An image. Animated chess pieces, the size of small buildings. The rules differ from standard chess. Instead of one piece taking another simply due to board positioning when attacking, the two pieces engage each other. They do so by playing chess. They take out a chess board, with pieces the size of human beings, and they play. The same applies there, with the human-sized pieces playing with normal sized chess boards.

It would make an interesting multiplayer video game I think. There would be some serious bonus for the attacking players (or penalty for the defending players), to reward board position and strategy, as normal chess does. So perhaps the defending player would start with less pawns or something. There could be some table created based on piece to piece engagements, perhaps – queen attacks pawn, on the smaller board the defender has even less pieces than pawn attacks pawn. There could also be an element of chance in the bonuses and penalties. Players could be ranked based on wins and losses, with sub rankings for what level they were playing at – biggest board, middle board, smallest board. Players would have the option to play more than one board in a match – only one big board, two or three medium boards, unlimited smallest boards. There would be a time component to the biggest board and medium boards, so that the biggest and medium boards would not proceed based strictly on a “my turn, your turn, my turn, your turn” formula, making speed a factor. The biggest board would allow the most overlap in turns (so, shorter time limits before the other player was allowed to make a move), the medium board would allow some but less (so, longer time limits) and no overlap in turns on the smallest board.

Another image, related only because it’s what I was thinking about that got me to the bigger image: I heard a spoken word piece last fall at an IWW dinner, where the speaker talked about how the reason pawns can only march forward in chess is because if they could march backward they would attack their own kings. I wonder if that sort of possibility could be built into a game like this, a sort of morale or legitimacy component based on a few factors for how the game appears to be going.