In today’s politically correct (PC) world, everything is under review for possible offences. While I find such offense witch hunts offensive, I would like to offer a brief argument as to why the game of chess may come under the scrutiny of “PC police” and be banned.

First, let me give the disclaimer that I am an avid chess player myself, and have been for 50 years. It certainly helps develop strategy and mental ability. But on reflection, and with a bit of irony, I must admit that the game does involve some worrying subliminal messages, which the PC police need to consider carefully.

The most obvious problem is that chess is inherently racist. Black versus white is not something we should encourage in a racially tense culture. And of course white comes first, which I think is disturbing to people of color. It’s like sitting in the back of the bus. It is another form of white supremacy.

On the other hand, whites going first suggests that whites are more aggressive than blacks. The board is assembled with the pieces of everyone in line, with complete peace of mind on the playing field. And then the whites attack. Every time. The message is that being white makes you the aggressor.

And aggression is an important part of chess. I once tried to play chess with a computer and tried not to be aggressive. It was impossible. Aggression is built into the game. It is a game of war and conflict. It trains the player to look for ways to defeat the opponent, not ways to make amends.

As in all wars, there will be casualties, usually pawns. Pawns are also the weakest pieces. One would think that a kingdom should protect its weakest and most vulnerable citizens, not send them off to war to be sacrificed as, well, pawns.

And it’s all to protect the king. You can have all your pieces, but if the king is taken, all is lost. Everyone, including the queen, sacrifices themselves if necessary to save the king. Of course, this unconditional submission to a monarch is highly undemocratic, and even fascist.

It is also misogynistic to assume that the queen must die for the king. Shouldn’t the king protect the queen from him? What happened to the cavalry?

Of course, the queen is more powerful than the king, since she can move in any direction any number of spaces. The king is only limited to one space at a time. He clearly has no superiority of form or function. There is no good reason why the queen should be sacrificed for the lesser king. This is sheer paternalistic nonsense and perpetuates gender discrimination. I guess the queen must also wear a bra and high heels as she runs around the board to save her useless husband from her.

And speaking of gender, what sex are the pawns? When they reach the other side of the board, they can be exchanged for any piece, including a rook, bishop, knight, or queen. But usually they become a queen. Does this mean they are female pawns? Do they undergo gender reassignment when they get to the other end of the board? Pawns seem to be gender neutral, or at least gender confused, until they decide what they want to become. Do we want chess-playing children to wonder about their gender as they move up the chessboard of life? Should we tell children that queens are better than kings? This type of gender-confusing message could make pubertal boys angry.

As for male role models, the kings are really pathetic. All they know how to do is fight. They are unable to stop the war in which they are perpetually engaged. Two kings cannot even get close to each other. Negotiated agreements are not allowed. Each king focuses solely on himself, a royal narcissist who runs to his castle to hide behind some pawns at the first sight of a threat. He is ruthless, willing to send everyone to their deaths if necessary. He is a selfish brute. Is this really the kind of leader we want kids to emulate when they grow up?

Chess also promotes Christianity over other religions. Note that there are only bishops on a chessboard. What’s up with that? What about using Ayatollahs or Rabbis instead? Perhaps one side should have rabbis and the other ayatollahs. But what about Protestant ministers versus Catholic bishops? Of course, all of this is objectionable to agnostics and atheists, who may prefer counselors to bishops. Perhaps it should be astrologers versus scientists? Clearly, more diversity is needed here, and the Christian monopoly on the bishop piece is offensive and hateful to non-Christians. It probably also promotes Islamophobia.

And how about the impact of chess on stupid people? Winning at chess is considered by many to be a sign of intelligence, and losing at chess suggests that your opponent is smarter than you. This win-lose game reinforces the insecurities of stupid kids, who turn away from chess because they lose all the time and instead decide to play video games. A lot of these video games are violent and teach these dumb kids to be violent.

Therefore, chess is a “gateway game” to violence. This means that stupid children who play chess may one day be profiled as potential criminals. Stupid chess players are therefore a threat to national security, while profiling them as potential criminals is a threat to our freedom. It’s kind of a dead end.

Today’s world is different from the past world that spawned this chess game. Now we respect all religions equally. We don’t believe that the world should be ruled by selfish, bloodthirsty kings, and we believe that queens should be able to rule without a king. We insist that pawns have more of a say in what happens, since “Pawn Lives Matter.” We don’t want to refer to losers as losers, as that can hurt their feelings and reinforce their sense of being losers. And if a king decides to become a queen, she’s fine too.

Clearly, chess is no longer enough in our new PC world.