u/Dry-Egg8573

In contemporary football people often talk about fouling as a tactical choice rather than a failure of sportsmanship. Have certain kinds of intentional fouling always been viewed as within the spirit of the game, and if not, how have attitudes evolved?

And where did the $5m come from in the first place when it was painted?

Even the name is an obvious reference to Chess. Why doesn’t Chess sue them?

I’m fed up of losing to rich kids whose parents bought them three queens. This game honesty just feels like a cash grab for John Chess at this point

Is there much new lore or is it just exactly the same story told from the other side?

Are they cowards?

I always feel a sense of ludonarrative dissonance in chess when characters calmly allow themselves to be sacrificed or exchanged like war is a zero-sum utilitarian trade-off. In real life, maintaining morale is a huge aspect of warfare, but chess glosses that over and depicts characters just willingly marching into a meat grinder. Something like an early exchange of queens seems particularly unbelievable. And you get a full point for a “win” where you sacrifice your entire army, even though in real life that would be a totally pyrrhic victory.

A satisfying story is an important part of a game for me and it’s one of those things that, once you see it, you can’t unsee it. What’s your guys’ headcannon for why battles work like this in chess?

If not, does a chip become a nacho when you use it to scoop up toppings?

Like, did Morgoth call him Ron when they were hanging out? Or maybe Saz?

What was the context? Why was he even using a lemon squeezer, didn’t he have slaves to squeeze lemons for him?

And should I say “chessmate” when I win?

Not sure if this is the right place to ask

It seems like a weird disparity

I’m just not seeing the benefit