and it forces me to be more conservative in my strategy.
Is this a metaphor for larger events?
You know I’m big on metaphor and analogy.
Chess is war, a fight to the death. One king must fall. When the stakes are that high, all pieces are expendable. The point is to prevail against the opposing king, no matter the cost in lives or treasure. It doesn’t actually have to be that way in the real world. It’s just a myth, a game, a paradigm sold like another can of beans.
So, when the game of chess begins you are faced with a choice. Should you build a defensive enclave or go for the jugular? Often it’s a mix. While you build a fortress, you take notes of the enemy’s weaknesses. That’s the game. That’s war, from a strategist’s pov. At least, that’s how it used to be five centuries ago.
What was my point tonight? Aggression forces one back into a defensive stance. A conservative stance. A place of calculation rather than one of blindly charging ahead into oblivion.
It doesn’t always work, but two out of three ain’t bad.
Does that mean it’s easier to defend the status quo than to progress?
Is that a meaning to extrapolate?
Anyway, I’m winning.