It has been nearly a week since the initial catharsis and subsequent documentation of my child’s practical and philosophical morph of this historically popular game. Since that time I’ve taken many opportunities to play with the newly modified rules; and in practice, have arrived at a few new addenda and observations. I would therefore like to share some of the new experience of playing chess in the Marxist’s version. You may need to refer to the initial article, “Chess: A Marxist’s Version”, if you are unfamiliar with the adjustment to the game that I (we) have made. I implore you to try this version as it offers some fresh nuance and perspective.

The initial trials proved to move very quickly. With the King notably exposed he was often captured or checkmated quickly by comparison of traditional layout. I thought it best, at this time, to dethrone the King and not keep him as the primary objective. The pawns being safely kept in the rear quarters constituted a virtual bloodbath of the royalty and religious hierarchy; and this was expected prior to beginning. The reality of the encompassing proposition was that it truly becomes a test of survival or, “the last man standing”. In an effort to extend the game I empowered the pawns to some degree. Should a pawn traverse the board unscathed then, not only will he/she live, but they get to vote a piece into the battlefield once again. This reincarnated piece must be placed adjacent to the liberating pawn. The pawn is then permitted to return to his/her place of birth and may release someone else from the dead should they survive this jaunt.

There were some lessons learned in this format that bear reciting. When pawns made the end of their journey, the King (should he have been removed) was never important enough to be selected to enter the game. His granted movements supersede the movements of a pawn, but he has no right to grant life to others should he make it to the other side and he is simply unimportant. The Queen, should she have met ill fate prior, is the first choice of reinstatement. Not only is she the consummate warrior but is the benevolent protector of everyone-rather an apt commentary on importance of a Mother or Matriarch isn’t it? The rooks, knights, and bishops were noted as being nearly equally popular (slight edge going to the Bishops) and the decision to resuscitate them was really more of preference in tactical warfare. It should be noted here that given the terms of the reincarnation process, there is equal probability that the bishops may transverse on the same color which does affect their effectiveness to trap, but not to kill. Interesting?

Compressing the lesson thus far seems trivial in comparison to the broad view that you, the reader/player will experience by playing the game in this manner or by contemplating the reassignment of the pieces as I’ve suggested. The simplistic commentary on life may be condensed as such: With familiar rules and rolls changed we, as players, have sought-out our leaders for ultimate protection only to discover that they may be more clever and agile but they are still of flesh and bone-and suffer the same terminal consequence; and when faced with conflict or eradication, we will go to our Mother first and then to our religion because these are forces we have come to trust. This Marxist rendition of a simple game of chess is really quite perplexing and provocative, isn’t it?