The chessboard metaphor is an excellent example of what ACT calls “self-as-context”. Many of us go through life caught up in a battle with our own thoughts and experiences. We get so entrenched in this internal game of chess, it becomes our world. We start to see ourselves as a collection of chess pieces, building up more and more over time.
But in this metaphor, who are we really? Which part of this metaphor best represents our self? Is it the king? The queen? The black pieces? All of the pieces as the whole? The player?
ACT would teach us to see our self as the board. The pieces represent our experiences in life: thoughts, feelings, sensations, memories. The board is what gives the pieces a venue to exist. The board experiences the pieces, but is not actually caught up in the game. No matter what the pieces do to each other, they don’t actually do anything to the board. The pieces cannot exist without the board, but the board can exist without any particular pieces.
I like this metaphor for two reasons. One: it highlights that we are separate from our experiences. While we certainly do experience our thoughts and feelings, they aren’t us. Two: it reinforces that no matter what we experience, there is some core part of us that remains whole and unscarred. No matter how intense the battle on the chessboard gets, the board itself will always stay intact. I find that empowering.
How might your self-concept change if you saw yourself as the chessboard, allowing the pieces to wage war while recognizing that they are not you?