Sunday, April 29, 2018

C-2: Chess to Chainmail

Main Quest: Part of what I hope to do over the next year(s) of my life is to live the evolution of the tabletop roleplaying game through a series of games, readings, and experiences.  This 'pilgrimage' is inspired by memoirs like Of Dice and Men by David Ewalt and Fantasy Freaks and Gaming Geeks by Ethan Gilsdorf.  I'm continuing this ongoing series with a few more thoughts about my experiences trying to up my chess game... You can find part one of this series here.


It's worth explaining why I've decided to start this exploration of the history of tabletop RPGs with this series on chess.  

Dungeons & Dragons is the original tabletop RPG, but the seed of the game was planted in the soil of the historical miniature wargames of the time.  The addition of fantasy elements such as magic and monsters to the otherwise dryly accurate games of conflict across the ages wasn't universally accepted at first, but the wargame Chainmail is the predecessor to D&D.  




However, wargames have their origins in ancient games of strategy- particularly chess- making it an important part of the ancestry of D&D and other tabletop RPGs. 


Chess is believed to have originated in eastern India in the 6th or 7th century as the game chaturanga (a word meaning "four divisions").  The titular four divisions are the divisions of the military that the pieces of the time were meant to represent: the infantry, cavalry, chariotry, and elephants.  Over the course of the next six or seven hundred years the game spread throughout Europe, and by 1475 there were enough changes to the game that it resembled what we know today.  Unlike the various editions of RPGs that have been printed and reprinted in the past several decades- the rules of Chess have remained largely the same since the 19th century. 


Chess (you can call it "Queen's chess" or somewhat paradoxically "The King's game") is played on a  checkered gameboard of 64 squares in an 8x8 grid.  Both players have 16 pieces of the 8 orders that range from pawn to king.  Each piece moves according to rules of its own and can capture opposing pieces by coming to occupy the opponents square with that movement.  The objective of the game is to checkmate your opponent by placing his/her king under an inescapable threat of capture.  


This all sounds simple enough right?  


That's why I thought I knew how to play the game.  


There are only 18 possible moves that a player can make at the start of the game, but with each subsequent turn the number of possible moves increases drastically and exponentially.  The complexity of the game lends itself to rigorous study of strategies and counters to them, but even with memorization success involves keen analysis of the long game to determine how you will establish dominance of the board and hem in your opponent's king.  


Fortunately for me, just like most any game with an appreciable amount of complexity- this game seemed to lend itself to the hacking and remixing that is common in the game design arena of today.  In the late 18th and 19th century there were chess variants that evolved into more modern wargames.  In 1780, the Johann Christian Ludwig Hellwig (a German) took inspiration from the game of chess to create a battle emulation game.  This would be "kriegsspiel" or "war game," a chess-like game that better reflected the military of his day.

Monday, April 16, 2018

C-1: The Opening Move of My Main Quest

Main Quest: Part of what I hope to do over the next year(s) of my life is to live the evolution of the tabletop roleplaying game through a series of games, readings, and experiences.  This 'pilgrimage' is inspired by memoirs like Of Dice and Men by David Ewalt and Fantasy Freaks and Gaming Geeks by Ethan Gilsdorf.  I'm going to begin this adventure with an examination of the game of chess... 


I took another swig of the relatively high percentage ABV craft beer that I had brought along for the occasion and assessed the board- knowing full well that I was certain to make another blunder in this game.

I have known how to play chess since elementary school (strictly in the sense that I knew how all the pieces move), but I never studied any strategy or learned any of the finer points of the game.  Simply knowing "how to play" by my definition was achievement enough as far as I was concerned.  It was a much more intellectually challenging game to play than checkers on rainy, indoor recess days (or at least I thought it seemed more impressive to others).

My first game in about two decades...

"Check...mate?"  I offered hesitantly as I took my hand away from my freshly promoted queen and reassessed all the possible moves for my opponent's king.  Then just as quickly as I had gained this queen, I lost her when my opponent brought his across from my side of the board (a seeming blindspot for me) and captured her.  My moment of "I think I get this game!" was brief as I tipped my king over in resignation.

I've played several games recently with a few different opponents, and each of them has ended in my defeat.  I have been made to feel about as cognitively developed as I did back in elementary school, but I have realized that most of my mistakes are of one of three categories:
  1. I would allow myself to be placed in a position where I was guaranteed to have one piece capture no matter what I did.  I could potentially threaten a retaliatory capture, but it was often a scenario where I would lose a good piece to a lesser piece of my opponent (i.e. I would lose either my rook or my knight to an opponent's pawn). 
  2. I would make a move that would threaten to capture an opponent's piece assuming it would prompt them to retreat towards their starting rows- without realizing that they could advance towards my starting rows instead.  I don't mean that my opponents were being recklessly aggressive- I just mean that I was apparently unable to anticipate this aggressiveness.
  3. I would become fixated on an area of the board where there were many pieces or where many moves had been made in rapid succession to the exclusion of the rest of the board.  I would assume that my opponent was fixated on the same "hot spot" and I would be surprised when they suddenly moved a piece elsewhere that was not involved in this particular conflict.
I think all of these problems hint at an issue that affects how I play a lot of games (and maybe a little of how I live my life):  I'm not so good with foresight or seeing the larger picture.  This is particularly detrimental when I play games that revolve around tactical movement...  Which will make my future exploration of wargames a particular challenge.

Playing in the queue at C2E2.
But before I get into wargames or any more of my adventure with "the King's Game" I'll explain a bit about the game and its history (in Part II) and where this leads me next (in Part III).  Until then, maybe I'll try and squeeze in a few more games and almost certainly wrack up a few more losses...