So, I woke up today considering that the structure of the game of chess is not entirely unlike that of a story, and thinking through the comparison might be a fun way to kill an hour or two.
Let’s get this part out of the way because someone’s gonna make I know what I already know, namely:
1. There will be vastly superior subject matter experts on chess among you.
2. There will be far better-credentialed authors in your midst
3. Google suggested to me that no one’s had a serious go at this sort of comparative analysis, so I’m stepping up.
4. Redirects, rebuttals, and more detailed/expert commentary are more than welcome.
Ah, so to get started, I just made a simple chart. In the past, I would spend LOTS of hours writing this out but I figure in this Just Post It Already age of hours, I go with the simple notes version.
Notes
1. Chess has three stages — the opening, the middle, and the endgame
2. There are different goals/priorities to each stage
3. They overlap in some instances, sometimes lots
4. Arguments over when one stage ends and one begins have been raging for two millennia; modern data analysis has actually resolved some of these disputes
5. There’s quite the diversity on views on the plot structure in literature. I’m comparing to the Western canonical model here of a story in three acts (stories in 1, 2, 4, acts do happen and awesome sauce that they do). Three acts versus three-stage chess works for this heuristic.
6. If i wrote more on a topic it was either a sign that (a) I was more interested in thinking that line item through, (b) did not actually have any prior thought/knowledge on that item and still may lack it, or (c) a bit of both
Anyhoo, for you writers and chess beings out there, here you go:
Chess Stage |
Chess Objective |
Literary Objective |
Opening |
Development |
Introduce main characters |
Opening |
Control of Center |
Present options |
Opening |
King Safety |
Person/artifact/goal being secured or sought by pro(an)tagonists |
Opening |
Prevention of Pawn Weakness |
Characters resolute, sure of selves |
Opening |
Piece Coordination |
Characters live/judged by rules of 'world' |
Opening |
Create Positions Where Player More Comfortable Than Opponent |
Resolve tension |
Opening |
Gambit |
Take chances/make challenges |
Opening |
Counter Gambit |
Respond to threats/challenges |
Opening/Middle |
Create dynamic imblaance |
Suspense |
Opening/Middle |
Transposition |
Get to canoncial goal by different path |
Middle |
King Safety |
Person/artifact/objective being protected secured as well as possible |
Middle |
(Fail to) Establish Material Advantage |
Original course of action followed, works until it doesn’t/proceeds to endgame if it does |
Middle |
Mobility |
Act on Options |
Middle |
Gambit |
Take chances/make challenges (higher stakes) |
Middle |
Counter Gambit |
Respond to threats/challenges (higher stakes) |
Middle |
Closed or Open Center? |
Are characters locked into choices or create own way? |
Middle |
Mutual Attack |
Pro/Antagonists make move/countermoves, actions/reactions |
Middle |
Pawn Structure Deconstruction |
Characters tested, regrets/doubts/etc explored here, some break/change, some thrive |
Middle |
Pawn Promotion |
Heretofore minor character rises to prominence, germane to conclusion |
Middle |
Complete Development of Pieces |
Any character to be developed must be developed |
Middle |
Exploit open files |
If there's an opening to movement in story, it must either be used or ruled out |
Middle |
Position pieces for finale |
If someone's got to travel, they've traveled, if someone's got to get a prop, they've gotten the prop, etc |
Endgame |
Pawn Promotion 2.0 |
The later their 'promotion' the more limited ('precise') the minor character's involvement in the conclusion |
Endgame |
Movement of King |
Person/artifact being protected revealed as powerful, rises to occasion (or attempts and fails in tragedy) |
Endgame |
Material Exchanges |
Strong Pro/Antagonist position more willing to sacrifice main characters to protect pawns, goals. Weaker side will sacrifice pawns, set aside values/make compromises to put off inevitable or steal victory from jaws of defeat |
Endgame |
Keep Initiative |
Pro(An)tagonists who act/react more quickly greatly favored to win (Pace of narrative picks up either way) |
Endgame |
Putting Opponent in Check |
Wrap up loose threads, rule out alternatives, set aside characters uninvolved in final action |
Endgame |
King and Pawn Mate |
Majors out of the picture, carried one or more 'promoted' minors to close the deal (Lord of Rings iconic 'promoted' pawn ending) |
Endgame |
Pieces and Pawn Mate |
Majors in opposing camps balance out; one promoted minor makes the difference (Arya Stark in Night King thread of GOT) |
Endgame |
King Part of Mate |
Person/thing/purpose being guarded (or chased!) all along revealed - tricky 'do' but when well done it's something special (Usual Suspects) |
|
As for Why The Bother…
After a long hiatus in writing, I wanted some practice thinking through the basics, drawing on a diversion I’ve engaged in quite a bit since Da Rona introduced itself to us.
Also, I’m fascinated with how Chess is so intricately analyzed in terms of structure and wondered, hmm, can the same analysis be converted to suggest and assess alternative types of openings, plot development and conclusions — not only in goals but in modes of resolving the story?
For, if something could be developed in such a way, it could be a useful means to leverage technology not to quash or replace human creativity but to enhance it.
Good or bad, this is how my story starts. :)