Ayn Rand vs Pawns

[jts]

I don't know where to put this question, epistemology or what.

From Ayn Rand's Open Letter to Boris Spassky:

· Would you be able to play if the rules of the game remained as they are at present, with one exception: that the pawns were declared to be the most valuable and nonexpendable pieces (since they may symbolize the masses) which had to be protected at the price of sacrificing the more efficacious pieces (the individuals)?

I don't understand this question.

Seems to me if the rules were changed so the loss of a Pawn means loss of the game, Spassky would be able to play but the game would be ruined and not worth playing and he wouldn't want to play. The game would become a puzzle and it would be solved and that would be the end of it.

Oh, she means some kind of change in the rules that Spassky would would not be able to play. I still don't understand. Take King's Gambit for example.

1. P - e4 P - e5

2. P - f4

Questions:

1. Would White's 2nd move be legal?

2. If Yes, then would 2. ... P x P win for Black?

3. Why would Spassky not be able to play? (Setting aside the question whether he would want to play.)

Perhaps Ayn Rand meant some nincompoop would evaluate the Pawns differently. But that would not be a change in the rules; it would be someone's silly evaluation and Spassky wouldn't give a rat's posterior and he would go by his own evaluation.

What did Ayn Rand mean by that question, let's say in terms of King's Gambit so we have something concrete?

[Selene]

It would mean nothing regarding the King's Gambit.

She posited the question as a parallel to the Soviet Communist model of society wherein the masses, or, workers were the protected and valued class.

Her question, essentially, to Spassky is why are you playing for the proletariat dictatorship when you are born a free man?

That is my read. It is another example of Rand not having a fucking clue about something and stretching a metaphor, comparison etc. until she looked truly foolish.

That is why I never followed some of her aesthetic dictum.

Adam