Young Writers Society

Rook. Knight (the horsey). Bishop. Queen. King. Pawn.

Is there a particular chess piece that resonates with you? Is there a chess piece you'd want to be?

If you know any chess openings, would you use any one of them as a metaphor for something else?

I think that if I were a chess piece, I'd definitely be one of those that only moves one square at a time. I consider myself the slow-and-steady type, even though I'm always urging myself to go faster (spoiler alert: it doesn't work). My Mum and I have a disagreement over whether I'd be the pawn or the king. She thinks pawn, because pawns are attacking while kings are retreating, and also pawns tend to get sacrificed but the king cannot be at any point during the game. I think king because kings are more important in the endgame than the opening, which fits in with the whole slow-and-steady thing. Also, I tend to think I retreat more than I attack lol

The chess piece I'd want to be is the bishop. I've heard it's just slightly more powerful than the knight, but also being the queen is just too much pressure. Specifically, I'd like to be part of a bishop pair on an empty board and just . . . skid around haha. It wouldn't be any good if it's a regular board filled with other chess pieces, because then there will be obstacle after obstacle and pieces trying to capture the two of us.

I am not good enough at chess to talk about openings xD I like listening to other people talk about them though, and that's why I asked.

This question is so interesting to me because I can clearly recall how I play games, especially board games as a kid. Whenever it was possible, I always wanted to keep as many of my pieces alive as I could, even if it meant that I did not play the game to win. I was also too competitive at the same time, and I would be playing my older brother and parents, so I usually lost. Not a great combination, sometimes. I can remember everything from Checkers to Magic The Gathering to never wanting to sacrifice things ahha.

As for the actual question, I think I am most like the knight, since I like to do things in a way that might seem strange, but I am always happy to help. I also like horses. I also can recall being really confused as to how the knight moves in an L-shape, and then I would wonder why the knight moves in an L-shape and is not called by an L-word, since why wouldn't they just give the knight a name that makes more sense?

However, I do think I would want to be the rook, because I would love to be able to push it all the way across the board, and I would rather like to get through the middling journey of moving from apartment to apartment and working a lot before hopefully starting a graduate program in the summer! That comparison might have made more sense in my head but that's okay!

I do not any chess openings xD

@JustPerks Thanks for sharing! The way people are inclined to play games is really fascinating. I can't really remember how I used to play as a kid, except that I lost a lot xD I feel like I didn't really have a consistent way of playing because I'd just try something different each time in the hope of getting it right.

And ha I like your reasoning about the rook! It's a powerful piece. I too am not really a fan of "middling journeys".

Hmm I'm not sure what L-word they'd be able to call the knight though. Lancer?

This is an extremely interesting question. I feel like I resonate with the Bishop most -> when I play chess with my sister sometimes to distract her I like to make the deceased pawns and other pieces give encouragement from the sidelines and always have the deceased bishops give little prayers or liturgies on the side of things; sometimes I give them sort of Red-Cross Chaplaincy powers and they're allowed to come and give support to the pieces still on the board if there's a particularly difficult decision being made. This behavior annoys my sister but I find it hilarious anyways - > I do resonate with their pastoral persona and religious fervor. But as far as their movement I also think the bishop resonates with my conflict-resolution and leadership-styles best where I feel like rather than addressing issues head-on or perpendicularly I feel like I go at things diagonally. I like to look at different angles of an issue and while I don't usually like compromise, maybe we can get everyone on the same page through a third option, or through extended conversation, or adding a factor not yet considered. To me the rooks feel a bit single minded and aggressive as they're always straight-forward and head-on, I feel like a bishop's movement is powerful, decisive, and yet a little more subtle / gentle / indirect - it's easier to let it slip through the board undetected and yet is not quite as sly as a knight and certainly not as simple as a pawn. I like the complexity of the queen, but that feels a little arrogant and more extroverted than I am!



There is something I admire about the predictability and steadfastness of pawns though! They seems selfless -> there's no dynamic movements to distract or impress, and they also are resolute in their decisions - one direction, one path, one mission. They do not stray but carry on inch by inch. Every other piece has the option to retreat if need-be. A pawn must always move forward on the path that has been set before them.

Was really interesting hearing both of your reflections! And actually now I'm wondering if anyone's tried to line up Myers Briggs or Enneagram with the chess piece types too. Hmm! Might have to look into it.

@lliyah
> Oh wow, an unconventional off-the-board tactic xD
> That's interesting! Would you say it also harmonises a bit with how pawns also capture diagonally, even though they can't move as far?
> Yeah, I feel like the only dynamic movements a pawn makes are when capturing en passant (always a big surprise when it happens to me xD) or after the pawn has been promoted.

A little bit on the diagonal feeling there - though I feel like a Bishop is much more likely to be sneaky than a pawn though because a pawn has to be right beside you to catch a person. I wouldn't say I'm "sneaky" per-se but maybe obscure.

And totally agree about the en passant move! That's the one sneak-attack from pawns