to be fascinating.Games that started in much the same way can be almost guaranteed to unfold dif-ferently at later stages. Even the strongest players in the world cannot usually testvariations in their heads more than ten moves ahead. New (and often unexpected)situations and problems emerge constantly, which players often regard as entertain-ing and exciting but which moreover invite anticipation, concentration, and predic-tion, all of which contribute to the �ow experience.

Players can realize extrinsic accomplishments in chess (e.g., beating a highlyrated player, placing well in a tournament), but how do they gain a sense of intrinsicaccomplishment during play? Because outcomes in chess are generally believed tore�ect a player’s skill, players experience a strong feeling of accomplishment whensolving problems and achieving success throughout the game. For this reason, thecentrality of accomplishment to the chess experience means somewhat more thanin games of chance. One player explains:

Well, the level of chance in chess is very low. Games are all up to you, and theperson, and it depends on your moves, it really exercises the mind, you have tothink to win, whereas dice rolling games, you don’t really have to think thatmuch, just roll and see how many squares you move up. What do you do, youread a chance card or something, and like, Whoa, you win $200! I’m having greatfun! Like, people like to feel they have accomplished something, and I thinkchess really provides that. (m, 23)

By playing games of luck, in which outcomes remain beyond one’s control, players at-tribute wins and losses to external factors (“bad rolls,” etc.). Outcomes in chess, in con-trast, depend on skill. Players gain much higher feelings of accomplishment knowingthat a win was the result of good play rather than chance. Similarly, Csikszentmihalyi(1975, 1993) has observed that �ow experiences arise in situations in which partici-pants have a feeling of potential control. Because players view the game as requiringskill and see no extraneous factors at work (other than the opponent), they assumethat they have the potential for control. It would seem that the low level of chance cre-ates intrinsic rewards through a player’s earned successes throughout the game, as wellas through the player’s feeling of control, thereby furthering engrossment in the game.

A balanced level of skills between opponents also contributes to the experienceof engrossment. Goffman (1997b) makes the point that lopsided competition candecrease the fun of a game, as the better player has little need for focused concen-tration, resulting in a poor interaction with little engrossment. Consider the limitedrole that excitement or the aesthetic building of a symmetric �t would play in thecontext of a mismatched competition. Thus, to ensure that players keep the gamesinteresting (in that the end is not wholly predictable from the beginning), measuresare often taken so that competitiveness is maintained. What is interesting about thispoint is the way in which players of different caliber negotiate rules in order tomaintain this competitive element.


When studying fantasy role-playing activity, Fine (1983) found that gamers oftennegotiate rules in order to allow for the most enjoyable games. For instance, if aplayer’s roll of the dice signi�es that a character will die, he or she will often takeback the roll, despite the rules, so that the game will not end prematurely. However,Fine found that some “dungeon masters” (game referees) will refuse to bend therules; they see it as infringing on the integrity of the game. Different players in thisgaming community assign different meanings and levels of importance to the rules.Hence, players often decide rulings through negotiation, and therefore they dependgreatly on the situational parameters and the “negotiated order” enacted by theplayers at hand (Strauss 1993). As Goffman (1997b:129) asserts, “Not only aregames selected and discarded on the basis of their ensuring euphoric interaction,but, to ensure engrossment, they are also sometimes modi�ed in a manner providedwithin their rules, thus giving us a delicate tracer of what is needed to ensure eupho-ria.” This phenomenon can be observed in chess. The more serious players make farfewer mistakes, and so to keep the game fair and competitive, they tend to treat therules very rigidly. Recreational players, on the other hand, make fairly signi�canterrors during the game, which would end the game prematurely. Therefore, manyrecreational players have informal rule systems that allow their opponents to takeback the more obviously erroneous moves. Players can avoid “blunders” (obviousmistakes, leading, for instance, to the loss of a queen) in an effort to keep the gameeven, interesting, and more enjoyable for a longer period. A recreational playerexplains his tendency to bend rules when playing casual games with his friends:

That’s why I liked it, I also played like that with my friends, when we made cer-tain really stupid moves, we say “Are you sure you want to do that? You have theopportunity to take that back now, OK?” and so we don’t play to beat the otherguy, we play for fun, and we both want to play as good as possible. (m, 23)

While one might assume that rules are strictly followed at tournaments, I found that“rule-bending” does occur from time to time. Each player has the responsibility toenforce (e.g. report, pursue) rule offenses in tournament settings. As a result, evenat the tournament level, players sometimes overlook rule offenses. However, seri-ous players usually take rules as absolutes and may become agitated when they arenot properly acknowledged. In some instances, knowledgeable players can use therules of the game as a tool to gain a competitive edge.

I have seen a little debate about a touch-move thing. . . . This guy touched a piecewhich he couldn’t move because he was in check. The other opponent stoppedthe clock and he said, “I demand by section blah blah blah that I get 2 more min-utes added to my time because of this guy’s faulty move.” You really have toknow your stuff to make a call like that. (m, 24)

Aside from differing interpretations of the rules to ensure even play, I havefound that players also create various handicaps to equalize games, both formallyand informally. One interviewee (m, 56) said that when he used to play his father,he would play without his queen on the board in order to make the competition


more interesting. I have been involved in games with very strong players in whichthe time clocks gave me more time to think than my (more skilled) opponent, tomake the game more evenly matched. In addition, players have said that if they hadno formal handicap in place, they would use riskier strategies when playing those ofa lesser skill level. This way, they would have a greater chance of losing the game,which keeps the experience more interesting.

Engrossment, as seen in the observations presented by Goffman (1997b), Csik-szentmihalyi (1997), and Fine (1983), has been observed through my interviews andexperiences. Engrossment allows players to achieve higher levels of game perfor-mance. The more players can block out the world around them and become en-grossed in the game, the better they are able to play.

The more concentrated you are the more you are in the game. And if you are inthe game, then there is nothing else that can bother you. And I guess that is whyI play better then, rather than if there are distractions, because then I obviouslyhave to think about other things and I lose focus on the important things in thegame. (m, 22)

Thus, engrossment is not just enjoyable, it is also necessary to perform well in thegame. The deep level of focus associated with an entrancing experience allows playersto make game-related decisions more clearly, as they have fewer mental distractions.

MANAGING COMPOSURE

Many people who do not play chess think of it as a purely intellectual challenge.But if you have ever had the experience of suddenly realizing that you wereabout to lose a game you thought you were winning, you know that your bodyreacted exactly as though your life were being threatened: your heart pounded,your pulse raced, your stomach did �ip�ops, your skin broke out in a sweat.(Benko and Hochberg 1991:108)

The stress produced in chess games is often enormous and can ruin a player’s per-formance (see also Stebbins 1992, 1994). Knowing this, the players emphasize main-taining their composure and not allowing the tension of the game to affect them.Losing composure distracts the player’s mind toward irrelevant or counterproduc-tive issues and reduces the level of engrossment (and thus concentrated focus) theyexperience in the activity. The following general situations may lead to a loss ofcomposure: (1) feelings of inferiority; (2) overcon�dence; (3) negative assessmentsof the game; (4) time pressure; (5) being in�uenced by the opponent; and (6) exter-nal factors. I examine each element in turn, giving attention to the ways in whichplayers, aware of these dangers, take steps to avoid their in�uence.

Feelings of Inferiority

Players often feel intimidated by the caliber of opponent they face. Less skilledplayers often complain that when they play stronger players, they seldom give theirbest performance. By focusing too much on negative possibilities in the game, players


seem to play at a level below their ability, as one player explained: “Because it’ssuch a psychological game, you can defeat yourself so easily, by going into it think-ing this person’s far better than you, thinking that you’re just going to be screwed tobegin with. It’s odd like that, people defeat themselves so much” (m, 21). Feelinginferior to opponents usually damages a player’s game. Thinking their usual style ofplay will not be enough to win, players may employ overly offensive or defensiverepertoires, which often lead to a negative result. Thus, players stress the need tomaintain a high level of con�dence and to resist temptations to steer away fromtheir usual game plan.

Overconfidence

Viewing oneself as inferior to opponents can damage a player’s performance;however, the opposite tendency, to feel overly superior, also presents problems. Bynot taking their opponents seriously enough or by undervaluing their skills, playersmay not put in the effort or thought necessary to play a strong game. The followingplayer offers his view of the possible pitfalls of overcon�dence: “Overcon�denceamounts to just not really giving a position much thought, I suppose you could say.It’s like taking it for granted. Overcon�dence just undermines your game, so thatyou don’t give your best” (m, 24). Many players believe that maintaining a certainlevel of humility can help to protect against a potentially overcon�dent attitude.

I think that if you’re humble, it’s actually a weapon in chess. You know you haveto �ght during the game, but you have to be humble, you can de�nitely use it toyour advantage, to see more. You have to give your opponent credit, and realizehis ability to launch an attack on you. (m, 24)

Negative Assessments of the Game

A loss of composure frequently seems to occur after players have made errors orafter the game turns to their opponent’s favor. The following excerpt from an inter-view with a recreational player is illustrative.

AJP: How do you maintain focus when you know you’ve made a mistake in thegame?

m, 23: I try to think harder, but every time I think harder, I just make a worsemistake. Yeah, mistakes just seem to get worse and worse.

Players admit that allowing mistakes to negatively in�uence their outlook on thegame can be a problem. However, many players learn through experience to main-tain composure during these negative phases. By adopting a positive attitude, evenafter making a mistake, players believe they can maximize their chances to comeback and win.

For the longest time, when I was �rst starting out, if I made a faulty error thatwould be it, the game would just go straight down, like I would be making


mistakes all over the place. But now it’s not really an issue. Especially with play-ers I don’t know, I’ll just try and wait, and if I make a mistake, then just wait forit, and just think, I might be able to get something out of this yet. (m, 24)

By staying positive and realizing that an opponent may make an error, players im-prove their chances of staying competitive. Players often cite strategies of slowingdown and taking stock of the position in these situations, which helps them to sal-vage a new and workable game plan.

Time Pressure

All tournaments of�cially rated by the CFC require that chess games be timed.Thus, time constraints add another pressure that in�uences a player’s composureand focus. Tournament games are generally timed in one of three ways: �ve minuteseach (blitz games), thirty minutes each (active games), or ninety minutes each(standard games).

Especially in active and blitz games, players take stock of their own and their op-ponent’s times. Players acknowledge the dif�culty of having to play with the pres-sure of little or no time to think. They try to keep themselves out of time trouble tothe greatest extent possible, thereby pushing the issue of time onto the opponent.One player explains his strategy:

It’s all about conservation, you want to give yourself as much time as possible. So,play anything that you are reasonably sure of right away, because you realize thatyour opponent only has the same amount of time as you, too, and then give your-self as much time as you can. You want to leave that room for thought. (m, 24)

Players often cite time as an underlying pressure that can cause a player to losefocus, and they realize they must make their moves ef�ciently, so as not to use toomuch time at any given stage of the game. In this way, they can reduce time pres-sure later in the game.

Being Influenced by the Opponent

The less focused players are, the less likely they will succeed. Knowing this, play-ers create strategies for throwing their opponents off of their game, or getting“under their skin,” without breaking any formal rules of etiquette. Players realizethat such distractions may serve to debilitate the opponent.

Say a guy wants you to move your queen on your next move. Well, if you touchthe piece, you have to move it, because they play the “touch move rule” at theclub. So, you just hover three �ngers over it like you’re about to touch it, andthen pull away (laughs). Little things like that can really bother the other guy, younever know, it may help, it may throw them off of their game a little bit. (m, 43)

Other commonly cited examples of trying to “get into the opponent’s head” includemoving pieces quickly in an effort to rush the opponent, getting up from the table


and walking around, appearing bored, or tapping feet—all are strategies to upset anopponent’s composure. Although not all players engage in these strategies, others fre-quently appear to deliberately cause an opponent as much discomfort as possible.

External Factors

What goes on outside the game can also affect players’ focus and performance inchess. Distractions may arise from the environment surrounding the players, oreven things going on in other realms of the players’ lives. Stress in the workplace, atschool, or at home can lead to a loss of focus. Consider the following excerpt.

Kids are good players, because they’re not worried about paying bills, and theirsocial life, and work, family, friends, they’re not even thinking about anythinglike that, so they’ve got a clear mind. . . . If you’re playing an adult, he’s got all ofthe worries of an adult . . . and you can’t have somebody in the world that hatesyour guts, and then go and play chess, because that’s going to be on your mind. . . .You’ve got to be at peace with everyone in the world, and then you can really go.(m, 38)

Third parties may create distractions on purpose or by accident when spectatorsor players watch the game. Some players �nd it frustrating when distractions occur.These players tend to feel as though they are being judged, which makes them self-conscious, leading to an overall lack of focus. Thus, as Csikszentmihalyi (1993)points out, outside distractions can begin to seep into a player’s experiential frameand jeopardize his or her �ow experience. One player explains:

Yes, that’s a big distraction. If that happens it can really throw you off, if someoneis, like, mocking your game, and it happens in every tournament—mocking. . . .You can’t be looking around and worrying about what other people think, buteveryone does it, you can’t help it, you’re �esh and blood. (m, 43)

Although outside distractions are a major source of anxiety and frustration forsome players, others are not as affected by them. However, all players consideredthem irritating and generally did not like it when they arose.

DISCUSSION

I argue, as Goffman (1997b) does, that life is often very much like a game, as theprocesses of strategic interaction often associated with gaming activity are adoptedwidely throughout everyday life. I have begun to uncover some of the sociologicalissues related to the generic process of strategic activity. Although the social pro-cesses discussed here stem directly from my observations of chess, parallels can beseen, albeit in a less concentrated manner, throughout social interactions of all sorts.

Routine activity provides the central foundation and starting point for any action(Strauss 1993). Thus, to understand the modus operandi for individual or joint stra-tegic activity, one must understand how time-tested routines are implemented in


response to various sorts of emerging situations. Furthermore, researchers ought toexamine how and in what ways routines have developed in various social situations.As I have shown with regard to chess players, it cannot be assumed that routineshave developed as perfectly evolved adaptations over time. Rather, they maydevelop along irrational lines that have emerged out of the biases, preferences, orfalsely held understandings of the individual or group in question. Further, re-searchers must be aware that routine may not reduce the potential for innovationbut rather enable it (Strauss 1993). Routine allows players to �t newly encounteredideas and decisions into a frame, such that they can approach emergent situationswith a paradigmatic foundation.

Goffman’s (1959) concept of impression management holds true in all sorts ofactivities, chess being no exception. Players not only manage impressions at theface-to-face level, but also on the board by making subtle and less threateningmoves. Thus, the management of impressions, or what Prus and Sharper (1991)term “image work,” goes far beyond people’s facial expressions, body language, andverbal styling. People often extend impressions into their social worlds, in an effortto reshape images to convey messages to a particular target audience. They may useartwork, design and representation, advertising, music, and the like. How business,political, or ideological joint ventures act in ways to reshape images of reality (andhow these messages are then interpreted and responded to) may be a valuable lineof inquiry for future research into strategic social initiatives.

Although Stebbins (1992, 1994) has considered “stage fright” in performanceand sporting activities, little interactionist research has been done that looks at thevarious causes of nervousness in particular situations, the dimensions along whichthis is experienced, and how and in what ways anxiety may affect performance inthe associated activity. Beyond this, there is little consideration in the literature ofhow people overcome anxiety and actively attempt to sustain composure. Althoughcomposure tends to be most at issue in highly competitive games or sports (Steb-bins 1992), “composure work” must also �gure, for instance, in high-�nance busi-ness dealings, high-risk occupations, or military initiatives. Research into compo-sure work across other aspects of social life may lead to new understandings of howissues of composure emerge, are experienced, and are handled in concrete settingsand situations.

Although I have not provided a universal model of strategic interaction, I havesuggested some new dimensions to consider in this emerging area of research. The�ve elements identi�ed here as central to strategic action certainly provide a pene-trating analysis of playing chess and may help to inform future (and much-needed)studies that investigate how people and groups map out strategy and develop linesof action in their social worlds.

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank my supervisor, Robert Prus, who providedme with a great deal of guidance and encouragement throughout the completion of


this project. I would also like to thank Daniele Bélanger, Michael Carroll, KathyCharmaz, James Côté, Michael Gardiner, Kristine Hirschkorn, Alice Puddephatt,Irene Pugliese, Aaron Segaert, and the reviewers for and editorial staff of SymbolicInteraction for all of their helpful commentary on earlier drafts. Last, I would like tothank the many people in the chess community who provided me with hours oftheir time in an effort to help me better understand their lived experiences.

NOTES

1. Other studies have considered strategic action in the tactics of union organizers (Karsh,Seidman, and Lilienthal 1953), the ministry in near-death situations (Wood 1975), salespeopleand consumers (Prus 1989), hustlers and magicians (Prus and Sharper 1991), and university stu-dents (Albas and Albas 1994).

2. The United States Chess Federation reported a female membership of 4.5% in 1993 (Charnessand Gerchak 1996) and 7% in 2002 (Ashton 2002).

3. The research has been approved by the ethics committee for the study of human subjects at theauthor’s home institution during the time of the study. All names and places presented in thisarticle have been changed to assure the anonymity and con�dentiality of the respondents.

4. Even at the top level in chess, as in science, accepted theory is constantly evolving, such thatpreviously held approaches to the game are abandoned in the wake of new ideas (see Kuhn1962). Indeed, the current body of chess knowledge has always been built on the carvings ofpast (trial-and-error) notions, and as such is highly socially contingent.

REFERENCES

Albas, Daniel and Cheryl Albas. 1994. “Studying Students Studying: Perspectives, Identities, andActivities.” Pp. 273–89 in Doing Everyday Life: Ethnography as Human Lived Experience,edited by M. L. Dietz, R. Prus, and W. Shaf�r. Toronto: Copp Clark Longman.

Aran, Gideon. 1974. “Parachuting.” American Journal of Sociology 80:124–52.Ashton, Anne. 2002. Personal e-mail correspondence with director of marketing, advertising, and

outreach for the United States Chess Federation. February 19.Benko, Pal and Burt Hochberg. 1991. Winning with Chess Psychology. New York: David McKay.Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of

California Press.Carroll, Michael. 1981. “A Structuralist Looks at Chess.” Semiotica 31(3–4):273–87.Charness, Neil and Yigal Gerchak. 1996. “Participation Rates and Maximal Performance: A Log-

Linear Explanation for Group Differences, Such as Russian and Male Dominance inChess.” Psychological Science 7(1):46–51.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1975. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: The Experience of Play andGames. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

———. 1997. “Happiness and Creativity: Going with the Flow.” Futurist 31(5):A8–12.Csikszentmihaly, Mihaly and Kevin Rathunde. 1993. “The Measurement of Flow in Everyday

Life.” Pp. 57–97 in Developmental Perspectives on Motivation , edited by J. E. Jacobs. Ne-braska Symposium on Motivation, vol. 40. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly and Rick E. Robinson. 1990. The Art of Seeing: An Interpretation of theAesthetic Encounter. Malibu, CA: The J. Paul Getty Trust.

Dawson, Lorne and Robert Prus. 1991. “Shop til You Drop: Shopping as Recreational and Labori-ous Activity.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 16(2):145– 64.

De Groot, Adriaan D. 1978. Thought and Choice in Chess. New York: Mouton.Dietz, Mary Lorenz. 1994. “On Your Toes: Dancing Your Way into the Ballet World.” Pp. 66–85 in


Doing Everyday Life: Ethnography as Human Lived Experience, edited by M. L. Dietz, R.Prus, and W. Shaf�r. Toronto: Copp Clark Longman.

Donnelly, Peter and Kevin Young. 1985. “Reproduction and Transformation of Cultural Forms inSport: A Contextual Analysis of Rugby.” International Review for Sociology of Sport 20:19-38.

Fine, Gary A. 1983. Shared Fantasy: Role Playing Games as Social Worlds. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

———. 1987. With the Boys: Little League Baseball and Pre-adolescent Culture. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

Fine, Reuben. 1956. The Psychology of the Chess Player. New York: Dover.Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.———. 1997a. “Frame Analysis.” Pp. 149–66 in The Goffman Reader, edited by C. Lemert and A.

Branaman. Malden, MA: Blackwell.———. 1997b. “Social Life as a Game.” Pp. 129–46 in The Goffman Reader, edited by C. Lemert

and A. Branaman. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Irwin, John. 1973. “Sur�ng: The Natural History of an Urban Scene.” Urban Life and Culture

2(2):131–60.James, Alan and Richard Jones. 1982. “The Social World of Karate-Do.” Leisure Studies 1:337–54.Karsh, Bernard, Joel Seidman, and Daisy M. Lilienthal. 1953. “The Union Organizer and His Tac-

tics: A Case Study.” American Journal of Sociology 59:113–22.Krogius, Nikolai V. 1976. Psychology in Chess. New York: RHM Press.Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scienti�c Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Mead, George H. 1934. Philosophy of the Act. Edited by C. W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chi-

cago Press.———. 1938. Mind, Self and Society. Edited by C. W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.Mitchell, Richard. 1983. Mountain Experience: The Psychology and Sociology of Adventure. Chi-

cago: University of Chicago Press.Prus, Robert. 1989. Making Sales: In�uence as Interpersonal Accomplishment. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.———. 1996. Symbolic Interaction and Ethnographic Research. Albany: State University of New

York Press.———. 1997. Subcultural Mosaics and Intersubjective Realities. Albany: State University of New

York Press.———. 1999. Beyond the Power Mystique. Albany: State University of New York Press.Prus, Robert and C. R. D. Sharper. 1991. Road Hustler: Hustlers, Magic, and the Thief Subculture.

New York: Kaufman & Greenberg.Reeves, Joy B. “The Survival Game: Who Plays and Why.” Sociology of Sport Journal 3:57–61.Schutz, Alfred. 1964. “Making Music Together: A Study in Social Relationship.” Pp. 159–78 in Collected

Papers II: Studies in Social Theory, edited by A. Broderson. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Snyder, Eldon. 1994. “Getting Involved in the Shuf�eboard World.” Pp. 85–96 in Doing Everyday

Life: Ethnography as Human Lived Experience, edited by M. L. Dietz, R. Prus, and W. Shaf-�r. Toronto: Copp Clark Longman.

Stebbins, Robert A. 1992. Amateurs, Professionals, and Serious Leisure. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

———. 1994. “Doing Stand-up: Comedians on Stage.” Pp. 245–59 in Doing Everyday Life: Eth-nography as Human Lived Experience, edited by M. L. Dietz, R. Prus, and W. Shaf�r. Tor-onto: Copp Clark Longman.

Strauss, Anselm. 1993. Continual Permutations of Action. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Waitzkin, Josh. 1995. Attacking Chess: Aggressive Strategies and Inside Moves from the U.S. Junior

Chess Champion. New York: Simon & Schuster.Williams, Trevor and Peter Donnelly. 1985. “Subcultural Production, Reproduction and Transfor-

mation in Climbing.” International Review for Sociology of Sport 20:3–17.Wood, Juanita. 1975. “The Structure of Concern: The Ministry in Death Related Situations.” Ur-

ban Life 4(3):369–84.

chess playing as strategic activity - savie · what goffman (1997b) terms “ engrossment,” is...

Documents