tlb wrote:To repeat: General Lee probably had a better intellect than that of General Grant, but it was Grant that continually prevailed over him (except at Cold Harbor) and won in the end.
Jonathan_S wrote:Yep. Grant had a couple key insights that led him to realize that given the balance of forces and ability between the Union and the Confederacy having the best tactics on the field wasn't strictly necessary to winning.
An insightful chess player juggles the same variables as a matter of course.
Jonathan_S wrote:With more men, supplies, and better logistics, the key to defeating the Confederacy was to keep the pressure on and deny them time to recover and refit.
Sounds like an attack on a weak-side oblique. The strategy is to attack to prevent your opponent from advancing his Rook's pawn to R3, completing
En Appui. Your overwhelming position allows your timely attack. Your opponent must protect and advance that pawn from a cramped position against your overwhelming position, hence - superior logistics.
Jonathan_S wrote:In Virginia, prior to Grant, the armies would tend to maneuver until they had a major battle. Then both retreat to their camps to rest, refit, and deal with their wounded.
This is exactly what happens when there is "novice against novice," on the board. They mostly fight with their Queens. Without their Queen, they're broken, dejected and left without hope. A novice or beginner's tactic is to attack and retreat.
One MAJOR advantage of chess is that the victor will get to claim his spoils in, at best, hours. So there's no time for Dilly-dallying.
Jonathan_S wrote:(Magnifying this was a tendency of the Union in prior years to focus on one campaign at a time, allowing the Confederacy to use their interior lines to shuttle units from a quiet front to the active one; largely failing to take advantage of the Union's larger army.
Surely one campaign at a time, is reminiscent of a novice chess player who hasn't yet learned to attack several areas on the board simultaneously, creating weaknesses and advantages/disadvantages in position, thus mobility.
Jonathan_S wrote:Grant basically would just not leave the field. Reinforce and keep going. Use the Union's superior logistics to keep his army supplied and bring up replacements. Even when he took pretty disastrous losses - like the failed assaults on the trenchworks at Cold Harbor he didn't fall back on Washington. He keep his army in the field and within weeks from that failure had forced Lee's army in a static defense of 35 miles of trenches surrounding Richmond.
Grant then brought up enough force to crack that line and take Richmond, chasing Lee's forces down until their surrender at Appomattox Court House.
Take huge losses, but, AT ALL COSTS, promote those pawns! Take advantage of your superior position in the midst of dwindling forces.
Jonathan_S wrote:Chess is more tactical but Grant's effectiveness was realizing he could win the war at the Operational level
(movement of troops, equipment and supplies, to get enough of them where they need to be to fight the battles that will advance your Strategic goal), even when not able to achieve decisive results on the Tactical level against Lee (who by most accounts was the superior tactician).
He had more pieces, and an ability to replace lost pieces, that chess just doesn't have.
Okay if you make the analogy superficial enough you can say war is like chess; because you have to think ahead and plan how you'll react to their moves. But at that like of trivial comparison you could just as easily say it's like Connect Four.
The Operational level is also found on the chess board, as well as all other levels. Although condensed, and at times highly magnified.
E.g., against a stronger player (like my niece) I'll choose the Nimzo-Indian defense and move the appropriate pieces.
Mostly everything on the battle field has a counterpart in chess, for the most part. If your mind is open to the conception.
