I have been playing many games of chess throughout the week (mostly with the computer) and I lost every game. As I played, I noticed my lack of competitiveness in the game was due to not having any strategy. When playing, I try to forecast what the opponent may do many moves in advance. Many of my moves are random with no plan behind them. I plan to study chess strategies this week.

When playing the computer, I thought how it was a marvel that I had an opponent that would play with me whenever I wanted, and, without delay, would make a move when it was its turn so I wouldn't have to wait. Knowing the computer playing against me was not perfect at chess, I thought it possible that the AI might make some irrational moves. This possibility did not discourage me from seeing the computer opponent as a friend, since a human make irrational moves too because perhaps they are not good at chess or just weren't focused on the game.

Overall, the game has great potential for immersion despite lack of content. The immersion for me stems from the complexity of the game. There is a small number of characters (the pieces) and ways they can move, but the overall arrangement of pieces in the game, or what happens in the game, has many different possibilities. 

The game could be seen to rhetorically encourage a larger perspective on things in general, instead of focusing on what one thing (or character) does in a situation or story (the arrangement of what happens in the game). The larger perspective seems to be suggested in the particular context of war, where there is a King and pawns (who, in real life, may be said to be soldiers or anyone else helping to carry out a large political goal).