Wednesday, July 15, 2009

On Cheating

Ok, I've been catching a lot of flack for the way in which I run chess games. Aparently, it's not appreciated when you try to make things interesting by healing the king, speeding things up or catching peices on fire. Normally I would agree that changing the rules of the game mid-game is an unfair way to win. But I'd like to address a folly in the way people approah my particular brand of chess.

Let's be clear from the very start: this is not your average game of chess. From the very begining it's clear that you're playing by completely different rules - house rules - my rules. The rules are made clear before you start and they include: "WARNING: expect the unexpected!" Which is pretty redundant now since people always expect me to "cheat."

That's another thing. "Cheat" is just a term I use for another aspect of the game. An aspect I use to raise the stakes when things are becoming a little more interesting than I had expected. The average player can't go for more than, say, 5 minutes against me. But when I meet a player with exceptional skill I like to make the game a little more advanced - a little more challenging - a little more... heroic. I may use the term "cheat" but it's no more actual cheating than an enemy on the field of battle coming at you with more strength and numbers than you expected.

If you dislike the game and the rules the way I play them, then, by all means, feel free to skip it. But I've always seen it as a fun and rewarding way to piss off my tenent, Malchazzar. He hates it when I let people up onto the roof.