The Queen’s Gambit

I’ve been learning chess recently. It’s reconceptualizing the way I look at characters and writing. In my stories I like to see how characters place themselves in positions that put them at advantage or disadvantage, and then explore how they’ll deal with being in those positions.

A specific example relates to one of my half-dragon characters, Talvyn. In this fantasy/sci-Fi world, half-dragons are considered sinister so they keep themselves secret. However, Talvyn is in a position of power and visibility. He is a prominent leader and warrior.

Half-dragons are easily identified by a shiny sheen to their blood, maybe a slightly different color. As a result, this character had to keep from having his blood drawn, which ended up making him a very good warrior and tactician in order to keep from being discovered. In no battle could a scratch ever be sustained.

But what if a situation arises where someone wants to check his blood, or if he gets into a situation where a ‘prick test’ is standard? How would he get out of that without being discovered?

He could either find a trick (evade capture) or be aggressive and eliminate the attack entirely (capture a piece himself). In this situation, both options would be interesting but the more likely one for the world that I’m building is the latter.

I think it also really depends on where in the story the event lies. Near the opening, it might be better to evade capture, but what about the middle or end games? Perhaps aggression would be right for that. Or, aggression in the opening in order to win a material advantage. But then Talvyn would have to deal with the repercussions of eliminating threats in a situation where it could be punished. So he would have to make sure he was covered.

Chess is a really interesting way to look at story. Rather than having beats, each character is a piece on a board making moves in response to each other. The setting can be represented by pawn structure, with the setting intertwining with the events unfolding within them. Changes in setting are significant, marking new regimes of possibilities.

A closed structure (i.e., a building) locks pieces in, forces them to interact in a small space or remain stagnant. An open structure (outside or in a large coliseum or something of the sort) invites a lot more action. Characters would act differently depending on whether they were in the closed or open structure. Certain characters would shine in one situation over the other.

These are just a few of the thought I’ve had while embarking on this journey. The concept is perhaps a little lofty but I still find it inspiring in its own way. I’m still learning about both how I write and about chess, so it’ll be interesting to keep developing thoughts along these lines.

–P.H. 29 March 2026, 4:32 (E.T.)