Randomramblings

When boyfriend and I get bored watching films, we sometimes play chess. That is: first we play a game of memory and I always win by a substantial amount. So as a revenge of sorts and to even out the score, we play a game of chess next. Needless to mention, boyfriend always wins at chess.

Being a fighter and someone who practices a "you-can-do-it" mentality, I'm not too pleased about his unbroken streak of victories at chess. Over time, however, I've managed to understand that the problem is not in me but in the game. Chess, for all its fame and glory, is a very unrealistic game. It's been driven so far into abstract lands that it's completely lost touch with reality.

So in essence a game of chess is a fight on a battlefield, where you can only move in certain directions and ways. I have no problem with that; - ok, almost no problem. Suppose you were a simple pawn and faced a vicious and an almost almighty (in chess terms) queen. Would you just stand and wait? Or would you turn 180 (no, it's not 360, Fredy Miller) and run as fast as your legs could carry you? If you're not a very brave hobbit (in manner of Merriadoc), then the latter, I suppose. And here is my first proof that chess is completely devoid of common sense. Because the pawn can only go forward regardless of the enemies or cruelties he faces on his way. (Lets also assume that pawns are substantially less brave than the other nobility (bishops, rooks, knights...) on the chess field.)

Then the second thing where the inventors of chess went wrong is when you're in check. When the opponent performs a check, you have to secure your king. All is well, but what if you weren't quite into this option for losers? Then you'd do what the opponent would never have expected... you'd leave the king where it was (it cannot be taken away from you, it is immortal, anyway) and attack your opponent in such a manner as would force him to withdraw his attack. This, again, is not something you can do by existing chess rules (or boyfriend is deceiving me, seeing that if I could apply this I'd win more often (wishful thinking)), but it would have been braver and worthy of praise.

I start a game by trying to secure the king, then try to play so as to rebound the attacks on my people and land and by the time I could prepare an attack, I'm inevitably losing the game on several fronts. I should come out and attack straight ahead, but I want to be wise and protect my devoted people.

And I end up losing the game. Though I'm getting better, my progress is as slow as Slovenia is in building its motorways.

But my consolation will always be that it's not my being untalented at chess that's the problem. Rather it's that this is a completely unrealistic game not meant for the cunning, courageous and realistic people but for dreamers without daring or slyness.