Describing a chess game in a novelDoes the following piece have too much dry narration (mundane tasks, moving about)?Clear steps for developing a powerful inner conflictHang on - where's the main conflict?How to develop a more vivid and descriptive writing styleHow to refer to clothes without modern words ? (e.g: t-shirt)Grammar for describing novel plots?Trying to regain writing skills I lost after a writing hiatusConverting/rewriting present tense narratives to past tense gracefully. Not a question about verb conjugationOrdinary writing or Prose: how to make it immersive?Im writing a short story but Im struggling to show the read not tell the reader

Am I eligible for the Eurail Youth pass? I am 27.5 years old

Why does the degree of dissociation change when we dilute a weak acid even though the equilibrium constant K is constant?

This word with a lot of past tenses

What is the relationship between relativity and the Doppler effect?

How can my new character not be a role-playing handicap to the party?

What can I do if I am asked to learn different programming languages very frequently?

How to terminate ping <dest> &

How to explain that I do not want to visit a country due to personal safety concern?

Four married couples attend a party. Each person shakes hands with every other person, except their own spouse, exactly once. How many handshakes?

How difficult is it to simply disable/disengage the MCAS on Boeing 737 Max 8 & 9 Aircraft?

Violin - Can double stops be played when the strings are not next to each other?

HP P840 HDD RAID 5 many strange drive failures

Do I need to be arrogant to get ahead?

Describing a chess game in a novel

Is honey really a supersaturated solution? Does heating to un-crystalize redissolve it or melt it?

Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?

The iconography of Shrinathji

Non-trivial topology where only open sets are closed

centering a caption under a table

Is it correct to say "which country do you like the most?"

PTIJ: Who should I vote for? (21st Knesset Edition)

Turning a hard to access nut?

Does multi-classing into Fighter give you heavy armor proficiency?

Energy of photons of given frequency and number



Describing a chess game in a novel


Does the following piece have too much dry narration (mundane tasks, moving about)?Clear steps for developing a powerful inner conflictHang on - where's the main conflict?How to develop a more vivid and descriptive writing styleHow to refer to clothes without modern words ? (e.g: t-shirt)Grammar for describing novel plots?Trying to regain writing skills I lost after a writing hiatusConverting/rewriting present tense narratives to past tense gracefully. Not a question about verb conjugationOrdinary writing or Prose: how to make it immersive?Im writing a short story but Im struggling to show the read not tell the reader













9















I have a scene in a upcoming novel where two people play a game of chess, and I realized how difficult it was to describe it. The problem is due to the fact that there are many pieces and you can't really tell your readers where every pieces are at a certain point, and you also need to make sure that the location of the piece is possible.



Anyway, here's an excerpt:




Due to the exchange in the centre, Black was in a difficult situation.
White had a comfortable situation against the isolated pawn. White
placed his rook on c1, the usual in this situation, waiting for the
opponent to make a move with his queen. Was this the right move? White
thought for a moment. He realized he would need to move the rook to b1
in case he would need to revert back to the Carlsbad structure.




The problem is it's very hard to understand where the pieces are exactly, and I can't just describe where every pieces are in a particular situation. It would take way too long, so I will probably lose my reader. It's a sort of lose-lose situation and I can't think of any good way to get out of this situation.










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    If you want to be evocative, try using the older notation. R to QB1 is still meaningful.

    – Rasdashan
    yesterday






  • 1





    Would including a diagram showing the position be an option? In any case, do you expect all your readers to be familiar with chess, so is it an important plot point?

    – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
    yesterday







  • 1





    No, it's a novel meant for casual readers.

    – repomonster
    yesterday






  • 1





    Carrion Comfort, a popular Dan Simmons novel, features some chess games.

    – daisy
    yesterday






  • 1





    I know a certain Harry Potter book has a chess game scene, you could maybe get inspired from that. But that's all I know, maybe this could help you.

    – stackzebra
    yesterday















9















I have a scene in a upcoming novel where two people play a game of chess, and I realized how difficult it was to describe it. The problem is due to the fact that there are many pieces and you can't really tell your readers where every pieces are at a certain point, and you also need to make sure that the location of the piece is possible.



Anyway, here's an excerpt:




Due to the exchange in the centre, Black was in a difficult situation.
White had a comfortable situation against the isolated pawn. White
placed his rook on c1, the usual in this situation, waiting for the
opponent to make a move with his queen. Was this the right move? White
thought for a moment. He realized he would need to move the rook to b1
in case he would need to revert back to the Carlsbad structure.




The problem is it's very hard to understand where the pieces are exactly, and I can't just describe where every pieces are in a particular situation. It would take way too long, so I will probably lose my reader. It's a sort of lose-lose situation and I can't think of any good way to get out of this situation.










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    If you want to be evocative, try using the older notation. R to QB1 is still meaningful.

    – Rasdashan
    yesterday






  • 1





    Would including a diagram showing the position be an option? In any case, do you expect all your readers to be familiar with chess, so is it an important plot point?

    – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
    yesterday







  • 1





    No, it's a novel meant for casual readers.

    – repomonster
    yesterday






  • 1





    Carrion Comfort, a popular Dan Simmons novel, features some chess games.

    – daisy
    yesterday






  • 1





    I know a certain Harry Potter book has a chess game scene, you could maybe get inspired from that. But that's all I know, maybe this could help you.

    – stackzebra
    yesterday













9












9








9


1






I have a scene in a upcoming novel where two people play a game of chess, and I realized how difficult it was to describe it. The problem is due to the fact that there are many pieces and you can't really tell your readers where every pieces are at a certain point, and you also need to make sure that the location of the piece is possible.



Anyway, here's an excerpt:




Due to the exchange in the centre, Black was in a difficult situation.
White had a comfortable situation against the isolated pawn. White
placed his rook on c1, the usual in this situation, waiting for the
opponent to make a move with his queen. Was this the right move? White
thought for a moment. He realized he would need to move the rook to b1
in case he would need to revert back to the Carlsbad structure.




The problem is it's very hard to understand where the pieces are exactly, and I can't just describe where every pieces are in a particular situation. It would take way too long, so I will probably lose my reader. It's a sort of lose-lose situation and I can't think of any good way to get out of this situation.










share|improve this question
















I have a scene in a upcoming novel where two people play a game of chess, and I realized how difficult it was to describe it. The problem is due to the fact that there are many pieces and you can't really tell your readers where every pieces are at a certain point, and you also need to make sure that the location of the piece is possible.



Anyway, here's an excerpt:




Due to the exchange in the centre, Black was in a difficult situation.
White had a comfortable situation against the isolated pawn. White
placed his rook on c1, the usual in this situation, waiting for the
opponent to make a move with his queen. Was this the right move? White
thought for a moment. He realized he would need to move the rook to b1
in case he would need to revert back to the Carlsbad structure.




The problem is it's very hard to understand where the pieces are exactly, and I can't just describe where every pieces are in a particular situation. It would take way too long, so I will probably lose my reader. It's a sort of lose-lose situation and I can't think of any good way to get out of this situation.







creative-writing novel description






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday







repomonster

















asked yesterday









repomonsterrepomonster

1




1







  • 1





    If you want to be evocative, try using the older notation. R to QB1 is still meaningful.

    – Rasdashan
    yesterday






  • 1





    Would including a diagram showing the position be an option? In any case, do you expect all your readers to be familiar with chess, so is it an important plot point?

    – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
    yesterday







  • 1





    No, it's a novel meant for casual readers.

    – repomonster
    yesterday






  • 1





    Carrion Comfort, a popular Dan Simmons novel, features some chess games.

    – daisy
    yesterday






  • 1





    I know a certain Harry Potter book has a chess game scene, you could maybe get inspired from that. But that's all I know, maybe this could help you.

    – stackzebra
    yesterday












  • 1





    If you want to be evocative, try using the older notation. R to QB1 is still meaningful.

    – Rasdashan
    yesterday






  • 1





    Would including a diagram showing the position be an option? In any case, do you expect all your readers to be familiar with chess, so is it an important plot point?

    – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
    yesterday







  • 1





    No, it's a novel meant for casual readers.

    – repomonster
    yesterday






  • 1





    Carrion Comfort, a popular Dan Simmons novel, features some chess games.

    – daisy
    yesterday






  • 1





    I know a certain Harry Potter book has a chess game scene, you could maybe get inspired from that. But that's all I know, maybe this could help you.

    – stackzebra
    yesterday







1




1





If you want to be evocative, try using the older notation. R to QB1 is still meaningful.

– Rasdashan
yesterday





If you want to be evocative, try using the older notation. R to QB1 is still meaningful.

– Rasdashan
yesterday




1




1





Would including a diagram showing the position be an option? In any case, do you expect all your readers to be familiar with chess, so is it an important plot point?

– Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
yesterday






Would including a diagram showing the position be an option? In any case, do you expect all your readers to be familiar with chess, so is it an important plot point?

– Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
yesterday





1




1





No, it's a novel meant for casual readers.

– repomonster
yesterday





No, it's a novel meant for casual readers.

– repomonster
yesterday




1




1





Carrion Comfort, a popular Dan Simmons novel, features some chess games.

– daisy
yesterday





Carrion Comfort, a popular Dan Simmons novel, features some chess games.

– daisy
yesterday




1




1





I know a certain Harry Potter book has a chess game scene, you could maybe get inspired from that. But that's all I know, maybe this could help you.

– stackzebra
yesterday





I know a certain Harry Potter book has a chess game scene, you could maybe get inspired from that. But that's all I know, maybe this could help you.

– stackzebra
yesterday










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















18














I'm finding your use of "Black" and "White" as character names to be distracting. I realize that it's meant to be more straight-forward to use the chess sides as names, but it throws me off.



Give them names, give them genders (different genders is helpful for following things if it otherwise doesn't matter). Why? Because your reader cares about the emotional investment in the game and not the details, unless it's a reader who happens to be a chess expert. I know how to play chess in the casual way many do and I couldn't follow those details.



I suggest you intersperse the exchange with dialogue that describes the positions. "Rook to C1." If it's a formal game where the moves are called out, show it as actual quotes (from the player or a commentator). If it's an informal game, show the moves in italics as a description of the action. Then leave the narrative to describe the characters' emotions and strategy and so forth. This allows the reader to become invested in the moves and to understand them, even if they don't understand them.



(Note: I don't know chess notation and some moves may make no sense, just replace with accurate moves.)




After the last exchange, Hugo's position was a lot more comfortable,
and his opponent's more difficult.



White: Rook to C1.



This was the usual move in situations like this and Hugo expected Lida
to move her queen in response. Had he made the right move?



Black: Castle to A5.



Hugo bit his lip. He should have moved the rook to B1. He could do
it now, it set him up to revert to the Carlsbad structure if he had
to, but he'd lose a chance to move his knight into a more protective
position.







share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Nice idea! Didn't think about this format.

    – repomonster
    yesterday






  • 1





    @Cyn Do you mean castle as the maneuver to get the king away from potential danger (king side castle or queen side castle) or as a less formal name for rook?

    – Rasdashan
    22 hours ago











  • @Rasdashan I mean: "substitute actual chess moves for my examples." I was using Repomonster's wording but I don't know enough about chess to know if I messed them up. But I thought rook was the same as bishop...the tall pointy one that goes diagonal. Castle is more stout with a castle tower shape.

    – Cyn
    20 hours ago











  • @Cyn Castle also refers to the only maneuver in chess that allows one to move two pieces simultaneously. If neither the king nor the rook in question (rook being castle thing) have been moved, the king is not in check (in a situation where he can be taken) nor will move through check, the king can move two spaces over and the rook is brought to the other side. It is a defensive move that helps to prevent check or later checkmate (king has no escape and will be taken next move - game over). The king is never taken as royals disliked the idea of their proxies dying so the game ends there

    – Rasdashan
    19 hours ago






  • 1





    This was a great answer, interesting to read the conversion of the text and I think offers the best way to solve the problem. Great stuff.

    – raddevus
    19 hours ago


















12














It depends on if you want to be precise or abstract.



If you want to be precise, proper notation (abc, 123) is the way to go, but this may lose your readers if they are unfamiliar with the notation. If you want to be abstract, describe it like the events aren't happening on a board, but as an actual battle that is happening around your players. This can still give the same feeling without being as constrained by the notation restrictions.



That said, it just really depends on what you want to go for.






share|improve this answer






























    7














    The game should say something about the characters playing it.



    What are you trying to convey through this scene? The decision-making process of one or both actors? The actual action of the game? How they perceive the struggle?



    For example, if the main character is supposed to be seen as experienced, but perhaps not an expert in chess:




    [Char one] didn't expect that move -- the King's Gambit. He had thought [char two] was the slow, strategic sort. This move, though, opened up risks for everyone. [Char one] glanced at the clock. There was no time to ponder -- he moved his queen's pawn to the center, as was his habit.




    If a character is supposed to be seen as highly knowledgeable:




    He opened with his favorite, the Queen's Gambit. If [char two] took the hanging pawn, he'd control the center of the board. From there, it would be easy. [Char two] declined, defending the center instead of taking the bait. "The Tarrasch defense," thought [Char one], "This will be a long game..."




    In neither case am I describing the moves in detail.



    If you want to describe an entire game through an extended scene, in detail, you should explore some completed games and base your scene on it. As long as you're basing your descriptions on a real game, you should have no problem sticking to what's possible.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Master_Yogurt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.



























      6














      If your reader plays chess, you have no need to describe every piece. They will assume, unless otherwise stated, that most of the pieces are still in their original position.



      Using the names of particular gambits and positions might be distracting. Remember, it is a game between two players and at certain levels, playing the player is important too.




      The pawn exchange in the centre of the board opened him up to an
      attack, his black knight sacrificed for position. Might have been a
      blunder, his opponent seemed more confident. He saw a possible check
      and decided to take it - moving his rook into position at KB8 - he
      liked the old notation. Protected obliquely by his bishop, might just
      pull a win out of this situation and flip it. Unless there was
      something he didn’t see. Reluctantly, he removed his fingers from the
      rook, committing to the move. Why was he smiling?







      share|improve this answer























      • Really good description!

        – repomonster
        yesterday


















      4














      Your story must be perfectly readable and understandable by people who do not play chess, do not know the rules, and only know through pop-culture osmosis that there are pieces called 'rook', 'knight', etc. Write with that in mind.



      With that in mind, I probably wouldn't use chess notation at all. Somebody who has never played chess wouldn't be able to read it. Instead, I'd describe the situation, in broad strokes. A player might be forced to sacrifice a piece, or they might suddenly realise their careful plan has a fatal flaw, the opponent might find a way to escape a trap laid for them, or they might be playing an aggressive game, forcing the MC to do nothing but react. Those are all evocative descriptions that do not require the specifics of what's happening on the board, to be understood.



      @Stackzebra mentions in a comment the chess game from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. It's a good example. The scene is engaging, it's fun, the reader experiences the tension of it, it works. Only trouble is, if you put the titbits of information about the game together, it turns out that not only is there no actual position in the author's mind that she's describing on the page, but she appears not to know the chess rules at all.




      If I take one step forward




      says Ron, the knight.



      This example is great because the chess fails: the scene works despite the chess failure. Exemplifying what is important (the character dynamics, the sense of danger, etc.) and what isn't important (the chess).



      For a different example, I would point you to the videogame Dragon Age Inquisition. While your player-character is walking around doing things, some of your companions banter in the background. And two of them start a chess game. Here's a link to the full dialogue, with added animation, and added overlay of the actual game being played. Incidentally, here the chess does work - they are playing the Immortal Game.



      An example of dialogue from their game:




      Solas: So, where were we? Ah, yes. Mage to C4.
      Iron Bull: Little aggressive. Arishok to H4. Check.
      Solas: Speaking of aggressive. I assume Arishok is your term for the Queen?




      The two characters come from different cultures, their names for the pieces are different. It's a titbit of worldbuilding information that's interesting whether you're following the game or not. Also, note the commentary about a move being aggressive. Again, that clues in the non-chess-player audience. The game proceeds in the same way: it's all audio that you hear while playing, no board before you, so the dialogue must engage you in other ways, similar to how a novel would have to do it. In order to achieve that, every move is commented on, in a way that one doesn't need to understand chess in order to understand what's going on.




      Iron Bull: You've got no Towers. You're down to a single Mage. Too bad you wasted time moving that Pawn to... to... You sneaky son of a bitch.







      share|improve this answer






















        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "166"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader:
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        ,
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );













        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function ()
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fwriting.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f43627%2fdescribing-a-chess-game-in-a-novel%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        18














        I'm finding your use of "Black" and "White" as character names to be distracting. I realize that it's meant to be more straight-forward to use the chess sides as names, but it throws me off.



        Give them names, give them genders (different genders is helpful for following things if it otherwise doesn't matter). Why? Because your reader cares about the emotional investment in the game and not the details, unless it's a reader who happens to be a chess expert. I know how to play chess in the casual way many do and I couldn't follow those details.



        I suggest you intersperse the exchange with dialogue that describes the positions. "Rook to C1." If it's a formal game where the moves are called out, show it as actual quotes (from the player or a commentator). If it's an informal game, show the moves in italics as a description of the action. Then leave the narrative to describe the characters' emotions and strategy and so forth. This allows the reader to become invested in the moves and to understand them, even if they don't understand them.



        (Note: I don't know chess notation and some moves may make no sense, just replace with accurate moves.)




        After the last exchange, Hugo's position was a lot more comfortable,
        and his opponent's more difficult.



        White: Rook to C1.



        This was the usual move in situations like this and Hugo expected Lida
        to move her queen in response. Had he made the right move?



        Black: Castle to A5.



        Hugo bit his lip. He should have moved the rook to B1. He could do
        it now, it set him up to revert to the Carlsbad structure if he had
        to, but he'd lose a chance to move his knight into a more protective
        position.







        share|improve this answer




















        • 1





          Nice idea! Didn't think about this format.

          – repomonster
          yesterday






        • 1





          @Cyn Do you mean castle as the maneuver to get the king away from potential danger (king side castle or queen side castle) or as a less formal name for rook?

          – Rasdashan
          22 hours ago











        • @Rasdashan I mean: "substitute actual chess moves for my examples." I was using Repomonster's wording but I don't know enough about chess to know if I messed them up. But I thought rook was the same as bishop...the tall pointy one that goes diagonal. Castle is more stout with a castle tower shape.

          – Cyn
          20 hours ago











        • @Cyn Castle also refers to the only maneuver in chess that allows one to move two pieces simultaneously. If neither the king nor the rook in question (rook being castle thing) have been moved, the king is not in check (in a situation where he can be taken) nor will move through check, the king can move two spaces over and the rook is brought to the other side. It is a defensive move that helps to prevent check or later checkmate (king has no escape and will be taken next move - game over). The king is never taken as royals disliked the idea of their proxies dying so the game ends there

          – Rasdashan
          19 hours ago






        • 1





          This was a great answer, interesting to read the conversion of the text and I think offers the best way to solve the problem. Great stuff.

          – raddevus
          19 hours ago















        18














        I'm finding your use of "Black" and "White" as character names to be distracting. I realize that it's meant to be more straight-forward to use the chess sides as names, but it throws me off.



        Give them names, give them genders (different genders is helpful for following things if it otherwise doesn't matter). Why? Because your reader cares about the emotional investment in the game and not the details, unless it's a reader who happens to be a chess expert. I know how to play chess in the casual way many do and I couldn't follow those details.



        I suggest you intersperse the exchange with dialogue that describes the positions. "Rook to C1." If it's a formal game where the moves are called out, show it as actual quotes (from the player or a commentator). If it's an informal game, show the moves in italics as a description of the action. Then leave the narrative to describe the characters' emotions and strategy and so forth. This allows the reader to become invested in the moves and to understand them, even if they don't understand them.



        (Note: I don't know chess notation and some moves may make no sense, just replace with accurate moves.)




        After the last exchange, Hugo's position was a lot more comfortable,
        and his opponent's more difficult.



        White: Rook to C1.



        This was the usual move in situations like this and Hugo expected Lida
        to move her queen in response. Had he made the right move?



        Black: Castle to A5.



        Hugo bit his lip. He should have moved the rook to B1. He could do
        it now, it set him up to revert to the Carlsbad structure if he had
        to, but he'd lose a chance to move his knight into a more protective
        position.







        share|improve this answer




















        • 1





          Nice idea! Didn't think about this format.

          – repomonster
          yesterday






        • 1





          @Cyn Do you mean castle as the maneuver to get the king away from potential danger (king side castle or queen side castle) or as a less formal name for rook?

          – Rasdashan
          22 hours ago











        • @Rasdashan I mean: "substitute actual chess moves for my examples." I was using Repomonster's wording but I don't know enough about chess to know if I messed them up. But I thought rook was the same as bishop...the tall pointy one that goes diagonal. Castle is more stout with a castle tower shape.

          – Cyn
          20 hours ago











        • @Cyn Castle also refers to the only maneuver in chess that allows one to move two pieces simultaneously. If neither the king nor the rook in question (rook being castle thing) have been moved, the king is not in check (in a situation where he can be taken) nor will move through check, the king can move two spaces over and the rook is brought to the other side. It is a defensive move that helps to prevent check or later checkmate (king has no escape and will be taken next move - game over). The king is never taken as royals disliked the idea of their proxies dying so the game ends there

          – Rasdashan
          19 hours ago






        • 1





          This was a great answer, interesting to read the conversion of the text and I think offers the best way to solve the problem. Great stuff.

          – raddevus
          19 hours ago













        18












        18








        18







        I'm finding your use of "Black" and "White" as character names to be distracting. I realize that it's meant to be more straight-forward to use the chess sides as names, but it throws me off.



        Give them names, give them genders (different genders is helpful for following things if it otherwise doesn't matter). Why? Because your reader cares about the emotional investment in the game and not the details, unless it's a reader who happens to be a chess expert. I know how to play chess in the casual way many do and I couldn't follow those details.



        I suggest you intersperse the exchange with dialogue that describes the positions. "Rook to C1." If it's a formal game where the moves are called out, show it as actual quotes (from the player or a commentator). If it's an informal game, show the moves in italics as a description of the action. Then leave the narrative to describe the characters' emotions and strategy and so forth. This allows the reader to become invested in the moves and to understand them, even if they don't understand them.



        (Note: I don't know chess notation and some moves may make no sense, just replace with accurate moves.)




        After the last exchange, Hugo's position was a lot more comfortable,
        and his opponent's more difficult.



        White: Rook to C1.



        This was the usual move in situations like this and Hugo expected Lida
        to move her queen in response. Had he made the right move?



        Black: Castle to A5.



        Hugo bit his lip. He should have moved the rook to B1. He could do
        it now, it set him up to revert to the Carlsbad structure if he had
        to, but he'd lose a chance to move his knight into a more protective
        position.







        share|improve this answer















        I'm finding your use of "Black" and "White" as character names to be distracting. I realize that it's meant to be more straight-forward to use the chess sides as names, but it throws me off.



        Give them names, give them genders (different genders is helpful for following things if it otherwise doesn't matter). Why? Because your reader cares about the emotional investment in the game and not the details, unless it's a reader who happens to be a chess expert. I know how to play chess in the casual way many do and I couldn't follow those details.



        I suggest you intersperse the exchange with dialogue that describes the positions. "Rook to C1." If it's a formal game where the moves are called out, show it as actual quotes (from the player or a commentator). If it's an informal game, show the moves in italics as a description of the action. Then leave the narrative to describe the characters' emotions and strategy and so forth. This allows the reader to become invested in the moves and to understand them, even if they don't understand them.



        (Note: I don't know chess notation and some moves may make no sense, just replace with accurate moves.)




        After the last exchange, Hugo's position was a lot more comfortable,
        and his opponent's more difficult.



        White: Rook to C1.



        This was the usual move in situations like this and Hugo expected Lida
        to move her queen in response. Had he made the right move?



        Black: Castle to A5.



        Hugo bit his lip. He should have moved the rook to B1. He could do
        it now, it set him up to revert to the Carlsbad structure if he had
        to, but he'd lose a chance to move his knight into a more protective
        position.








        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited yesterday

























        answered yesterday









        CynCyn

        13.8k12767




        13.8k12767







        • 1





          Nice idea! Didn't think about this format.

          – repomonster
          yesterday






        • 1





          @Cyn Do you mean castle as the maneuver to get the king away from potential danger (king side castle or queen side castle) or as a less formal name for rook?

          – Rasdashan
          22 hours ago











        • @Rasdashan I mean: "substitute actual chess moves for my examples." I was using Repomonster's wording but I don't know enough about chess to know if I messed them up. But I thought rook was the same as bishop...the tall pointy one that goes diagonal. Castle is more stout with a castle tower shape.

          – Cyn
          20 hours ago











        • @Cyn Castle also refers to the only maneuver in chess that allows one to move two pieces simultaneously. If neither the king nor the rook in question (rook being castle thing) have been moved, the king is not in check (in a situation where he can be taken) nor will move through check, the king can move two spaces over and the rook is brought to the other side. It is a defensive move that helps to prevent check or later checkmate (king has no escape and will be taken next move - game over). The king is never taken as royals disliked the idea of their proxies dying so the game ends there

          – Rasdashan
          19 hours ago






        • 1





          This was a great answer, interesting to read the conversion of the text and I think offers the best way to solve the problem. Great stuff.

          – raddevus
          19 hours ago












        • 1





          Nice idea! Didn't think about this format.

          – repomonster
          yesterday






        • 1





          @Cyn Do you mean castle as the maneuver to get the king away from potential danger (king side castle or queen side castle) or as a less formal name for rook?

          – Rasdashan
          22 hours ago











        • @Rasdashan I mean: "substitute actual chess moves for my examples." I was using Repomonster's wording but I don't know enough about chess to know if I messed them up. But I thought rook was the same as bishop...the tall pointy one that goes diagonal. Castle is more stout with a castle tower shape.

          – Cyn
          20 hours ago











        • @Cyn Castle also refers to the only maneuver in chess that allows one to move two pieces simultaneously. If neither the king nor the rook in question (rook being castle thing) have been moved, the king is not in check (in a situation where he can be taken) nor will move through check, the king can move two spaces over and the rook is brought to the other side. It is a defensive move that helps to prevent check or later checkmate (king has no escape and will be taken next move - game over). The king is never taken as royals disliked the idea of their proxies dying so the game ends there

          – Rasdashan
          19 hours ago






        • 1





          This was a great answer, interesting to read the conversion of the text and I think offers the best way to solve the problem. Great stuff.

          – raddevus
          19 hours ago







        1




        1





        Nice idea! Didn't think about this format.

        – repomonster
        yesterday





        Nice idea! Didn't think about this format.

        – repomonster
        yesterday




        1




        1





        @Cyn Do you mean castle as the maneuver to get the king away from potential danger (king side castle or queen side castle) or as a less formal name for rook?

        – Rasdashan
        22 hours ago





        @Cyn Do you mean castle as the maneuver to get the king away from potential danger (king side castle or queen side castle) or as a less formal name for rook?

        – Rasdashan
        22 hours ago













        @Rasdashan I mean: "substitute actual chess moves for my examples." I was using Repomonster's wording but I don't know enough about chess to know if I messed them up. But I thought rook was the same as bishop...the tall pointy one that goes diagonal. Castle is more stout with a castle tower shape.

        – Cyn
        20 hours ago





        @Rasdashan I mean: "substitute actual chess moves for my examples." I was using Repomonster's wording but I don't know enough about chess to know if I messed them up. But I thought rook was the same as bishop...the tall pointy one that goes diagonal. Castle is more stout with a castle tower shape.

        – Cyn
        20 hours ago













        @Cyn Castle also refers to the only maneuver in chess that allows one to move two pieces simultaneously. If neither the king nor the rook in question (rook being castle thing) have been moved, the king is not in check (in a situation where he can be taken) nor will move through check, the king can move two spaces over and the rook is brought to the other side. It is a defensive move that helps to prevent check or later checkmate (king has no escape and will be taken next move - game over). The king is never taken as royals disliked the idea of their proxies dying so the game ends there

        – Rasdashan
        19 hours ago





        @Cyn Castle also refers to the only maneuver in chess that allows one to move two pieces simultaneously. If neither the king nor the rook in question (rook being castle thing) have been moved, the king is not in check (in a situation where he can be taken) nor will move through check, the king can move two spaces over and the rook is brought to the other side. It is a defensive move that helps to prevent check or later checkmate (king has no escape and will be taken next move - game over). The king is never taken as royals disliked the idea of their proxies dying so the game ends there

        – Rasdashan
        19 hours ago




        1




        1





        This was a great answer, interesting to read the conversion of the text and I think offers the best way to solve the problem. Great stuff.

        – raddevus
        19 hours ago





        This was a great answer, interesting to read the conversion of the text and I think offers the best way to solve the problem. Great stuff.

        – raddevus
        19 hours ago











        12














        It depends on if you want to be precise or abstract.



        If you want to be precise, proper notation (abc, 123) is the way to go, but this may lose your readers if they are unfamiliar with the notation. If you want to be abstract, describe it like the events aren't happening on a board, but as an actual battle that is happening around your players. This can still give the same feeling without being as constrained by the notation restrictions.



        That said, it just really depends on what you want to go for.






        share|improve this answer



























          12














          It depends on if you want to be precise or abstract.



          If you want to be precise, proper notation (abc, 123) is the way to go, but this may lose your readers if they are unfamiliar with the notation. If you want to be abstract, describe it like the events aren't happening on a board, but as an actual battle that is happening around your players. This can still give the same feeling without being as constrained by the notation restrictions.



          That said, it just really depends on what you want to go for.






          share|improve this answer

























            12












            12








            12







            It depends on if you want to be precise or abstract.



            If you want to be precise, proper notation (abc, 123) is the way to go, but this may lose your readers if they are unfamiliar with the notation. If you want to be abstract, describe it like the events aren't happening on a board, but as an actual battle that is happening around your players. This can still give the same feeling without being as constrained by the notation restrictions.



            That said, it just really depends on what you want to go for.






            share|improve this answer













            It depends on if you want to be precise or abstract.



            If you want to be precise, proper notation (abc, 123) is the way to go, but this may lose your readers if they are unfamiliar with the notation. If you want to be abstract, describe it like the events aren't happening on a board, but as an actual battle that is happening around your players. This can still give the same feeling without being as constrained by the notation restrictions.



            That said, it just really depends on what you want to go for.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered yesterday









            Sora TamashiiSora Tamashii

            1,346114




            1,346114





















                7














                The game should say something about the characters playing it.



                What are you trying to convey through this scene? The decision-making process of one or both actors? The actual action of the game? How they perceive the struggle?



                For example, if the main character is supposed to be seen as experienced, but perhaps not an expert in chess:




                [Char one] didn't expect that move -- the King's Gambit. He had thought [char two] was the slow, strategic sort. This move, though, opened up risks for everyone. [Char one] glanced at the clock. There was no time to ponder -- he moved his queen's pawn to the center, as was his habit.




                If a character is supposed to be seen as highly knowledgeable:




                He opened with his favorite, the Queen's Gambit. If [char two] took the hanging pawn, he'd control the center of the board. From there, it would be easy. [Char two] declined, defending the center instead of taking the bait. "The Tarrasch defense," thought [Char one], "This will be a long game..."




                In neither case am I describing the moves in detail.



                If you want to describe an entire game through an extended scene, in detail, you should explore some completed games and base your scene on it. As long as you're basing your descriptions on a real game, you should have no problem sticking to what's possible.






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                Master_Yogurt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.
























                  7














                  The game should say something about the characters playing it.



                  What are you trying to convey through this scene? The decision-making process of one or both actors? The actual action of the game? How they perceive the struggle?



                  For example, if the main character is supposed to be seen as experienced, but perhaps not an expert in chess:




                  [Char one] didn't expect that move -- the King's Gambit. He had thought [char two] was the slow, strategic sort. This move, though, opened up risks for everyone. [Char one] glanced at the clock. There was no time to ponder -- he moved his queen's pawn to the center, as was his habit.




                  If a character is supposed to be seen as highly knowledgeable:




                  He opened with his favorite, the Queen's Gambit. If [char two] took the hanging pawn, he'd control the center of the board. From there, it would be easy. [Char two] declined, defending the center instead of taking the bait. "The Tarrasch defense," thought [Char one], "This will be a long game..."




                  In neither case am I describing the moves in detail.



                  If you want to describe an entire game through an extended scene, in detail, you should explore some completed games and base your scene on it. As long as you're basing your descriptions on a real game, you should have no problem sticking to what's possible.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Master_Yogurt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                    7












                    7








                    7







                    The game should say something about the characters playing it.



                    What are you trying to convey through this scene? The decision-making process of one or both actors? The actual action of the game? How they perceive the struggle?



                    For example, if the main character is supposed to be seen as experienced, but perhaps not an expert in chess:




                    [Char one] didn't expect that move -- the King's Gambit. He had thought [char two] was the slow, strategic sort. This move, though, opened up risks for everyone. [Char one] glanced at the clock. There was no time to ponder -- he moved his queen's pawn to the center, as was his habit.




                    If a character is supposed to be seen as highly knowledgeable:




                    He opened with his favorite, the Queen's Gambit. If [char two] took the hanging pawn, he'd control the center of the board. From there, it would be easy. [Char two] declined, defending the center instead of taking the bait. "The Tarrasch defense," thought [Char one], "This will be a long game..."




                    In neither case am I describing the moves in detail.



                    If you want to describe an entire game through an extended scene, in detail, you should explore some completed games and base your scene on it. As long as you're basing your descriptions on a real game, you should have no problem sticking to what's possible.






                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Master_Yogurt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.










                    The game should say something about the characters playing it.



                    What are you trying to convey through this scene? The decision-making process of one or both actors? The actual action of the game? How they perceive the struggle?



                    For example, if the main character is supposed to be seen as experienced, but perhaps not an expert in chess:




                    [Char one] didn't expect that move -- the King's Gambit. He had thought [char two] was the slow, strategic sort. This move, though, opened up risks for everyone. [Char one] glanced at the clock. There was no time to ponder -- he moved his queen's pawn to the center, as was his habit.




                    If a character is supposed to be seen as highly knowledgeable:




                    He opened with his favorite, the Queen's Gambit. If [char two] took the hanging pawn, he'd control the center of the board. From there, it would be easy. [Char two] declined, defending the center instead of taking the bait. "The Tarrasch defense," thought [Char one], "This will be a long game..."




                    In neither case am I describing the moves in detail.



                    If you want to describe an entire game through an extended scene, in detail, you should explore some completed games and base your scene on it. As long as you're basing your descriptions on a real game, you should have no problem sticking to what's possible.







                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Master_Yogurt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer






                    New contributor




                    Master_Yogurt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    answered 20 hours ago









                    Master_YogurtMaster_Yogurt

                    1712




                    1712




                    New contributor




                    Master_Yogurt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





                    New contributor





                    Master_Yogurt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






                    Master_Yogurt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                        6














                        If your reader plays chess, you have no need to describe every piece. They will assume, unless otherwise stated, that most of the pieces are still in their original position.



                        Using the names of particular gambits and positions might be distracting. Remember, it is a game between two players and at certain levels, playing the player is important too.




                        The pawn exchange in the centre of the board opened him up to an
                        attack, his black knight sacrificed for position. Might have been a
                        blunder, his opponent seemed more confident. He saw a possible check
                        and decided to take it - moving his rook into position at KB8 - he
                        liked the old notation. Protected obliquely by his bishop, might just
                        pull a win out of this situation and flip it. Unless there was
                        something he didn’t see. Reluctantly, he removed his fingers from the
                        rook, committing to the move. Why was he smiling?







                        share|improve this answer























                        • Really good description!

                          – repomonster
                          yesterday















                        6














                        If your reader plays chess, you have no need to describe every piece. They will assume, unless otherwise stated, that most of the pieces are still in their original position.



                        Using the names of particular gambits and positions might be distracting. Remember, it is a game between two players and at certain levels, playing the player is important too.




                        The pawn exchange in the centre of the board opened him up to an
                        attack, his black knight sacrificed for position. Might have been a
                        blunder, his opponent seemed more confident. He saw a possible check
                        and decided to take it - moving his rook into position at KB8 - he
                        liked the old notation. Protected obliquely by his bishop, might just
                        pull a win out of this situation and flip it. Unless there was
                        something he didn’t see. Reluctantly, he removed his fingers from the
                        rook, committing to the move. Why was he smiling?







                        share|improve this answer























                        • Really good description!

                          – repomonster
                          yesterday













                        6












                        6








                        6







                        If your reader plays chess, you have no need to describe every piece. They will assume, unless otherwise stated, that most of the pieces are still in their original position.



                        Using the names of particular gambits and positions might be distracting. Remember, it is a game between two players and at certain levels, playing the player is important too.




                        The pawn exchange in the centre of the board opened him up to an
                        attack, his black knight sacrificed for position. Might have been a
                        blunder, his opponent seemed more confident. He saw a possible check
                        and decided to take it - moving his rook into position at KB8 - he
                        liked the old notation. Protected obliquely by his bishop, might just
                        pull a win out of this situation and flip it. Unless there was
                        something he didn’t see. Reluctantly, he removed his fingers from the
                        rook, committing to the move. Why was he smiling?







                        share|improve this answer













                        If your reader plays chess, you have no need to describe every piece. They will assume, unless otherwise stated, that most of the pieces are still in their original position.



                        Using the names of particular gambits and positions might be distracting. Remember, it is a game between two players and at certain levels, playing the player is important too.




                        The pawn exchange in the centre of the board opened him up to an
                        attack, his black knight sacrificed for position. Might have been a
                        blunder, his opponent seemed more confident. He saw a possible check
                        and decided to take it - moving his rook into position at KB8 - he
                        liked the old notation. Protected obliquely by his bishop, might just
                        pull a win out of this situation and flip it. Unless there was
                        something he didn’t see. Reluctantly, he removed his fingers from the
                        rook, committing to the move. Why was he smiling?








                        share|improve this answer












                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer










                        answered yesterday









                        RasdashanRasdashan

                        7,4311048




                        7,4311048












                        • Really good description!

                          – repomonster
                          yesterday

















                        • Really good description!

                          – repomonster
                          yesterday
















                        Really good description!

                        – repomonster
                        yesterday





                        Really good description!

                        – repomonster
                        yesterday











                        4














                        Your story must be perfectly readable and understandable by people who do not play chess, do not know the rules, and only know through pop-culture osmosis that there are pieces called 'rook', 'knight', etc. Write with that in mind.



                        With that in mind, I probably wouldn't use chess notation at all. Somebody who has never played chess wouldn't be able to read it. Instead, I'd describe the situation, in broad strokes. A player might be forced to sacrifice a piece, or they might suddenly realise their careful plan has a fatal flaw, the opponent might find a way to escape a trap laid for them, or they might be playing an aggressive game, forcing the MC to do nothing but react. Those are all evocative descriptions that do not require the specifics of what's happening on the board, to be understood.



                        @Stackzebra mentions in a comment the chess game from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. It's a good example. The scene is engaging, it's fun, the reader experiences the tension of it, it works. Only trouble is, if you put the titbits of information about the game together, it turns out that not only is there no actual position in the author's mind that she's describing on the page, but she appears not to know the chess rules at all.




                        If I take one step forward




                        says Ron, the knight.



                        This example is great because the chess fails: the scene works despite the chess failure. Exemplifying what is important (the character dynamics, the sense of danger, etc.) and what isn't important (the chess).



                        For a different example, I would point you to the videogame Dragon Age Inquisition. While your player-character is walking around doing things, some of your companions banter in the background. And two of them start a chess game. Here's a link to the full dialogue, with added animation, and added overlay of the actual game being played. Incidentally, here the chess does work - they are playing the Immortal Game.



                        An example of dialogue from their game:




                        Solas: So, where were we? Ah, yes. Mage to C4.
                        Iron Bull: Little aggressive. Arishok to H4. Check.
                        Solas: Speaking of aggressive. I assume Arishok is your term for the Queen?




                        The two characters come from different cultures, their names for the pieces are different. It's a titbit of worldbuilding information that's interesting whether you're following the game or not. Also, note the commentary about a move being aggressive. Again, that clues in the non-chess-player audience. The game proceeds in the same way: it's all audio that you hear while playing, no board before you, so the dialogue must engage you in other ways, similar to how a novel would have to do it. In order to achieve that, every move is commented on, in a way that one doesn't need to understand chess in order to understand what's going on.




                        Iron Bull: You've got no Towers. You're down to a single Mage. Too bad you wasted time moving that Pawn to... to... You sneaky son of a bitch.







                        share|improve this answer



























                          4














                          Your story must be perfectly readable and understandable by people who do not play chess, do not know the rules, and only know through pop-culture osmosis that there are pieces called 'rook', 'knight', etc. Write with that in mind.



                          With that in mind, I probably wouldn't use chess notation at all. Somebody who has never played chess wouldn't be able to read it. Instead, I'd describe the situation, in broad strokes. A player might be forced to sacrifice a piece, or they might suddenly realise their careful plan has a fatal flaw, the opponent might find a way to escape a trap laid for them, or they might be playing an aggressive game, forcing the MC to do nothing but react. Those are all evocative descriptions that do not require the specifics of what's happening on the board, to be understood.



                          @Stackzebra mentions in a comment the chess game from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. It's a good example. The scene is engaging, it's fun, the reader experiences the tension of it, it works. Only trouble is, if you put the titbits of information about the game together, it turns out that not only is there no actual position in the author's mind that she's describing on the page, but she appears not to know the chess rules at all.




                          If I take one step forward




                          says Ron, the knight.



                          This example is great because the chess fails: the scene works despite the chess failure. Exemplifying what is important (the character dynamics, the sense of danger, etc.) and what isn't important (the chess).



                          For a different example, I would point you to the videogame Dragon Age Inquisition. While your player-character is walking around doing things, some of your companions banter in the background. And two of them start a chess game. Here's a link to the full dialogue, with added animation, and added overlay of the actual game being played. Incidentally, here the chess does work - they are playing the Immortal Game.



                          An example of dialogue from their game:




                          Solas: So, where were we? Ah, yes. Mage to C4.
                          Iron Bull: Little aggressive. Arishok to H4. Check.
                          Solas: Speaking of aggressive. I assume Arishok is your term for the Queen?




                          The two characters come from different cultures, their names for the pieces are different. It's a titbit of worldbuilding information that's interesting whether you're following the game or not. Also, note the commentary about a move being aggressive. Again, that clues in the non-chess-player audience. The game proceeds in the same way: it's all audio that you hear while playing, no board before you, so the dialogue must engage you in other ways, similar to how a novel would have to do it. In order to achieve that, every move is commented on, in a way that one doesn't need to understand chess in order to understand what's going on.




                          Iron Bull: You've got no Towers. You're down to a single Mage. Too bad you wasted time moving that Pawn to... to... You sneaky son of a bitch.







                          share|improve this answer

























                            4












                            4








                            4







                            Your story must be perfectly readable and understandable by people who do not play chess, do not know the rules, and only know through pop-culture osmosis that there are pieces called 'rook', 'knight', etc. Write with that in mind.



                            With that in mind, I probably wouldn't use chess notation at all. Somebody who has never played chess wouldn't be able to read it. Instead, I'd describe the situation, in broad strokes. A player might be forced to sacrifice a piece, or they might suddenly realise their careful plan has a fatal flaw, the opponent might find a way to escape a trap laid for them, or they might be playing an aggressive game, forcing the MC to do nothing but react. Those are all evocative descriptions that do not require the specifics of what's happening on the board, to be understood.



                            @Stackzebra mentions in a comment the chess game from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. It's a good example. The scene is engaging, it's fun, the reader experiences the tension of it, it works. Only trouble is, if you put the titbits of information about the game together, it turns out that not only is there no actual position in the author's mind that she's describing on the page, but she appears not to know the chess rules at all.




                            If I take one step forward




                            says Ron, the knight.



                            This example is great because the chess fails: the scene works despite the chess failure. Exemplifying what is important (the character dynamics, the sense of danger, etc.) and what isn't important (the chess).



                            For a different example, I would point you to the videogame Dragon Age Inquisition. While your player-character is walking around doing things, some of your companions banter in the background. And two of them start a chess game. Here's a link to the full dialogue, with added animation, and added overlay of the actual game being played. Incidentally, here the chess does work - they are playing the Immortal Game.



                            An example of dialogue from their game:




                            Solas: So, where were we? Ah, yes. Mage to C4.
                            Iron Bull: Little aggressive. Arishok to H4. Check.
                            Solas: Speaking of aggressive. I assume Arishok is your term for the Queen?




                            The two characters come from different cultures, their names for the pieces are different. It's a titbit of worldbuilding information that's interesting whether you're following the game or not. Also, note the commentary about a move being aggressive. Again, that clues in the non-chess-player audience. The game proceeds in the same way: it's all audio that you hear while playing, no board before you, so the dialogue must engage you in other ways, similar to how a novel would have to do it. In order to achieve that, every move is commented on, in a way that one doesn't need to understand chess in order to understand what's going on.




                            Iron Bull: You've got no Towers. You're down to a single Mage. Too bad you wasted time moving that Pawn to... to... You sneaky son of a bitch.







                            share|improve this answer













                            Your story must be perfectly readable and understandable by people who do not play chess, do not know the rules, and only know through pop-culture osmosis that there are pieces called 'rook', 'knight', etc. Write with that in mind.



                            With that in mind, I probably wouldn't use chess notation at all. Somebody who has never played chess wouldn't be able to read it. Instead, I'd describe the situation, in broad strokes. A player might be forced to sacrifice a piece, or they might suddenly realise their careful plan has a fatal flaw, the opponent might find a way to escape a trap laid for them, or they might be playing an aggressive game, forcing the MC to do nothing but react. Those are all evocative descriptions that do not require the specifics of what's happening on the board, to be understood.



                            @Stackzebra mentions in a comment the chess game from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. It's a good example. The scene is engaging, it's fun, the reader experiences the tension of it, it works. Only trouble is, if you put the titbits of information about the game together, it turns out that not only is there no actual position in the author's mind that she's describing on the page, but she appears not to know the chess rules at all.




                            If I take one step forward




                            says Ron, the knight.



                            This example is great because the chess fails: the scene works despite the chess failure. Exemplifying what is important (the character dynamics, the sense of danger, etc.) and what isn't important (the chess).



                            For a different example, I would point you to the videogame Dragon Age Inquisition. While your player-character is walking around doing things, some of your companions banter in the background. And two of them start a chess game. Here's a link to the full dialogue, with added animation, and added overlay of the actual game being played. Incidentally, here the chess does work - they are playing the Immortal Game.



                            An example of dialogue from their game:




                            Solas: So, where were we? Ah, yes. Mage to C4.
                            Iron Bull: Little aggressive. Arishok to H4. Check.
                            Solas: Speaking of aggressive. I assume Arishok is your term for the Queen?




                            The two characters come from different cultures, their names for the pieces are different. It's a titbit of worldbuilding information that's interesting whether you're following the game or not. Also, note the commentary about a move being aggressive. Again, that clues in the non-chess-player audience. The game proceeds in the same way: it's all audio that you hear while playing, no board before you, so the dialogue must engage you in other ways, similar to how a novel would have to do it. In order to achieve that, every move is commented on, in a way that one doesn't need to understand chess in order to understand what's going on.




                            Iron Bull: You've got no Towers. You're down to a single Mage. Too bad you wasted time moving that Pawn to... to... You sneaky son of a bitch.








                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered 19 hours ago









                            GalastelGalastel

                            36.5k6109194




                            36.5k6109194



























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded
















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Writing Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid


                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fwriting.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f43627%2fdescribing-a-chess-game-in-a-novel%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                                He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                                Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029