Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/43635
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/43635
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I'm finding your use of "Black" and "White" as character names to be distracting. I realize that it's meant to be more straight-forward to use the chess sides as names, but it throws me off.

Give them names, give them genders (different genders is helpful for following things if it otherwise doesn't matter). Why? Because your reader cares about the emotional investment in the game and not the details, unless it's a reader who happens to be a chess expert. I know how to play chess in the casual way many do and I couldn't follow those details.

I suggest you intersperse the exchange with dialogue that describes the positions. "Rook to C1." If it's a formal game where the moves are called out, show it as actual quotes (from the player or a commentator). If it's an informal game, show the moves in italics as a description of the action. Then leave the narrative to describe the characters' emotions and strategy and so forth. This allows the reader to become invested in the moves and to understand them, even if they don't _understand_ them.

(Note: I don't know chess notation and some moves may make no sense, just replace with accurate moves.)

> After the last exchange, Hugo's position was a lot more comfortable, and his opponent's more difficult.
> 
> _White: Rook to C1._
> 
> This was the usual move in situations like this and Hugo expected Lida to move her queen in response. Had he made the right move?
> 
> _Black: Castle to A5._
> 
> Hugo bit his lip. He should have moved the rook to B1. He could do it now, it set him up to revert to the Carlsbad structure if he had to, but he'd lose a chance to move his knight into a more protective position.

Original score: 32