Annabelle (John R. Leonetti, 2014)
My brothers and I are fond of playing games, there are several in the mix, but the two that seem most pertinent here are Chess and Risk.
There's a lot bound up in saying that one can or can't play Chess, but don't let that inhibit you. Replace 'Chess' with 'Cribbage'. Do you feel intellectually lessened by saying that you don't know how to play Cribbage? Of course not. Relax. It's fine. Anyway.
To really enjoy Chess you need to be looking into multiple futures at the same time. It's not easy, and it takes a while to learn how to do this. But it all starts with a solid grounding not only in what the rules and movements are, but in how they all interrelate to each other in different board positions and games. Something that helps is having experience of a large number of games, either as a viewer or (and probably preferable) as a player. After that you need to start making your own decisions. On paper, a Knight and a Bishop have the same value. But different playing strategies will render that concept obsolete. Chess is a game where the more abstract and advanced you allow your thought process to become, the more you enjoy the game.
Risk, on the other hand, is a very different game. Particularly when played with my brothers. Risk comes with a set of instructions on how to play, but that's not how we play it. We keep one eye on these rules, but then make the game more enjoyable by adding our own rules, and keeping the actual rules of the game flexible. If someone's being slaughtered in a land war in Asia it's much more enjoyable to give them more pieces than they should get at the end of their turn. Otherwise you're just working towards a foregone conclusion. The key here is to keep those given rules as elastic as possible, and to put enjoyment at the centre of the event.
Added to both of them is the occasional element of luck. Even in Chess, it's possible to be playing the most horrific game, and then to blunder your way into an astonishing position. Something which perhaps makes this stronger is the fact that your opponent has become complacent with how badly you're playing, and the sudden reveal throws them and makes the moment stronger and sharper than it would normally be. Risk has its moments of luck too as it's a game of dice. It's possible, and I've seen it happen, for someone to throw a double 6 repeatedly, right at the moment of their destruction. Saving them, and throwing quite the spanner in the works for their opponent.
At the same time, in either game, constantly referring to the rules written on the box is possibly a way to ensure that one will lose. The rules and the variations need to be in your head. Whether you're playing Chess and looking into multiple abstract 'what if' possibilities, or you're playing Risk and ensuring that the game is as fun as possible, you need to keep the game going as smoothly as possible, and if you're constantly asking questions, or picking up and peering at the tiny text written on the box, then that's less likely to be the case. I think that's something we'd all agree on.
There's a lot bound up in saying that one can or can't play Chess, but don't let that inhibit you. Replace 'Chess' with 'Cribbage'. Do you feel intellectually lessened by saying that you don't know how to play Cribbage? Of course not. Relax. It's fine. Anyway.
To really enjoy Chess you need to be looking into multiple futures at the same time. It's not easy, and it takes a while to learn how to do this. But it all starts with a solid grounding not only in what the rules and movements are, but in how they all interrelate to each other in different board positions and games. Something that helps is having experience of a large number of games, either as a viewer or (and probably preferable) as a player. After that you need to start making your own decisions. On paper, a Knight and a Bishop have the same value. But different playing strategies will render that concept obsolete. Chess is a game where the more abstract and advanced you allow your thought process to become, the more you enjoy the game.
Risk, on the other hand, is a very different game. Particularly when played with my brothers. Risk comes with a set of instructions on how to play, but that's not how we play it. We keep one eye on these rules, but then make the game more enjoyable by adding our own rules, and keeping the actual rules of the game flexible. If someone's being slaughtered in a land war in Asia it's much more enjoyable to give them more pieces than they should get at the end of their turn. Otherwise you're just working towards a foregone conclusion. The key here is to keep those given rules as elastic as possible, and to put enjoyment at the centre of the event.
Added to both of them is the occasional element of luck. Even in Chess, it's possible to be playing the most horrific game, and then to blunder your way into an astonishing position. Something which perhaps makes this stronger is the fact that your opponent has become complacent with how badly you're playing, and the sudden reveal throws them and makes the moment stronger and sharper than it would normally be. Risk has its moments of luck too as it's a game of dice. It's possible, and I've seen it happen, for someone to throw a double 6 repeatedly, right at the moment of their destruction. Saving them, and throwing quite the spanner in the works for their opponent.
At the same time, in either game, constantly referring to the rules written on the box is possibly a way to ensure that one will lose. The rules and the variations need to be in your head. Whether you're playing Chess and looking into multiple abstract 'what if' possibilities, or you're playing Risk and ensuring that the game is as fun as possible, you need to keep the game going as smoothly as possible, and if you're constantly asking questions, or picking up and peering at the tiny text written on the box, then that's less likely to be the case. I think that's something we'd all agree on.