Why Did Two-Player Army Chess Often Need a Third Referee?

In some homes and schoolyards, the most absorbing way to play army chess was not to lay every piece face-up. The red and blue sides stood their pieces upright so that each player alone could see the ranks. Commanders, generals and other ranks followed a hierarchy, while engineers had a special role; the opponent saw only identical backs. When two pieces met, neither player could reveal the result directly, so a third child often served as referee.

The referee took both pieces, checked their ranks in secret, then announced which one left the board or whether both were removed. They could not reveal the identities of the surviving pieces or change a result in favour of a friend. A child who was not playing therefore still held an important position: they possessed the secret but had to preserve the rules.

One army-chess set could circulate among siblings, neighbours or classmates for years. A missing piece might be replaced temporarily with folded paper, while a worn board remained usable as long as its routes could be followed. Rules differed between places and families, and face-up or piece-revealing variants needed no referee. What distinguished the concealed game was that it brought a third person into the structure: winning depended not only on inference and manoeuvre, but also on whether a companion could be fair, restrained and trusted.